THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
               Statutes and Legislative History
                           Executive Orders
                               Regulations
                      Guidelines and Reports

                            3E2
                              Supplement II
                                  Volume I
                                    Water

-------

-------
THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                   Statutes and Legislative History
                                  Executive Orders
                                       Regulations
                           Guidelines and Reports
Supplement II
Volume I
Water
                                JJ
                                \
JANUARY 1974
                                     RUSSELL E. TRAIA
                                        Administrator
            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
            Region V.  Library                  --"
            230 South Dearborn Street
            Chicago, Illinois  60604

-------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
 Washington,  D.C.   20402 - Price $6.45 per  set of  2 parts; sold in sets only
                           Stock No. 5500-00128

-------
                        FOREWORD

  America's journey to environmental  awareness has  been a
relatively recent one. Not  so  many years ago Americans were
still living under the illusion  that a land as vast as ours was
blessed with indestructible natural resources and beauty.
  We continued the exploitation of those resources and scattered
unplanned communities across huge areas of open space. Large
amounts of fuel were needed for  the autos that took  us to work
from distant suburbs, and the  air became laden with their dense
emissions. Pesticides were  used indiscriminantly  by persons  un-
aware of their effects  on the food chain of plants and animals.
Our  rivers became contaminated with waste  from homes and
industries.  Our landscape was marred by litter.
  As the environmentalist movement gained impetus, attention
was  focused  on these  matters.  Rachael Carson's book, Silent
Spring,  in 1962 awakened Americans to the hazards of pesticides.
The oil spills of the Torrey  Canyon in 1967 and at Santa Barbara,
California in 1969  dramatized another environmental hazard. The
first  Earth Day on  April  20,  1970, a coordinated program of
teach-ins across the nation, helped to focus Congressional attention
on the strength of the environmental movement.
  Congress responded by approving the President's Reorganiza-
tion  Plan  No. 3  which expanded the  federal  commitment to
environmental concerns and consolidated  15 Federal organiza-
tions under the Environmental Protection Agency.
  At the same time, Congress  began enacting far-reaching legis-
lation to provide  EPA with  specific  authority  for  controlling
pollution. These measures included the  Clean Air  Amendments in
1970, and the  Federal Water Pollution  Control  Act Amendments,
Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act, the Noise Control
Act, and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, all
in 1972. Congress also passed the Resource Recovery Act in 1970
and extended  the Solid Waste Disposal Act in  1973.
  As the Agency began taking action under these laws, Americans
gradually realized that very real changes were  required in  our
accustomed ways of doing business. We realized that our effort
frequently conflicted  with  powerful and legitimate interests in
both the public and  private sectors. Our administrative, judicial
and  political  processes now have the task of  resolving these
conflicts. They must do so  by weighing all the  interests  which
are affected in a  sensitive  and informed manner. Quick access
to the legal dimensions of these problems is essential if conflicts
are to be efficiently and fairly resolved.
  The work of the present day environmentalist is less glamorous
than that of four  or five years ago, but it is essential if  we are

                                                           iii

-------
iv                       FOREWORD

to face the continuing  challenge of protecting  our fragile and
perishable natural resources—and ultimately ourselves—from de-
struction. I hope you will find this manual helpful as  we strive
to create a society where we  can live  and work in harmony
with the natural world  surrounding us.

                        Russell E. Train
                        Administrator
                        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
                         PREFACE
  Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 transferred 15 governmen-
tal units with their functions  and legal authority  to create the
U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency. Since only the major
laws were cited in the Plan, it was decided that a compilation of
EPA legal authority be researched and published.
  The publication has the primary function of providing a work-
ing document for the Agency itself. Secondarily, it will serve as
a research tool for the public.
  It is the hope of EPA that this set will assist in the awesome
task of developing a better environment.
                        LANE R. WARD, J.D.
                        Office of Executive Secretariat
                        Office of Administrator
                        U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency

-------

-------
                       INSTRUCTIONS
  The goal of this  text is to create a useful  compilation of the
legal authority under which the U.S.  Environmental Protection
Agency operates. These documents are  for the  general use of per-
sonnel 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 reference 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 93rd
Congress  were  extracted from the  "unofficial" daily version and
are subject to subsequent modification.
  EPA Legal  Compilation consists of the Statutes with their
legislative history, Executive Orders, Regulations, Guidelines and
Reports. To facilitate the usefulness of this composite,  the Legal
Compilation is divided into the seven following chapters:

       A. General                     E.  Pesticides
       B. Air                          F.  Radiation
       C. Water                       G.  Noise
       D. Solid Waste

                      SUPPLEMENT II
  This edition, labelled "Supplement II," contains  the additions
to and alterations  of EPA legal  authority not  included in the
original set or Supplement I  of the  EPA Legal  Compilation.
Therefore, this edition updates the  Compilation through the 93rd
Congress, First Session.

                       SUBCHAPTERS

Statutes  and Legislative  History
  For convenience, the Statutes  are listed throughout the Compi-
lation by a one-point system, i.e., 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc., and Legislative
History begins wherever a letter follows the one-point system.
Thus, any l.la, l.lb, 1.2a, etc., denotes the public laws  com-

                                                           vii

-------
viii                     INSTRUCTIONS

prising the  1.1, 1.2 statute. Each public  law is followed by  its
legislative history. The legislative history in each case consists
of the House Report, Senate Report, Conference Report  (where
applicable),  the Congressional  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, De-
              cember 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, 38321-37322,
                        37631-37633, 37884-37888;
                    (c)  Dec. 22: Senate agrees to conference re-
                        port,  p.  40718;*
                    (d)  Dec.  22: House  debates  and  agrees  to
                        conference report, pp. 40820, 40900.

This  example  not  only  demonstrates the pattern  followed  for
legislative history, but indicates the  procedure where only one
section of a public law appears.  You will note that the Congres-
sional 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  perti-
nent 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 that
section 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
throughout the Statute section of the Compilation. In four Stat-
utes, a  parallel  table  to  the Statutes at Large is provided for
your convenience.

                   EXECUTIVE  ORDERS

  The Executive Orders are listed by  a two-point system (2.1, 2.2,
etc.).

                      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, published guidelines  of EPA,  selected  reports other than
EPA's  and interdepartmental agreements of note.

                        UPDATING
  Periodically, a supplement will  be  sent to the interagency dis-
tribution and made available through the U.S. Government  Print-
ing Office in order to provide a current and accurate  working set
of EPA Legal Compilation.

-------

-------
                             CONTENTS

                               Volume I
WATER
                                                                   Page
1.  Statutes and Legislative History  	.  	      1
   1.2 The Federal Water Pollution  Control  Act,  as amended,  33
       U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.  (1973)  	       3
       1.2q Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments, De-
            cember 28, 1973, P.L. 93-207, 87 Stat.  906	  	139
            (1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No. 93-
                269,  93rd Cong., 1st Sess.  (1973)  	   ..  141
            (2) House Committee on  Public Works,  H.R. REP. No.
                93-680, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973)  -  	  149
            (3) Congressional Record, Vol. 119 (1973) : 	  158
                (a) June 28:  Considered   and  passed  Senate,  p.
                    S12371  	  158
                (b) Dec. 3: Considered and passed  House,  amended,
                    pp. H10517-H10520 	  159
                (c) Dec. 14:  Senate agreed to  House amendments,
                    pp. S22973-S22974	  ^  	    166
       1.2r Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments, January
            2, 1974, P.L. 93-243, 87 Stat.  1069  ...   	   170
            (1) Senate  Committee  on  Public  Works,  S. REP. No.
                93-630, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973)  	  172
            (2) House Committee on  Public Works,  H.R. REP. No.
                93-735, 93rd  Cong., 1st Sess. (1973)  	.     192
            (3) Congressional Record, Vol. 119 (1973):	
                (a) Dec.  14: Considered  and  passed  Senate,  pp.
                    S22970-S22973  	  200
                (b) Dec. 18: Considered and passed House,  amended,
                    in lieu of H.R. 11928,  pp. H11628-H11633	    208
                (c) Dec. 21:  Senate  agreed to  House  amendments
                    with  amendments.  House concurred in  Senate
                    amendments,   pp.   S23819-S23821,   H11946-
                    H11947	  	  222
   1.3  Pollution of the Sea by Oil,  as  amended, 33 U.S.C. § 1001, et
       seq.  (1973)  	  	 	  228
       [Referred to in 33 U.S.C. § 1321 (b)]
       1.3c Oil Pollution Act Amendments  of 1973, October 4, 1973,
            P.L. 93-119, 87 Stat. 424	  	  239
            (1) House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
                H.R. REP. No. 93-137, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess.  (1973)	246
            (2) Senate Committee on Commerce,  S. REP. No. 93-405,
                93rd  Cong., 1st Sess.  (1973)  	   	 	  _  269

                                                                     xi

-------
xii                           CONTENTS

                                                                    Page
             (3)  Congressional Record, Vol. 119 (1973):  	  287
                 (a)  May 8 : Considered and passed House, pp. H3419-
                     H3425	  287
                 (b)  Sept.  24:   Considered and  passed  Senate,  p.
                     S17350 .	  300
   1.19  The Water Resource Planning  Act, as amended,  42 U.S.C.  §
        1962  et seq. (1973)  	 	  300
        [Referred to  in  33  U.S.C.  §1289]
        1.19d  Water  Resources  Planning Act Continuing Appropria-
              tion Authorization, July 1, 1973, P.L. 93-55, 87 Stat. 140_ _ -  309
              (1) Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
                  S. REP No. 93-174, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973)	310
              (2) House Committee on Interior  and Insular Affairs,
                  H.R.  REP.  No. 93-266, 93rd  Cong.,  1st  Sess.
                  (1973) 	 _  315
              (3) Congressional  Record,  Vol.  119  (1973):  	   320
                  (a) May 30:  Considered and  passed  Senate, pp.
                      S9859-S9860* 	 -  320
                  (b) June  19:   Considered   and  passed  House,
                      amended,  in lieu  of H.R.  6338,  pp. H4957-
                      H4959	
                  (c) June 21:  Senate concurred  in  House  amend-
                      ments, pp.  S11645-S11646*  	   327
   1.34  Marine Protection,  Research and  Sanctuaries Act, 33 U.S.C.
        § 1401 et seq.  (1972)    __.   	  	 327
 2.  Executive Orders  	  	 345
    2.15  E.O. 11707, Change in Boundaries of New England River Ba-
         sins Commission, March 14, 1973, 38 Fed. Reg. 6877	   347
    2.16  E.O. 11735, Assignment of Functions under Section 311 of the
         Federal Water Pollution Control  Act, as amended, August 7,
         1973, 38 Fed. Reg. 21243  	  347
    2.17  E.O. 11737,  Enlargement of the  Upper Mississippi River Ba-
         sin  Commission, September 11, 1973, 38 Fed. Reg. 24883	   351
    2.18  E.O. 11738,  Providing  for Administration of  the Clean Air
         Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act with Re-
         spect to Federal Contracts, Grants, or Loans, September 13,
         1973, 38 Fed. Reg. 25161 	 353
    2.19 E.O. 11742,  Delegating  to the  Secretary of State  Certain
         Functions with Respect to the  Negotiation of  International
         Agreements Relating to the Enhancement of the Environment,
         October 25,  1973,  38 Fed. Reg. 29457 	-- 356
    2.20 E.O. 11747,  Delegating Certain  Authority of the President
         under the Water  Resources Planning Act, as amended, No-
         vember 9, 1973, 38 Fed. Reg.  30993 - 	  	 356
 3. Regulations	   361
    3.1  Certification  of Facilities, Environmental  Protection  Agency,
         40 C.F.R. §§20.1-20.10  (1971)  	 361
    3.2  State and Local Assistance. Environmental Protection Agency,
         40   C.F.R.  §§35.150-35.240,   35.400-35.420,   35-551-35.955
         (1973)  _  . .     	  	 -  	   	 	   361

-------
                            CONTENTS                           xiii

                                                                  Page
 3.3  Research and Demonstration Grants, Environmental Protection
     Agency, 40  C.F.R.  §§40.100-40.165  (1973)	-	 364
 3.4  Training Grants and Manpower Forecasting,  Environmental
     Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 45.100-45.155 (1973)	364
 3.5  Fellowships,  Environmental  Protection  Agency,  40 C.F.R.
     §§46.100-46.165 (1973)  	 364
 3.6  Public Participation in  Water Pollution Control  Environmen-
     tal Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R.  §§105.1-105.9 (1973) 	364
 3.7  Criteria for  State,  Local and Regional Oil Removal Contin-
     gency  Plans,  Environmental  Protection Agency,  40 C.F.R.
     §§109.1-109.6 (1971) 	 364
 3.8  Discharge of Oil, Environmental  Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R.
     §§110.1-110.9  (1971)  	 364
 3.9  Oil  Pollution  Prevention, Nontransportation-Related Onshore
     and Offshore Facilities, Environmental  Protection Agency, 40
     C.F.R. §§112.1-112.7 (1973) 	 365
3.10  Water Quality Standards, Environmental Protection Agency,
     Title 40 C.F.R. §§120.1-120.10 (1972)  	 365
3.11  Oil  Storage Facilities,  Environmental  Protection Agency, 40
     C.F.R. §§113.1-113.6 (1973) 	 365
3.12  State Certification of Activities  Requiring a Federal License
     or Permit  	 365
3.13  State Program  Element  Necessary for Participation in the
     National Pollution Discharge Emission System, Environmental
     Protection  Agency,  40  C.F.R. §§124.1-124.94  (1973) 	366
3.14  National Pollutant  Discharge Elimination  System,  Environ-
     mental Protection Agency, 40  C.F.R. §§ 125.1-125.44 (1973)	367
3.15  Areawide Waste  Treatment Management Planning Areas and
     Responsible  Planning  Agencies,  Environmental  Protection
     Agency, 40  C.F.R. §§126.1-126.40 (1973) 	 368
3.16  Pretreatment  Standards, Environmental Protection Agency,
     40 C.F.R.  §§128.100-128.140  (1973) 	 368
3.17  State Continuing Planning Process,  Environmental Protection
     Agency,  40 C.F.R.  §§130.1-130.61  (1973)  	 368
3.18  Secondary  Treatment Information,  Environmental Protection
     Agency, 40  C.F.R.  §§ 133.100-133.104  (1973)  	 369
3.19  Guidelines  Establishing Test  Procedures for the  Analysis of
     Pollutants,  Environmental  Protection  Agency,  40 C.F.R. §§
     136.1-136.5  (1973)  	 370
3.20  Marine Sanitation Device Standards, Environmental Protection
     Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 140.1-140.5  (1972)  	 370
3.21  Ocean Dumping—General, Environmental Protection Agency,
     40 C.F.R. §§220.1-220.4 (1973) 	 370
3.22  Ocean Dumping—Application, Environmental Protection Agen-
     cy, 40 C.F.R.  §§221.1-221.5 (1973)  	 370
3.23  Ocean Dumping—Actions for Application, Environmental Pro-
     tection Agency,  40  C.F.R.  §§ 221.-222.10 (1973)  	 370
3.24  Ocean Dumping—Content of Permit, Environmental Protection
     Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§223.1-223.2  (1973)  	 370

-------
xiv                           CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
  3.25 Ocean Dumping—Records, Environmental Protection Agency,
       40  C.F.R.  §§224.1-224.2 (1973)  	 370
  3.26 Ocean Dumping—Corps of Engineers  Permits, Environmental
       Protection  Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 225.1-225.3 (1973)  	 371
  3.27 Ocean  Dumping—Enforcement,   Environmental  Protection
       Agency,  40 C.F.R.  §§226.1-226.4  (1973)  	 371
  3.28 Ocean Dumping—Criteria, Environmental Protection Agency,
       40  C.F.R.  §§227.1-227.80  (1973) 	 371
  3.29 Control of Pollution By Oil and Hazardous Substances, Dis-
       charge Removal,  Department of Transportation, 33  C.F.R.  §
       153.01-153.319  (1971)  	 371
  3.30 Oil Pollution Clean-Up, Federal  Maritime  Commission, 46
       C.F.R. §§542.1-542.9  (1972)  	 372
  3.31 Delegation of Command to the  Coast Guard, Department of
       Transportation, 49  C.F.R. §1.46  (1970)  	 372

4. Guidelines and Reports	 373
   4.1 EPA  Annual Report on National  Requirements  and Costs of
       Water Pollution Control, as required  by U.S.C. § 1157(a), as
        amended  (1970)  	  	
       4.1c  Economics of  Clean Water, 1973, Environmental Protec-
             tion Agency, December  1973 	 375


                              VOLUME  II
    4.2  Selected  Reports:  	
        4.2e  Stream Channelization:  What Federal Financed Drag-
             lines and Bulldozers do to Our Nation's  Streams, House
             Committee on  Government Operations, H.R.  REP.  No.
             93-530, 93rd Cong.. 1st Sess.  (1973)  	 543
    4.7  Report to Congress  on  Water Pollution  Control  Manpower
        Development and Training as required by  33 U.S.C. § 1254 . _
        4.7b  Report to Congress on Water Pollution Control Manpow-
             er  Development and Training Activities,  Environmental
             Protection Agency, December 1973 	 720

    4.8  Interagency  Agreements  	
        4.8a  Memorandum of Understanding Between the Environ-
             mental Protection Agency and the Department of Trans-
             portation,  36  Fed.  Reg. 240280  (1971)  	
        4.8b  Memorandum of Understanding Providing for Coopera-
             tion in the Investigation of Violations of the Refuse Act
             Between the Administrator of the Environmental Protec-
             tion Agency  and the  Secretary of the  Army,  36 Fed.
             Reg. 3074 (1971) 		_		

-------
                          CONTENTS                           xv

                                                              Page
    4.8c  Joint Agreement for  Interagency Coordination in  Plan-
         ning and Development Between the Assistant Secretary
         of Housing and Urban Development and the Administra-
         tor  of  the Environmental  Protection  Agency, June  7,
         1972 	
    4.8d  Memorandum of Understanding Between the Environmen-
         tal Protection Agency and the Department of Transpor-
         tation Belated and Nontransportation Related Facilities
         as Used in Executive Order 11548	 778
4.9  Eeport to  Congress  on  Implementing  Objectives  of the
    FWPCA, as required by 33 U.S.C.  §1375	
    4.9a  "Clean Water," report to Congress by the Environmental
         Protection  Agency, May  1973 	 782

-------

-------
   Statutes
       and
Legislative
   History

-------

-------
1.2 Federal  Water Pollution Control Act, as amended
              33 U.S.C. §§  1251 et seq. (1973)

FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
                   Parallel Citation
Statutes at Large § 33 U.S.C. § Statutes at Large § 83 U.S.C.
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
301
302
303
304
305
306
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
401
402
403
404
405
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
513
514
515
516
517
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
SUBCHAPTER I — RESEARCH AND RELATED PROGRAMS
Sec.

1251. Congressional declaration of goals

and policy.


1252. Comprehensive programs for water pollution control.
1253. Interstate
1254. Research,
cooperation and uniform laws.
investigations, training,
and information.

   (a) Establishment of national programs;  cooperation; investiga-
         tions; water quality surveillance system; reports.
   (b) Authorized activities of Administrator.
   (c) Research and studies on harmful effects of pollutants;  coopera-
         tion with Secretary of Health, Education, and  Welfare.

-------
4              LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

Sec.
         (d) Sewage treatment; identification and measurement of effects of
               pollutants; augmented streamflow.
         (e) Field laboratory and research facilities.
         (f) Great Lakes water quality research.
         (g) Treatment works  pilot  training programs; employment needs
               forecasting;  training projects and  grants;  research  fellow-
               ships; technical  training; report to the President and trans-
               mittal to Congress.
         (h) Lake pollution.
         (i)  Oil pollution control studies.
         (j) Solid waste disposal equipment for vessels.
         (k) Land acquisition.
         (1)  Collection and dissemination of scientific knowledge on effects
               and control of pesticides in water.
         (m) Waste oil disposal study.
         (n) Comprehensive studies  of effects of pollution  on estuaries and
               estuarine zones; reports.
         (o) Methods  of reducing total flow of sewage and  unnecessary
               water consumption; reports.
         (p) Agricultural pollution.
         (q) Sewage in rural areas.
         (r) Research grants to colleges and universities.
         (s) River Study Centers.
         (t) Thermal discharges.
         (u) Authorization of appropriations.
1255.   Grants for research and development.
         (a) Demonstration projects covering storm waters, advanced waste
               treatment and water purification methods,  and joint treat-
               ment systems for municipal and industrial wastes.
         (b) Demonstration projects for  advanced  treatment and environ-
               mental enhancement  techniques to control pollution in  river
               basins.
         (c) Research and  demonstration projects for prevention of water
               pollution by industry.
         (d) Accelerated and priority  development of waste management
               and waste treatment methods  and identification and meas-
               urement methods.
         (e) Research and  demonstration projects covering agricultural pol-
               lution and pollution from sewage in rural areas; dissemina-
               tion of information.
         (f) Limitations.
         (g) Maximum grants.
         (h) Authorization of appropriations.
1256.   Grants for pollution control programs.
         (a) Authorization of appropriations  for state and interstate pro-
               grams.
         (b) Allotments.
         (c) Maximum annual payments.
         (d) Limitations.

-------
           WATER—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY          5

Sec.
         (e) Grants  prohibited  to  states  not  establishing water quality
               monitoring procedures  or  adequate emergency  and contin-
               gency plans.
         (f) Conditions.
         (g) Reallotment of unpaid allotments.
1257.   Mine water pollution control demonstration.
         (a) Comprehensive approaches to elimination  or control of mine
               water pollution.
         (b) Consistency of projects  with objectives of  Appalachian  Re-
               gional Development Act of 1965.
         (c) Watershed selection.
         (d) Conditions upon Federal participation.
         (e) Authorization of appropriations.
1258.   Pollution control in the Great Lakes.
         (a) Demonstration projects.
         (b) Conditions of Federal participation,
         (c) Authorization of appropriations.
         (d) Lake Erie demonstration program.
         (e) Authorization of  appropriations for Lake  Erie demonstration
               program.
1259.   Training grants  and contracts.
1260.   Same; applications; allocation.
1261.   Scholarships.
1262.   Definitions and authorizations.
1263.   Alaska village demonstration projects.
1264.   Lake Tahoe study.
1265.   In-place toxic pollutants.

      SUBCHAPTER II—GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TREATMENT WORKS
1281.   Congressional declaration of purpose.
1282.   Federal share.
1283.   Plans, specifications, estimates, and payments.
1284.   Limitations and  conditions.
1285.   Allotment of grant funds.
1286.   Reimbursement and advanced construction.
         (a) Publicly owned treatment works  construction initiated after
               June 30, 1966,  but  before July  1,  1972;  reimbursement
               formula.
         (b) Publicly  owned  treatment  works  construction  initiated  be-
               tween June  30,  1956,  and June  30,  1966;  reimbursement
               formula.
         (c) Application for reimbursement.
         (d) Allocation of funds.
         (e) Authorization of appropriations.
         (f) Additional funds.
1287.   Authorization of appropriations.
1288.   Areawide waste  treatment management.
         (a) Identification  and designation  of areas  having  substantial
               water quality control problems.

-------
6              LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n

Sec.
          (b)  Planning process.
          (c)  Regional operating agencies.
          (d)  Conformity of works with area plan.
          (e)  Permits not to conflict with approved plans.
          (f)  Grants.
          (g)  Technical assistance by Administrator.
          (h)  Technical assistance by Secretary of the Army.
1289.  Basin  planning.
1290.  Annual survey.
1291.  Sewage collection systems.
1292.  Definitions.

              SUBCHAPTER III—STANDARDS AND ENFORCEMENT
1311.  Effluent limitations.
          (a)  Illegality of pollutant discharges except in compliance with law.
          (b)  Timetable for achievement of objectives.
          (c)  Modification of timetable.
          (d)  Review and revision of effluent limitations.
          (e)  All point discharge source application of effluent limitations.
          (f)  Illegality of discharge  or radiological, chemical, or biological
                warfare agents or high-level radioactive waste.
1312.  Water quality related effluent limitations.
1313.  Water quality standards and implementation plans.
          (a)  Existing water quality standards.
          (b)  Proposed regulations.
          (c)  Review; revised standards; publication.
          (d)  Identification of areas with  insufficient controls;  maximum
                daily load.
          (e)  Continuing planning process.
          (f)  Earlier compliance.
          (g)  Heat standards.
          (h)  Thermal water quality standards.
1314.  Information and guidelines.
          (a)  Criteria development and publication.
          (b)  Effluent limitation guidelines.
          (c)  Pollution discharge elimination procedures.
          (d)  Secondary  treatment  information;   alternative  waste  treat-
                ment management techniques and systems.
          (e)  Identification and evaluation of nonpoint sources of pollution;
                processes, procedures, and methods  to control pollution.
          (f)  Guidelines  for pretreatment of pollutants.
          (g) Test procedures guidelines.
          (h) Guidelines  for  monitoring, reporting, enforcement,  funding,
                 personnel,  and manpower.
          (i)  Restoration and  enhancement of  publicly owned fresh water
                 lakes.
          (j)  Agreements  with  Secretaries  of  Agriculture,  Army, and  In-
                 terior  to  provide  maximum   utilization of  programs  to
                 achieve  and   maintain  water  quality; transfer  of funds;
                 authorization  of appropriations.
 1315.   Water quality inventory;  State reports; transmittal to Congress.

-------
           WATER—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY          7

Sec.
1316.   National standards of performance.
         (a) Definitions.
         (b) Categories of sources; Federal standards of performance for
               new sources.
         (c) State enforcement of standards of performance.
         (d) Protection from more stringent standards.
         (e) Illegality of operation of new sources in violation of applicable
               standards  of  performance.
1317.   Toxic and pretreatment effluent  standards;  establishment;  revision;
               illegality of source operation in violation of standards.
1318.   Inspections, monitoring, and entry.
1319.   Enforcement.
         (a) State enforcement; compliance orders.
         (b) Civil actions.
         (c) Criminal penalties.
         (d) Civil penalties.
         (e) State liability for judgments and expenses.
1320.   International pollution abatement.
         (a) Hearing; participation by foreign nations.
         (b) Functions and  responsibilities  of  Administrator not affected.
         (c) Hearing board;  composition; findings  of  fact;  recommenda-
               tions; implementation of board's decision.
         (d) Report by alleged polluter.
         (e) Compensation of board members.
         (f) Enforcement proceedings.
1321.   Oil and hazardous substance liability.
         (a) Definitions.
         (b) Congressional declaration of policy against discharges of oil or
               hazardous substances; designation of hazardous substances;
               determination of  removability; liabilities; penalties.
         (c) Removal of discharged oil or hazardous substances;  National
               Contingency Plan.
         (d) Maritime disaster discharges.
         (e) Judicial relief.
         (f) Liability for actual costs of removal.
         (g) Third party liability.
         (h) Rights against  third parties who caused or contributed to dis-
               charge.
         (i) Recovery of removal costs.
         (j) Regulations; penalty.
         (k) Authorization of appropriations.
         (1) Administration.
         (m) Boarding and inspection of vessels; arrest; execution of war-
               rants or other process.
         (n) Jurisdiction.
         (o) Obligation for damages unaffected; local  authority  not pre-
               empted; existing  Federal authority not modified or affected.
         (p) Financial responsibility.
1322.   Marine  sanitation devices.
         (a) Definitions.

-------
8              LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

Sec.
          (b)  Federal standards of performance.
          (c)  Initial standards; effective dates; revision; waiver.
          (d)  Vessels owned and operated by the United States.
          (e)  Pre-promulgation consultation.
          (f)  Regulation by States or political subdivisions thereof; complete
                prohibition upon discharge of sewage.
          (g)  Sales limited to certified  devices; certification of test  device;
                recordkeeping; reports.
          (h)  Sale and resale of properly equipped vessels; operability of cer-
                tified marine  sanitation devices.
          (i)  Jurisdiction  to  restrain violations;  contempts.
          (j)  Penalties.
          (k)  Enforcement authority.
          (1)  Boarding and inspection of vessels; execution of  warrants and
                other process.
          (m)  Enforcement in United States possessions.
1323.   Federal facilities pollution control.
1324.   Clean  lakes.
1325.   National Study Commission.
          (a)  Establishment.
          (b)  Membership; chairman.
          (c)  Contract authority.
          (d)  Cooperation of departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of
                executive branch.
          (e)  Report to Congress.
          (f)  Compensation and allowances.
          (g) Authorization of appropriation.
 1326.   Thermal discharges.
          (a) Effluent limitations  that  will  assure  protection  and propaga-
                tion of balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and
                wildlife.
          (b) Cooling water intake structures.
          (c) Period of protection from  more stringent effluent limitations
                following  discharge  point   source  modification  commenced
                 after October 18, 1972.
 1327.   Investigation and  study  of feasibility of  alternate  methods  of fi-
          nancing the cost of preventing, controlling, and abating pollution.
 1328.   Aquaculture.

                   SUBCHAPTER IV—PERMITS AND LICENSES
 1341.   Certification.
          (a) Compliance  with  applicable requirements; application;  proce-
                 dures; license suspension.
          (b) Compliance  with  other  provisions of law  setting applicable
                 water quality requirements.
          (c)  Authority of Secretary of the  Army  to permit use of spoil dis-
                 posal areas by Federal licensees or  permittees.
          (d) Limitations and monitoring requirements of certification.
 1342.   National pollutant discharge elimination system.
          (a) Permits for discharge or pollutants.
          (b) State permit programs.

-------
           WATER—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY         9

Sec.
          (c) Suspension of Federal program upon submission of State pro-
               gram ; withdrawal of approval of State program.
          (d) Notification of Administrator.
          (e) Waiver of notification requirement.
          (f) Point source categories.
          (g) Other regulations for safe transportation, handling, carriage,
               storage, and stowage of pollutants.
          (h) Violation of permit conditions; restriction or prohibition upon
               introduction of pollutant by source not previously utilizing
               treatment works.
          (i) Federal enforcement not limited.
          (j) Public information.
          (k) Compliance with permits.
1343.  Ocean discharge criteria.
1344.  Permits for dredged  or fill material.
1345.  Disposal of sewage sludge.

                   SUBCHAPTER V—GENERAL PROVISIONS
1361.  Administration.
          (a) Authority of Administrator to prescribe regulations.
          (b) Utilization of other agency officers and employees.
          (c) Recordkeeping.
          (d) Audit.
          (e) Awards for outstanding technological achievement or innova-
               tive processes, methods or  devices in waste  treatment and
               pollution abatement programs.
          (f) Detail of Environmental Protection Agency personnel to  State
               water pollution control agencies.
1362.  Definitions.
1363.  Water Pollution Control Advisory Board.
1364.  Emergency powers.
1365.  Citizen  suits.
          (a) Authorization; jurisdiction.
          (b) Notice.
          (c) Venue; intervention by Administrator.
          (d) Litigation costs.
          (e) Statutory or common law rights not restricted.
          (f) Effluent standard or limitation.
          (g) Citizen.
          (h) Civil action by State Governors.
1366.  Appearance.
1367.  Employee protection.
          (a) Discrimination  against persons filing, instituting, or testifying
               in proceedings under this chapter prohibited.
          (b) Application for  review; investigation, hearing; review.
          (c) Costs and expenses.
          (d) Deliberate violations  by  employee  acting  without  direction
               from his employer or his agent.
          (e) Investigations of employment reductions.

-------
10           LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n

Sec.
1368.  Federal procurement.
         (a) Contracts with violators prohibited.
         (b) Notification of agencies.
         (c) Implementation by Presidential order.
         (d) Exemptions.
         (e) Annual report to Congress.
1369.  Administrative procedure and judicial review.
1370.  State authority.
1371.  Authority under other laws and regulations.
1372.  Labor standards.
1373.  Public health agency coordination.
1374.  Effluent Standards  and Water  Quality Information Advisory Com-
         mittee.
         (a) Establishment; membership; term.
         (b) Action on proposed regulations.
         (c) Secretary; legal counsel; compensation.
         (d) Quorum;  special  panel.
         (e) Rules.
1375.  Reports to Congress.
1376.  Authorization of appropriations.

        SUBCHAPTER I—RESEARCH AND RELATED PROGRAMS

   §  1251.  Congressional declaration of goals and policy
   (a)  The objective of this chapter is  to restore  and maintain
the chemical,  physical, and biological integrity of the  Nation's
waters.  In order to achieve this  objective it  is hereby declared
that, consistent with the provisions of this chapter—
       (1) it is the national goal  that the  discharge of pollutants
     into the navigable waters be eliminated by  1985;
       (2) it is the  national goal  that  wherever attainable,  an
     interim goal of water quality which provides for the protec-
     tion and propagation  of fish, shellfish, and wildlife  and pro-
     vides  for recreation in and on the water be achieved by July
     1, 1983;
       (3) it is the national policy that  the  discharge of toxic
     pollutants in toxic amounts be prohibited;
       (4) it is the  national policy that Federal  financial  assist-
     ance  be provided  to construct  publicly owned waste  treat-
     ment  works;
       (5)  it is the national policy  that  areawide waste  treat-
     ment  management planning  processes be  developed and im-
     plemented to assure adequate control of sources of pollutants
     in each State; and
       (6) it  is the national policy  that  a major research  and
     demonstration  effort  be made to develop technology neces-

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      11

    sary to eliminate the discharge of pollutants into the navi-
    gable waters, waters of the contiguous zone, and the oceans.
  (b)  It is the policy of the Congress to recognize, preserve, and
protect the primary responsibilities and rights  of States to pre-
vent,  reduce, and eliminate pollution,  to  plan  the development
and use  (including restoration, preservation, and enhancement)
of land and water resources, and to consult with the Administra-
tor in the exercise of his authority under this chapter. It is fur-
ther the policy of the  Congress   to support and aid research
relating to the prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution,
and to provide Federal technical  services and financial  aid to
State  and interstate  agencies  and municipalities  in  connection
with the prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution.
  (c) It is further the policy of  Congress that  the President,
acting through the Secretary of   State and such national and
international organizations  as he  determines appropriate, shall
take such action as may be necessary to insure that to the fullest
extent possible all foreign countries shall take meaningful action
for the prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution in their
waters and in  international waters and for  the achievement of
goals  regarding the elimination of discharge of  pollutants and
the improvement of water quality to at least the same extent as
the United States does under its laws.
  (d)  Except as otherwise expressly  provided in this chapter,
the Administrator  of  the  Environmental  Protection  Agency
(hereinafter  in this  chapter  called "Administrator")  shall ad-
minister this  chapter.
  (e) Public participation in the development,  revision, and en-
forcement of any regulation, standard, effluent limitation, plan, or
program established  by the Administrator  or  any State under
this chapter  shall be provided for, encouraged, and assisted by
the Administrator and the  States. The Administrator, in coop-
eration with the  States, shall develop and  publish regulations
specifying minimum  guidelines for public  participation in such
processes.
  (f) It is the national policy that to the maximum extent pos-
sible the procedures utilized for implementing this chapter shall
encourage the drastic minimization  of paperwork and interagency
decision procedures, and the best use of available  manpower and
funds, so as to prevent needless duplication and unnecessary de-
lays at all levels of government.

June 30, 1948,  c. 758, Title  I, § 10, as added Oct. 18, 972,  Pub.L.
92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 816.

-------
12           LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

  § 1252.  Comprehensive  programs for water pollution control
  (a) The Administrator shall, after careful investigation, and
in cooperation with other  Federal agencies, State water pollution
control agencies, interstate agencies, and the municipalities and
industries involved, prepare or develop  comprehensive programs
for  preventing,  reducing, or eliminating the pollution  of  the
navigable waters and ground waters and  improving the sanitary
condition  of  surface  and underground  waters. In  the develop-
ment of such comprehensive programs due regard shall be given
to the improvements which are necessary to conserve such waters
for  the  protection and propagation of fish and aquatic life and
wildlife, recreational purposes, and the withdrawal of such waters
for  public water supply, agricultural, industrial, and other pur-
poses. For the purpose of this section,  the Administrator is au-
thorized to make joint investigations with any such agencies of
the  condition of any  waters  in  any State or States, and of the
discharges of any  sewage, industrial wastes, or substance which
may adversely affect such waters.
  (b)  (1)  In the survey or  planning  of any reservoir  by the
Corps of  Engineers,  Bureau  of Reclamation, or other Federal
agency, consideration shall be given to inclusion of storage for
regulation of streamflow, except that any  such storage and water
releases shall not be provided as a substitute for adequate treat-
ment  or other methods of controlling waste at  the source.
  (2) The need for and  the value of storage for regulation of
streamflow (other than for water quality) including but not lim-
ited to navigation, salt water intrusion, recreation, esthetics, and
fish and wildlife, shall be  determined by the  Corps of Engineers,
Bureau of Reclamation, or other Federal agencies.
  (3) The need for, the value of, and the impact of, storage for
water quality control shall be determined by the Administrator,
and his views on these matters shall be set forth in any report or
presentation  to Congress proposing authorization or construction
of any reservoir including such storage.
  (4) The value of such  storage shall  be taken into account in
determining the  economic  value of the entire project of which it is
a part, and costs shall be allocated to the purpose of regulation of
streamflow in a manner which  will insure that  all project pur-
poses share equitably in the benefits of multiple-purpose construc-
tion.
  (5) Costs of regulation of streamflow features incorporated in
any Federal reservoir or other impoundment  under the provisions
of this chapter shall  be determined and the beneficiaries identi-

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY       13

fied and if the benefits are widespread  or national in scope, the
costs of such features shall be nonreimbursable.
  (6)  No license granted by the Federal Power Commission for a
hydroelectric power project shall include storage for regulation of
streamflow for the purpose of water quality control  unless the
Administrator shall recommend its inclusion and such reservoir
storage capacity shall not exceed such proportion  of the total
storage required for the water quality control plan as the  drain-
age area of such reservoir bears to the drainage area of the river
basin or basins involved  in such water  quality control plan.
  (c)  (1) The Administrator shall, at the request of the Gov-
ernor of a State, or a majority of the Governors when more than
one State  is involved, make a  grant to  pay not to exceed 50 per
centum of the administrative expenses of a planning agency for a
period not to exceed three years, which period shall  begin after
October 18, 1972, if such agency provides for adequate represen-
tation  of appropriate State, interstate, local,  or  (when appropri-
ate) international interests in the basin or  portion thereof in-
volved and is capable of developing an effective, comprehensive
water quality control plan for a basin or portion thereof.
  (2)  Each planning agency receiving a grant under this subsec-
tion shall  develop a comprehensive pollution  control plan for the
basin or portion thereof which—
       (A) is  consistent  with any applicable  water  quality
    standards, effluent  and other limitations, and thermal  dis-
    charge  regulations  established  pursuant  to current  law
    within the basin;
       (B) recommends such treatment  works as will provide the
    most  effective and  economical means of collection, storage,
    treatment, and  elimination of  pollutants and  recommends
    means to encourage  both municipal and industrial use of
    such works;
       (C) recommends maintenance and improvement of water
    quality within the basin or portion thereof  and recommends
    methods of adequately financing these facilities  as may be
    necessary to implement the plan; and
       (D) as appropriate, is  developed in cooperation with, and
    is consistent with any comprehensive plan  prepared by the
    Water Resources Council, any areawide waste  management
    plans developed pursuant to  section 1288 of this title, and
    any  State plan developed pursuant to  section  1313(e) of
    this title.
  (3)  For the purposes  of this subsection the term "basin" in-

-------
14           LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

eludes, 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, Title I, § 102, as added Oct. 18, 1972, Pub.L.
92-500, § 2,86 Stat.  817.

  § 1253.  Interstate cooperation and uniform laws
  (a) The Administrator shall encourage cooperative activities
by the States for the prevention, reduction,  and elimination  of
pollution,  encourage the enactment  of  improved and,  so far  as
practicable, uniform State laws relating to the prevention, reduc-
tion, and  elimination of pollution; and encourage compacts be-
tween States for the prevention and control of pollution.
  (b) The consent  of the Congress is hereby  given to two  or
more States to negotiate and enter into agreements or compacts,
not in  conflict with  any law or treaty  of the United States, for
(1) cooperative effort and mutual  assistance for  the prevention
and control of pollution and the enforcement of their  respective
laws relating thereto, and (2) the establishment of such agencies,
joint or otherwise, as they may deem desirable for making 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, Title I, §  103, as added Oct. 18, 1972, Pub.L.
92-500, §  2,86 Stat.  818.

  § 1254.  Research, investigations,  training,  and  information—
Establishment of national programs; cooperation; investigations;
water quality surveillance system; reports
   (a) The Administrator shall establish national  programs for
the prevention, reduction, and elimination of  pollution and  as
part of such programs shall—
       (1) in cooperation  with  other  Federal, State, and  local
    agencies, conduct and promote the coordination and accelera-
    tion of, research, investigations, experiments, training,  dem-
    onstrations,  surveys,  and studies  relating to  the causes,
    effects, extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of pol-
    lution;
       (2) encourage, cooperate with, and render technical  serv-
    ices   to  pollution  control agencies  and other  appropriate
    public or private  agencies, institutions, and  organizations,
    and  individuals, including the general public, in the conduct
     of activities referred to in paragraph (1) of this subsection;

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY       15

       (3)  conduct,  in cooperation with  State water  pollution
    control agencies and other interested agencies,  organizations
    and persons, public investigations concerning the pollution of
    any navigable waters, and report on the results of such in-
    vestigations;
       (4)  establish advisory committees composed  of recognized
    experts in various aspects of pollution and representatives of
    the public to assist in the examination and evaluation of re-
    search  progress and proposals and to avoid duplication of
    research;
       (5)  in cooperation with the States, and their political sub-
    divisions, and other  Federal agencies establish,  equip, and
    maintain a water quality surveillance system for the purpose
    of monitoring the quality of the navigable waters and ground
    waters and the contiguous zone and the  oceans and the Ad-
    ministrator  shall,  to  the  extent practicable,  conduct such
    surveillance by utilizing the resources of the National Aero-
    nautics and Space Administration, the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration, the Geological Survey, and the
    Coast  Guard, and shall report on such quality  in the report
    required under subsection (a)  of section 1375 of this title;
    and
       (6)  initiate and promote the coordination  and  accelera-
    tion of research designed to develop the most effective prac-
    ticable tools and  techniques  for measuring the social and
    economic costs and benefits of activities which are subject to
    regulation under  this chapter; and shall transmit a  report
    on the results of such research to the Congress not later than
    January 1,1974.

               Authorized activities of Administrator
  (b)  In carrying out the provisions of subsection (a)  of this
section the  Administrator is authorized to—
       (1)  collect and make available, through publications and
    other appropriate means, the  results of  and other informa-
    tion, including appropriate recommendations by him in con-
    nection therewith, pertaining to such research  and  other ac-
    tivities referred  to in  paragraph  (1)  of subsection (a)  of
    this section;
       (2)  cooperate  with other  Federal departments and agen-
    cies, State water pollution control agencies, interstate agen-
    cies, other public and private agencies, institutions, organiza-
    tions, industries involved, and  individuals, in the preparation

-------
16           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

    and conduct of such research and other activities referred to
    in paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this section;
       (3)  make grants to State water pollution control agencies,
    interstate agencies, other public or nonprofit private agencies,
    institutions, organizations, and individuals,  for purposes
    stated in paragraph  (1)  of subsection (a) of this  section;
       (4)  contract with public or private agencies, institutions,
    organizations, and individuals, without regard to section 529
    of Title 31 and section 5 of Title 41, referred to in paragraph
    (1) of subsection (a) of this section;
       (5)  establish and  maintain research fellowships at public
    or nonprofit private educational institutions or  research orga-
    nizations;
       (6)  collect and disseminate,  in cooperation with  other
    Federal  departments and agencies, and  with other public or
    private  agencies, institutions, and organizations having re-
    lated responsibilities, basic data on chemical,  physical, and
    biological effects of varying water quality and other informa-
    tion pertaining to pollution and  the prevention,  reduction,
    and elimination thereof; and
       (7)  develop  effective  and  practical  processes,  methods,
    and prototype  devices  for the  prevention,  reduction,  and
    elimination of pollution.

  Research and studies on harmful effects of pollutants; cooperation with
             Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare
   (c)  In  carrying out the provisions  of subsection (a) of this
section the Administrator shall conduct research on, and survey
the results of other scientific studies on, the harmful effects on the
health or  welfare  of persons caused  by pollutants. In order  to
avoid duplication of effort, the Administrator shall, to  the extent
practicable,  conduct  such  research  in cooperation  with  and
through the  facilities of the Secretary  of Health, Education, and
Welfare.

       Sewage treatment; identification and  measurement of effects
                of pollutants; augmented streamflow
   (d) In carrying out the provisions of this section the Adminis-
trator shall develop and demonstrate under varied  conditions (in-
cluding conducting such basic  and  applied  research, studies, and
experiments as may be necessary):
       (1) Practicable means of treating municipal sewage, and

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY       17

    other waterborne wastes to implement the requirements of
    section 1281 of this title;
       (2)  Improved methods and procedures  to identify  and
    measure the effects of pollutants, including those pollutants
    created by new technological developments; and
       (3)  Methods and procedures for evaluating the effects on
    water  quality of augmented streamflows to control pollution
    not susceptible to other means of prevention, reduction, or
    elimination.

               Field laboratory and research facilities
  (e)  The  Administrator shall  establish, equip,  and  maintain
field laboratory  and research facilities, including, but not limited
to, one to be located in the northeastern area of the United States,
one in the Middle Atlantic area, one in the southeastern area, one
in the midwestern area, one in the southwestern area, one in the
Pacific Northwest, and one in the State of Alaska, for the conduct
of research, investigations, experiments, field demonstrations and
studies, and  training relating to the prevention,  reduction and
elimination of pollution. Insofar  as practicable, each such facility
shall  be  located near institutions of higher learning  in which
graduate training in such research might be carried out.  In con-
junction  with the development of criteria under section 1343 of
this title,  the  Administrator  shall construct  the facilities au-
thorized  for  the National Marine Water Quality  Laboratory es-
tablished under  this subsection.

                Great Lakes water quality research
  (f)  The  Administrator shall  conduct research and technical
development  work, and make studies, with respect to the quality
of the waters of the Great Lakes, including an analysis  of the
present and  projected future water quality of the  Great Lakes
under varying  conditions of waste treatment and  disposal, an
evaluation  of the water  quality needs of those to be served by
such  waters, 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  pollution prob-
lems  (including additional waste treatment measures) with re-
spect to such waters.

Treatment works  pilot training programs; employment needs forecasting;
  training projects and grants; research fellowships;  technical training;
         report  to the President and transmittal to Congress
  (g) (1)  For  the  purpose of providing an adequate  supply  of

-------
18           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

trained personnel  to operate and maintain existing and future
treatment works and related activities,  and for the purpose of
enhancing substantially the proficiency of those engaged in such
activities, the Administrator shall finance pilot programs, in coop-
eration with  State and interstate agencies, municipalities, educa-
tional  institutions, and other organizations and  individuals, of
manpower  development and training  and  retraining of persons
in,  on  entering  into, the  field of  operation and maintenance of
treatment works and related activities.  Such program and any
funds  expended for such  a program shall  supplement, not sup-
plant,  other manpower and training programs  and funds avail-
able for the purposes of  this paragraph. The Administrator
is authorized, under such terms and conditions as he deems ap-
propriate,  to enter into  agreements  with  one or  more States,
acting jointly or severally, or with other public or private  agen-
cies or institutions for the development and implementation of
such a program.
  (2)  The Administrator is authorized to  enter into agreements
with public and private  agencies and institutions, and individ-
uals to develop  and maintain an effective system for forecasting
the supply of, and demand for, various professional and  other
occupational  categories needed for the prevention, reduction, and
elimination of pollution  in each  region, State, or area of the
United States and, from  time to  time, to  publish the results of
such forecasts.
   (3)  In furtherance of  the purposes of this  chapter, the Ad-
ministrator is authorized to—
       (A) make  grants  to public  or private  agencies and in-
     stitutions and to individuals  for training projects, and pro-
     vide 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
     Environmental Protection  Agency  with such  stipends and
     allowances, including traveling and subsistence expenses, as
     he may  deem necessary to procure the assistance of the most
     promising research fellows; 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, reduction, and elimi-
     nation of  pollution  for  personnel  of public  agencies and
     other persons with suitable qualifications.

-------
         WATER—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY       19

  (4) The Administrator shall submit, through the President, a
report to  the Congress not later than December 31, 1973, sum-
marizing  the actions  taken  under this subsection and  the  ef-
fectiveness of  such actions,  and  setting  forth  the number of
persons trained, the occupational  categories for which  training
was provided, the  effectiveness of other Federal, State, and local
training programs in this field, together with estimates of future
needs, recommendations on  improving training programs,  and
such other information and  recommendations, including legisla-
tive recommendations, as he deems appropriate.

                         Lake pollution
  (h)  The Administrator  is authorized to enter into contracts
with,  or make grants to, public or private agencies  and organiza-
tions  and  individuals  for  (A)  the purpose of developing  and
demonstrating new or improved methods  for the prevention,  re-
moval, reduction, and elimination of pollution in lakes, including
the undesirable effects of nutrients and vegetation, and (B) the
construction of publicly owned research facilities  for such pur-
pose.

                    Oil pollution control studies
  (i)  The Administrator,  in cooperation with the  Secretary of
the department in  which the Coast Guard is operating, shall—
       (1) engage  in  such research,  studies,  experiments,  and
    demonstrations as he deems  appropriate,  relative to the
    removal of oil from any waters and  to the prevention, con-
    trol,  and elimation  of oil and hazardous  substances pollu-
    tion;
       (2) publish from time to time the results of such activ-
    ities ; and
       (3) from time  to time, develop and publish in the Fed-
    eral Register  specifications and other technical information
    on  the various  chemical compounds  used  in the  control of
    oil and hazardous substances spills.
In carrying out this  subsection, the  Administrator may enter
into contracts with, or make grants  to, public  or  private agen-
cies and organizations and individuals.

             Solid waste disposal equipment  for vessels
  (j)   The Secretary  of the  department  in  which  the Coast
Guard is  operating shall engage in  such research, studies, ex-
periments, and  demonstrations as he deems appropriate relative

-------
20           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n

to equipment which is to be  installed  on board a vessel and is
designed to receive, retain, treat, or discharge human body wastes
and  the  wastes from  toilets  and other  receptacles  intended to
receive or retain body wastes  with particular emphasis on equip-
ment to be installed on small  recreational vessels.  The Secretary
of the department  in  which the Coast Guard is  operating  shall
report to Congress the results of such research, studies, experi-
ments, and demonstrations prior to the effective date of  any
regulations established under  section 1322 of this title. In carry-
ing out this subsection the Secretary of the department in which
the Coast Guard is operating may enter into contracts with, or
make grants to, public or private organizations and individuals.

                        Land acquisition
   (k) In carrying  out the provisions of this  section relating to
the conduct by the Administrator of demonstration projects and
the development of field laboratories and research facilities, the
Administrator  may acquire land and interest therein  by  pur-
chase, with appropriated or donated funds,  by donation, or by
exchange for acquired or  public  lands under his jurisdiction
which he classifies  as  suitable for disposition. The values of the
properties so exchanged either shall be approximately equal, or if
they are not approximately equal, the values shall be  equalized
by the payment of cash to  the grantor or to the Administrator
as the circumstances require.

      Collection and dissemination of scientific knowledge on effects
                 and control of pesticides in water
   (1) (1) The Administrator shall, after consultation with appro-
priate local, State, and Federal agencies, public and private or-
ganizations, and interested  individuals,  as soon  as practicable
but  not  later than January  1, 1973,  develop and issue to the
States for the purpose of  carrying  out this chapter the latest
scientific knowledge available in indicating the kind and extent
of effects on health and welfare which may be  expected  from
the  presence of pesticides  in the water in  varying quantities.
He shall revise and add to  such information whenever neces-
sary to reflect  developing scientific knowledge.
   (2)  The President shall,  in  consultation  with  appropriate
local, State, and Federal agencies, public and private organiza-
tions, and  interested  individuals, conduct studies and investiga-
tions of methods to  control  the release of pesticides into the
environment which study shall include examination  of  the  per-

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY       21

sistency of pesticides in the water environment  and alternatives
thereto. The President shall submit reports, from time to time,
on such investigations to Congress together with his recommenda-
tions for any necessary legislation.

                     Waste oil disposal stu4y
   (m) (1)  The Administrator  shall, in an effort  to  prevent
degradation of the environment  from the disposal of waste oil,
conduct a study of (A)  the generation of used engine, machine,
cooling, and similar waste oil,  including quantities  generated,
the nature  and quality  of such oil, present collecting methods
and disposal practices, and alternate uses of such oil; (B) the
long-term,   chronic  biological effects of  the disposal of  such
waste oil; and  (C) the potential market for such oils, including
the economic and legal  factors relating to  the  sale of products
made from  such oils, the level of subsidy, if any, needed to en-
courage the purchase by public and  private nonprofit agencies
of products from  such oil,  and the practicability  of  Federal
procurement, on a priority basis, of products  made from  such
oil. In conducting such study, the Administrator shall consult with
affected industries and other persons.
   (2) The Administrator shall report the preliminary results of
such study to  Congress within  six  months after  October 18,
1972, and  shall  submit a  final  report to  Congress  within  18
months after such date.

            Comprehensive studies of effects of pollution on
                estuaries  and estuarine zones; reports
   (n)  (1)  The Administrator  shall, in cooperation  with the
Secretary of the Army,  the Secretary of Agriculture,  the Water
Resources  Council,  and with other  appropriate Federal,  State,
interstate,  or local public bodies and private organizations, in-
stitutions, and  individuals, conduct and promote, and encourage
contributions to, continuing comprehensive studies  of  the effects
of pollution, including sedimentation, in the estuaries and  estu-
arine zones of the United  States on  fish  and wildlife, on sport
and  commercial fishing, on recreation,  on water supply  and
water power, and on other  beneficial purposes. Such studies shall
also  consider the  effect of  demographic  trends,  the exploita-
tion  of mineral  resources  and fossil fuels, land and industrial
development, navigation,  flood and erosion control,  and other
uses of estuaries and estuarine zones upon the  pollution of the
waters therein.

-------
22           LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

  (2) In  conducting such studies, the Administrator shall as-
semble,  coordinate, and organize all existing pertinent informa-
tion 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 Administrator  shall submit to Congress,  from time
to time, reports of the studies authorized by this subsection but
at least one such report during any three year period. Copies of
each such report shall be made available at all interested parties,
public and private.
  (4) 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 river  or  stream or  other  body of
water having unimpaired natural connection with open sea and
within  which the sea water  is  measurably diluted with fresh
water derived from land drainage.

            Methods of reducing total flow of sewage and
               unnecessary water consumption; reports
  (o) (1) The Administrator shall conduct research and investi-
gations on devices, systems, incentives, pricing policy, and other
methods of reducing the  total flow  of  sewage,  including, but
not limited to,  unnecessary water consumption in order to reduce
the requirements for, and  the costs of, sewage and waste treat-
ment services.  Such research and investigations shall  be directed
to  develop devices,  systems,  policies,  and methods  capable of
achieving the maximum reduction of unnecessary water consump-
tion.
  (2) The  Administrator shall  report the  preliminary results
of  such studies and investigations to  the Congress  within one
year  after October 18,  1972, and annually thereafter in the re-
port required under subsection  (a) of section  1375 of this title.
Such report shall include recommendations for any legislation
that may be required to provide  for the adoption  and use of
devices, systems,  policies,  or other methods  of  reducing water
consumption and reducing the total flow  of sewage. Such  report
shall include an  estimate of the  benefits to be  derived  from
adoption  and  use of such devices, systems, policies, or  other

-------
         WATER—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY       23

methods and also shall reflect estimates of any increase in private,
public, or other cost that would be occasioned thereby.

                      Agricultural pollution

  (p)  In carrying out the provisions of subsection  (a)  of this
section  the Administrator shall, in  cooperation with  the  Secre-
tary of Agriculture, other Federal agencies, and the States, carry
out a comprehensive  study and research program to determine
new and improved methods and the better application of exist-
ing methods  of preventing, reducing, and  eliminating pollution
from agriculture,  including the legal,  economic,  and other im-
plications of the use of such methods.

                     Sewage in rural areas
  (q)  (1)  The Administrator shall conduct a  comprehensive
program of research  and investigation and pilot project  imple-
mentation  into new  and improved  methods  of preventing,  re-
ducing, storing, collecting, treating, or otherwise eliminating pol-
lution from sewage in rural  and other areas where collection of
sewage in  conventional,  community-wide sewage collection sys-
tems  is impractical,  uneconomical,  or otherwise  infeasible, or
where  soil  conditions  or  other  factors preclude the use of septic
tank and drainage field systems.
  (2)  The Administrator shall conduct a  comprehensive pro-
gram of research and investigation and pilot project implementa-
tion into new and  improved methods for the collection and treat-
ment of sewage  and other liquid  wastes  combined  with the
treatment and disposal of solid wastes.

             Research  grants to colleges and universities
  (r)  The Administrator is authorized to make grants  to col-
leges and  universities to conduct basic research into the struc-
ture and function of fresh  water1  aquatic ecosystems,  and to
improve understanding  of the ecological characteristics  neces-
sary to the maintenance  of the chemical,  physical,  and biological
integrity of freshwater1 aquatic ecosystems.

                      River Study Centers
  (s)  The Administrator is authorized to make grants  to one
or more institutions of higher  education  (regionally located and
to be designated  as "River Study Centers") for the purpose of
conducting and reporting on interdisciplinary studies  on the na-

-------
24           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n

ture of river systems, including hydrology, biology, ecology, eco-
nomics, the relationship between  river uses and  land uses, and
the effects of development within river basins on river systems
and  on the value of water resources and water related activi-
ties. No such grant  in any fiscal  year shall  exceed  $1,000,000.

                       Thermal discharges
  (t)  The Administrator  shall,  in cooperation with State and
Federal agencies and public and  private  organizations, conduct
continuing comprehensive  studies of the effects and methods of
control of thermal discharges.  In evaluating alternative methods
of control the studies shall consider  (1)  such  data as are avail-
able on the latest available technology, economic feasibility in-
cluding cost-effectiveness analysis, and  (2)  the total impact on
the environment, considering not only water quality but also air
quality, land  use, and effective utilization and conservation  of
fresh  water and other natural  resources. Such  studies shall
consider methods of minimizing adverse effects and maximizing
beneficial effects of  thermal  discharges. The results  of these
studies shall be reported by the Administrator as soon as practi-
cable,  but  not later than 270  days after  October 18,  1972, and
shall be made available to the public  and the States,  and con-
sidered as  they become available by the Administrator  in carry-
ing out section 1326 of this title and by the States in proposing
thermal water quality standards.

                  Authorization of appropriations
  (u)  There is authorized  to  be appropriated (1) $100,000,000
per fiscal year for the fiscal year  ending June 30, 1973, and the
fiscal year ending June 30,  1974, for carrying  out the provisions
of this section other than subsections (g) (1)  and (2),  (p), (r),
and  (t) of this  section; (2) not to exceed $7,500,000 for fiscal
years 1973 and 1974 for carrying out the provisions of subsec-
tion  (g) (1)  of  this section;  (3)  not to exceed  $2,500,000  for
fiscal year 1973  for  carrying out the provisions of subsection
(g)  (2)  of  this section;  (4) not  to exceed $10,000,000  for
each of the  fiscal  years ending  June 30, 1973,  and  June  30,
1974, for carrying  out the provisions of  subsection (p) of this
section;  (5)  not  to exceed $15,000,000 per fiscal  year for  the
fiscal years ending  June 30, 1973, and June 30, 1974, for carry-
ing out the  provisions  of  subsection  (r) of this section; and
(6)  not to exceed  $10,000,000  per  fiscal  year  for  the fiscal

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY       25

years ending June 30, 1973, and June 30, 1974, for carrying out
the provisions of subsection (t) of this section.
June 30, 1948, c. 758, Title I, § 104, as added Oct. 18, 1972, Pub.
L. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 819,  and amended Dec. 28, 1973, Pub.
L. 93-207, § 1 (1), 87 Stat. 906.

   § 1255. Grants for research  and development—Demonstration
projects covering  storm waters, advanced waste treatment and
water purification methods, and joint treatment systems for mu-
nicipal and industrial wastes
   (a) The Administrator  is authorized to conduct in  the En-
vironmental Protection Agency, and to make grants to any State,
municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency for the pur-
pose of assisting in the development of—
      (1)  any project which will demonstrate a  new or im-
    proved method of preventing, reducing, and eliminating the
    discharge into any waters of pollutants from sewers which
    carry  storm  water or both storm water  and pollutants; or
      (2)  any project which will demonstrate advanced waste
    treatment  and water purification methods (including the
    temporary use of new or improved chemical additives which
    provide  substantial  immediate  improvement  to  existing
    treatment processes),  or new or improved methods of joint
    treatment systems for municipal and industrial wastes;
and to  include in such  grants such amounts as are necessary
for the purpose of reports, plans, and specifications in connection
therewith.

   Demonstration projects for advanced treatment and environmental
      enhancement techniques to control pollution in river basins
   (b) The Administrator  is authorized to make grants to any
State or  States or interstate  agency to  demonstrate,  in  river
basins or  portions thereof,  advanced treatment  and  environ-
mental  enhancement   techniques to  control pollution  from  all
sources,  within such  basins or portions thereof, including non-
point sources, together with in-stream 1 water quality improve-
ment techniques.

          Research and demonstration  projects  for  prevention
                   of water pollution by industry
   (c) In order to carry  out  the  purposes of section  1311 of
this  title,  the  Administrator  is authorized to  (1)  conduct in
  1 So in original.

-------
26           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

the Environmental Protection Agency, (2) make grants  to per-
sons,  and  (3)  enter into  contracts with persons,  for research
and demonstration projects for prevention of pollution  of  any
waters by industry including, but not limited to, the prevention,
reduction,  and elimination of  the  discharge  of pollutants.  No
grant shall be made for any project under this subsection unless
the Administrator determines that  such  project will develop or
demonstrate  a new or improved method of treating industrial
wastes or otherwise prevent pollution by  industry, which  method
shall have industrywide application.

   Accelerated and priority development of waste management and waste
      treatment methods and identification and measurement methods
   (d) In carrying out the provisions of this section, the Adminis-
trator shall conduct, on a  priority basis, an accelerated effort to
develop, refine, and achieve practical application of:
       (1)  waste  management  methods  applicable  to point  and
    nonpoint sources of pollutants  to eliminate the  discharge of
    pollutants, including, but not limited to, elimination of runoff
    of pollutants and the effects of pollutants from in-place or
    accumulated sources;
       (2)  advanced waste treatment methods  applicable to point
    and nonpoint sources, including in-place or  accumulated
    sources of pollutants, and methods for reclaiming and recy-
    cling water and confining pollutants  so they will not migrate
    to cause water or other environmental pollution; and
       (3)  improved  methods  and procedures to   identify  and
    measure the effects of pollutants on the  chemical, physical,
    and biological integrity of water, including those pollutants
    created by new technological developments.

  Research and demonstration projects covering agricultural  pollution and
     pollution from sewage in rural areas; dissemination of information
   (e)  (1) The  Administrator is  authorized  to  (A)  make, in
consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, grants to  persons
for research  and  demonstration projects with  respect  to  new
and improved  methods of preventing, reducing, and eliminating
pollution from agriculture, and (B) disseminate, in cooperation
with  the Secretary  of Agriculture,  such information obtained
under this subsection, section 1254 (p) of this title, and section
1314  of this title,  as  will encourage and enable the adoption of
such methods in the agricultural industry.
   (2) The Administrator is authorized, (A) in consultation with

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY       27

other interested  Federal  agencies, to make grants  for  demon-
stration  projects  with  respect  to  new  and improved  methods
of preventing,  reducing,  storing,  collecting, treating,  or other-
wise eliminating  pollution from sewage in rural and other areas
where collection  of  sewage  in conventional, community-wide
sewage collection systems is impractical, uneconomical, or other-
wise infeasible, or where soil conditions  or  other factors pre-
clude the use  of septic tank  and drainage field  systems, and
(B)  in  cooperation  with other interested Federal  and  State
agencies, to  disseminate  such information obtained under this
subsection  as will encourage and  enable the adoption  of new
and  improved  methods developed  pursuant to this subsection.

                          Limitations
  (f) Federal  grants under subsection (a) of this section shall
be subject to the following limitations:
       (1)  No  grant  shall be made for  any project unless such
     project shall  have  been  approved by the  appropriate State
     water  pollution control agency or agencies and by the Ad-
     ministrator;
       (2)  No grant shall be made  for any project in an amount
     exceeding  75 per centum of cost thereof  as  determined by
     the Administrator;  and
       (3)  No  grant shall be made for  any project unless the
     Administrator determines that such project will serve as a
     useful demonstration for the  purpose set forth  in clause
     (1) or (2)  of subsection (a) of this section.

                         Maximum grants
  (g)  Federal grants  under subsections  (c)  and  (d)  of this
section shall not  exceed 75 per centum of the cost of the  project.

                   Authorization of appropriations
  (h)  For the purpose of this section  there is  authorized  to
be appropriated $75,000,000 per fiscal year for the fiscal year end-
ing  June 30,  1973, and  the  fiscal year  ending June  30, 1974,
and  from  such appropriations at  least  10 per centum  of the
funds actually appropriated in each fiscal year shall be  avail-
able only for the purposes  of subsection (e) of this section.
June 30, 1948, c. 758,  Title  I, §  105, as  added  Oct.  18, 1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 825.
  1 So in original.

-------
28           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

  § 1256.  Grants for pollution control programs—Authorization
of appropriations for State and interstate programs
  (a) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated the fol-
lowing sums,  to  remain available  until expended, to carry out
the purposes of this section—
       (1)  $60,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,  1973;
    and
       (2)  $75,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,  1974;
    for grants to  States  and  to  interstate agencies to  assist
    them in administering programs for the prevention, reduc-
    tion,  and  elimination  of pollution, including  enforcement
    directly or through appropriate State law enforcement of-
    ficers or agencies.

                           Allotments
  (b) From the  sums appropriated in  any fiscal year, the Ad-
ministrator shall make allotments  to the several  States  and in-
terstate agencies  in accordance with  regulations  promulgated
by him on  the basis of the extent of the pollution problem  in
the respective States.

                    Maximum annual payments
  (c)  The  Administrator is authorized by  pay to each  State
and interstate agency each fiscal year either—
       (1) the allotment of such State or agency for such fiscal
    year under subsection  (b) of this section, or
       (2) the reasonable costs as determined by the Administra-
    tor of developing and carrying out a pollution program by
    such State or agency during such fiscal year,
whichever amount is the lesser.

                           Limitations
   (d)  No  grant  shall be made under  this section to any State
or interstate  agency for any fiscal year  when the  expenditure
of non-Federal funds by such State or  interstate agency during
such fiscal year for the recurrent expenses of carrying out its
pollution control program  are less  than the expenditure  by each
State or  interstate agency  of  non-Federal funds for  such re-
current program  expenses during the  fiscal  year  ending June
30, 1971.

    Grants prohibited to states not establishing water quality monitoring
         procedures or adequate emergency and contingency plans
   (e)  Beginning in fiscal year  1974  the  Administrator shall

-------
         WATER—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY       29

not make any grant under this section  to any State  which has
not provided or is not carrying out as a part of its program—
       (1)  the establishment and operation of  appropriate de-
    vices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to moni-
    tor,  and  to  compile  and analyze  data   on  (including
    classification according to eutrophic condition), the quality
    of navigable waters  and to the extent  practicable,  ground
    waters  including  biological  monitoring;  and  provision for
    annually updating such  data and including  it in  the report
    required under section 1315 of this title;
       (2)  authority comparable to  that in section 1364 of this
    title and adequate contingency plans to  implement such au-
    thority.

                          Conditions
   (f) Grants shall be made under this section on  condition that—
       (1)  Such State  (or interstate agency) files with the Ad-
    ministrator within  one hundred  and  twenty  days  after
    October 18, 1972:
           (A) a  summary  report of the  current status of the
         State  pollution control program,  including the criteria
         used by the State in determining priority of treatment
         works; and
           (B) such additional information, data, and reports as
         the Administrator may require.
       (2)  No federally assumed enforcement  as defined in sec-
    tion  1319  (a) (2) of this title is in effect  with  respect to
    such State or interstate agency.
       (3)  Such State  (or  interstate agency)  submits within
    one  hundred and twenty days after October  18,  1972, and
    before July 1 of each  year thereafter for the  Administrator's
    approval  its  program for the  prevention,   reduction,  and
    elimination of pollution in  accordance  with  purposes and
    provisions of this chapter  in  such form  and content as
    the Administrator may prescribe.

                  Reallotment of unpaid allotments
   (g) Any sums alloted  under subsection  (b)  of this section in
any fiscal year which are not paid shall be  reallotted  by the
Administrator  in  accordance with  regulations  promulgated by
him.
June 30, 1948, c.  758, Title I, § 106, as added Oct.  18,  1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 827.

-------
30           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n

  § 1257. Mine water pollution control demonstrations—Compre-
hensive approaches to elimination or control of mine water pollu-
tion
  (a)  The Administrator in cooperation with the Appalachian
Regional Commission and other Federal  agencies  is authorized
to conduct, to make grants for,  or to  contract  for, projects
to demonstrate comprehensive approaches to the elimination or
control of acid or other  mine  water pollution  resulting  from
active  or abandoned  mining operations and other environmental
pollution affecting  water quality within  all or part of a water-
shed or river  basin, including  siltation  from surface mining.
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, and other pollution affecting water quality,  including
techniques that demonstrate the  engineering and  economic feasi-
bility and practicality of using sewage sludge materials and  other
municipal wastes to diminish or prevent pollution affecting water
quality from acid, sedimentation,  or other  pollutants  and in
such projects to restore affected  lands to usefulness for forestry,
agriculture, recreation,  or other beneficial purposes.

          Consistency of projects with objectives of Appalachian
                  Regional Development Act of 1965
   (b)  Prior to undertaking any  demonstration  project under
this section  in the  Appalachian region  (as  defined  in  section
403 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, as
amended), the  Appalachian Regional Commission shall deter-
mine  that  such demonstration project is  consistent with  the ob-
jectives of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of  1965,
as amended.

                        Watershed selection
   (c)  The Administrator,  in selecting  watersheds for the pur-
poses of this section, shall 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 upon Federal participation
   (d)  Federal participation in such projects shall  be subject to
the conditions—
        (1) that  the  State shall acquire any  land or interests
    therein necessary for such project; and

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY       31

       (2)  that the State  shall provide legal  and practical  pro-
    tection to  the  project area to insure against any activities
    which will cause future acid or other mine water pollution.

                   Authorization of appropriations
  (e)  There is  authorized  to be  appropriated $30,000,000  to
carry  out  the  provisions  of this section, which sum  shall be
available until expended.
June  30,  1948,  c. 758, Title I,  §  107,  as added Oct.  18, 1972,
Pub.L. 92-500,  § 2, 86 Stat. 828.

  § 1258. Pollution control  in the Great Lakes—Demonstration
projects
  (a)  The Administrator,  in  cooperation  with  other Federal
departments, agencies,  and  instrumentalities is  authorized  to
enter into agreements  with any  State, political subdivision, in-
terstate  agency,  or other  public agency, or combination  there-
of, to carry out one or more projects to demonstrate  new meth-
ods and techniques and to develop preliminary  plans for  the
elimination or control of pollution, within  all or  any part  of
the watersheds of  the  Great Lakes. Such projects shall demon-
strate the engineering and economic feasibility and practicality
of removal of pollutants and prevention of any polluting matter
from entering into the Great Lakes  in the future  and other
reduction  and  remedial techniques  which will contribute  sub-
stantially to effective and  practical methods of pollution preven-
tion, reduction, or elimination.

                 Conditions of Federal participation
  (b)  Federal participation in such  projects  shall  be subject
to the condition that  the  State, political subdivision,  interstate
agency, or other public agency, or combination thereof, shall pay
not less than 25 per centum of the actual project  costs,  which
payment  may  be in any form,  including, but  not  limited to,
land or interests therein that is  needed for the project, and  per-
sonal  property or  services  the  value  of which shall be  deter-
mined by the Administrator.

                   Authorization of appropriations
  (c)  There is  authorized  to be  appropriated $20,000,000  to
carry  out  the provisions of  subsections (a) and (b) of this sec-
tion, which sum shall be available until expended.

-------
32           LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT 11

                 Lake Erie demonstration program
  (d)  (1)  In recognition of the serious conditions which exist
in Lake  Erie, the Secretary of  the  Army,  acting  through the
Chief of Engineers,  is directed to design and develop  a  demon-
stration waste water management program for the rehabilitation
and environmental repair  of Lake Erie. Prior to the  initiation
of detailed engineering and design, the program,  along with the
specific recommendations of the Chief of Engineers, and recom-
mendations for its financing, shall be submitted to the Congress
for statutory approval. This authority is in addition to, and not
in lieu of, other  waste water studies aimed  at eliminating pol-
lution emanating from select sources around Lake Erie.
  (2)  This program is to  be  developed in cooperation with the
Environmental Protection Agency, other interested departments,
agencies, and instrumentalities of the Federal Government, and
the States and their political subdivisions. This  program shall
set  forth alternative systems for managing  waste water on a
regional  basis  and  shall  provide local  and  State  governments
with a range of  choice as  to the type of system  to be used for
the treatment of waste  water.  These  alternative systems shall
include both  advanced waste treatment technology and land dis-
posal   systems  including  aerated   treatment-spray   irrigation
technology and will also include provisions  for the disposal  of
solid  wastes, including  sludge.  Such program  should  include
measures to  control point  sources of pollution, area  sources  of
pollution, including  acid-mine drainage, urban runoff  and rural
runoff, and in-place  sources of pollution, including bottom loads,
sludge banks, and polluted harbor dredgings.
    Authorization of appropriations for Lake Erie demonstration program
  (e)  There  is authorized to be appropriated  $5,000,000 to carry
out the provisions of subsection (d)  of this  section, which sum
shall be available until  expended.
June 30, 1948, c.  758, Title I, § 108, as added  Oct. 18, 1972, Pub.
L. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 828.

  § 1259. Training grants and contracts
  (a)  The Administrator  is  authorized to  make grants to  or
contracts with institutions of higher education, or combinations
of  such  institutions,  to  assist  them  in planning, developing,
strengthening, improving,  or carrying out programs or projects
for the preparation of undergraduate students to  enter an oc-
cupation which involves the design,  operation, and maintenance
of treatment works, and other facilities whose purpose is water

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY       33

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 oc-
    cupation involving the operation  and maintenance of treat-
    ment works;
      (D)  carrying  out  innovative and  experimental   pro-
    grams 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 teach-
    ing materials and the planning of curriculum.
      (b) (1) The Administrator  may pay  100  per centum of
any additional cost of construction of a  treatment works re-
quired for a facility to train and upgrade waste treatment works
operation and maintenance personnel.
  (2) The Administrator shall  make  no more than one grant
for such additional construction in any State (to serve a group
of States, where, in his judgment, efficient training programs re-
quire  multi-State programs), and  shall make such grant  after
consultation  with and approval by the State or States on the
basis  of (A) the suitability of such facility  for  training opera-
tion and  maintenance personnel for  treatment works  through-
out such  State or States; and  (B) a commitment  by  the  State
agency  or agencies to carry out at such  facility a program of
training approved by the Administrator.
  (3) The Administrator may make such grant out of the sums
allocated  to  a State  under  section  1285  of this title,  except
that in  no event shall the  Federal cost of any such training
facilities exceed $250,000.
June  30,  1948, c.  758, Title I,  §  109, as  added  Oct.  18,  1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 829.

  § 1260. Same; applications; allocation

  (1) A  grant or  contract authorized  by section  1259 of this
title may be made only upon application to the Administrator at

-------
34           LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n

such time or times and containing such information as he may
prescribe, except that no such application shall be approved un-
less it—
       (A) sets forth programs,  activities, research,  or develop-
    ment for which a grant is authorized under  section 1259 of
    this  title and describes the relation to any program set forth
    by the applicant in an application, if any, submitted pursuant
    to section 1271 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 Administrator  may re-
    quire to carry out  his functions under this section, and for
    keeping  such records and  for affording  such access thereto
    as the Administrator may find necessary to  assure  the cor-
    rectness and verification of such reports.
   (2) The Administrator shall allocate grants or  contracts  under
section 1259 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 edu-
cation which show promise of being able to use funds effectively
for the purpose of this section.
   (3)  (A) Payment under this section  may be used in accordance
with regulations of the Administrator, and  subject to the  terms
and conditions  set forth in an application approved under para-
graph (1), to pay part of  the compensation of students employed
in connection with the  operation and  maintenance of treatment
works, other than as  an employee  in connection with the op-
eration 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 en-
couraged, to the extent consistent with efficient administration,
to enter  into arrangements with  institutions of higher education
for the full-time,  part-time, or temporary employment, whether
in the competitive or excepted service, of students enrolled in
programs  set forth in applications approved under  paragraph
 (1).
June 30, 1948, c. 758, Title I, § 110, as added Oct.  18,  1972, Pub.L.
92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 830.

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY       35

  § 1261.  Scholarships

  (1) The Administrator is authorized to award scholarships in
accordance with the provisions of this section for undergraduate
study by persons who plan to enter an  occupation involving the
operation  and maintenance of treatment works.  Such  scholar-
ships  shall be awarded  for such periods as  the Administrator
may determine but not to exceed four academic years.
  (2) The Administrator shall  allocate  scholarships under this
section among  institutions of  higher education with programs
approved  under  the provisions of this section for the use of in-
dividuals  accepted into  such programs,  in such manner and ac-
cording to such plan as will insofar as practicable—
       (A) provide an equitable distribution of such  scholarships
    throughout the United States; and
       (B) attract recent graduates of secondary schools to enter
    an occupation involving the operation  and maintenance of
    treatment works.
  (3) The Administrator shall approve a program of any insti-
tution of higher education for the  purposes of this  section only
upon application by the institution and  only  upon his finding—
       (A) that such program has as principal objective the edu-
    cation 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
    program to  any program, activity, research,  or  develop-
    ment set forth by  the applicant in an  application, if any,
    submitted pursuant to section 1260 of this title; and
       (D) that the application contains satisfactory assurances
    that (i) the institution will recommend to the Administrator
    for the award of scholarships  under this section, for study
    in such program, only persons who have demonstrated to the
    satisfaction of the  institution  a serious  intent, upon  com-
    pleting  the  program, to enter an occupation involving the
    operation and  maintenance  of treatment works,  and  (ii)
    the institution  will make reasonable continuing efforts to
    encourage recipients of scholarships under this  section, en-
    rolled in such program,  to enter occupations involving the
    operation and maintenance of treatment works upon  com-
    pleting the program.
  (4)  (A)  The  Administrator shall pay to persons awarded

-------
36           LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

scholarships under this section such stipends (including such al-
lowances 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 pro-
grams.
  (B) The Administrator shall (in addition to the stipends paid
to persons under paragraph (1))  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 Administrator finds
that he is maintaining satisfactory proficiency and devoting full
time to study  or research in the  field  in which such scholarship
was  awarded  in an  institution of  higher  education, and  is not
engaging  in gainful employment  other  than  employment ap-
proved by the Administrator by or pursuant to regulation.
  (6)  The Administrator 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  de-
sign,  operation, or  maintenance of  treatment works for such
period after completion of his course of studies as the Adminis-
trator determines appropriate.
June  30,  1948, c. 758, Title I, § 111, as added  Oct.  18,  1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 831.

  § 1262. Definitions and authorizations
  (a) As used in sections 1259 through 1262 of this title—
  (1)  The term "institution of higher education" means an edu-
cational institution described in the first sentence of section 1141
of Title 20  (other  than an  institution of any  agency of  the
United States) which is accredited by a nationally  recognized
accrediting  agency or association approved by the Administra-
tor for this purpose.  For purposes of this subsection, the Ad-
ministrator shall publish a list of nationally recognized accredit-
ing agencies or associations which he  determines to be reliable
authority as to the quality of training offered.
  (2)  The term "academic year" means an academic year or its
equivalent, as determined by the Administrator.
  (b)  The Administrator shall annually report his activities  un-
der sections 1259 through  1262  of this  title, including recom-
mendations for needed revisions in the provisions thereof.

-------
         WATER—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY       37

  (c) There are  authorized  to be  appropriated  $25,000,000 per
fiscal year for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and  June 30,
1974, to carry out sections 1259 through 1262 of this title.
June 30, 1948, c. 758, Title I,  § 112,  as added Oct.  18, 1972, Pub.L.
92-500, § 2,  86 Stat. 832.

  §  1263. Alaska village demonstration projects

  (a) The Administrator is  authorized to enter  into agreements
with the State of Alaska to carry out one or more projects to
demonstrate methods to provide for central community  facilities
for safe water and elimination or control of pollution  in  those
native  villages of Alaska without such facilities. Such project
shall include provisions for  community safe water  supply sys-
tems, toilets, bathing and laundry facilities, sewage disposal facil-
ities, and  other similar  facilities, and educational and  informa-
tional  facilities and programs relating to health and  hygiene.
Such demonstration projects shall be for the further purpose of
developing preliminary plans for providing such safe water and
such elimination  or control of pollution for all native villages in
such State.
  (b)  In carrying out this  section the  Administrator  shall co-
operate with the  Secretary  of Health, Education, and  Welfare
for the purpose of utilizing such of the personnel  and facilities of
that Department as may be appropriate.
  (c) The Administrator shall report to Congress not later than
July 1, 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  state-
wide program.
  (d)  There  is  authorized  to  be appropriated not to exceed
$2,000,000 to carry out this section.
June 30, 1948, c. 758, Title I,  § 113,  as added Oct.  18, 1972 Pub. L.
92-500, § 2,  86 Stat. 832.

  §  1264. Lake Tahoe study

  (a)  The  Administrator, in consultation with the Tahoe Re-
gional  Planning  Agency,  the Secretary of  Agriculture,  other
Federal agencies, representatives of State and local governments,
and  members of  the public,  shall conduct a  thorough and com-
plete study  on  the adequacy of and need for extending Federal
oversight and control in order to preserve the fragile ecology of
Lake Tahoe.

-------
38           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n

  (b) Such study shall  include an examination of the interrela-
tionships and responsibilities of the various agencies of the Fed-
eral  Government and State and local governments with a  view
to establishing the necessity for redefinition of legal  and other
arrangements  between these various governments, and making
specific legislative recommendations to Congress. Such study shall
consider the effect of various actions in terms of their environ-
mental impact on the Tahoe Basin, treated as an ecosystem.
  (c) The Administrator shall report on such study to Congress
not later than one year after October 18,  1972.
  (d)  There is authorized to be  appropriated to carry out this
section not to exceed $500,000.
June 30, 1948, c. 758, Title I, § 114, as added Oct. 18, 1972, Pub.L.
92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 833.

  §  1265.  In-place toxic pollutants
  The Administration is directed to identify  the  location  of in-
place pollutants with emphasis on toxic  pollutants  in harbors
and  navigable waterways and  is  authorized, acting  through the
Secretary of the Army, to make contract? for the removal and
appropriate disposal  of such materials from critical  port and
harbor areas. There is authorized to be appropriated $15,000,000
to carry out the provisions of this  section, which sum shall be
available until expended.
June 30, 1948, c. 758, Title I, § 115, as added Oct. 18, 1972, Pub.L.
92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 833.

         SUBCHAPTER II—GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
                      TREATMENT WORKS

  §  1281.  Congressional declaration of purpose
   (a)  It  is the purpose  of this subchapter  to  require and to
assist the development and  implementation of waste treatment
management plans and practices which will achieve the goals of
this  chapter.
   (b)  Waste  treatment management  plans and  practices shall
provide for the application of the best practicable  waste treat-
ment technology before any discharge into receiving waters, in-
cluding reclaiming and recycling of water, and confined disposal
of pollutants  so they will  not migrate to cause  water  or  other
environmental pollution and  shall  provide for consideration of
advanced waste treatment techniques.
   (c)  To the  extent practicable,  waste treatment management

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY       39

shall be on an areawide basis and  provide control or treatment
of all point and nonpoint sources of pollution, including in-place
or accumulated pollution sources.
   (d) The Administrator shall encourage waste treatment man-
agement which results in the  construction of revenue-producing
facilities providing for—
      (1) the recycling of potential sewage pollutants  through
    the production  of  agriculture,  silviculture,  or aquaculture
    products, or any combination thereof;
      (2) the confined and contained disposal of pollutants not
    recycled;
      (3) the reclamation of wastewater; and
      (4) the ultimate disposal of  sludge in a manner that will
    not result in environmental hazards.
   (e) The Administrator shall encourage waste treatment man-
agement which results in integrating facilities for sewage treat-
ment and recycling with facilities to treat, dispose of, or utilize
other industrial and municipal wastes, including  but not limited
to solid  waste and waste heat and thermal discharges. Such inte-
grated facilities shall be designed and operated to produce reve-
nues in excess  of capital and  operation and maintenance costs
and such revenues shall be used by the designated regional man-
agement agency to aid in financing other environmental improve-
ment programs.
   (f) The Administrator shall encourage waste treatment man-
agement which combines "open space" and recreational consider-
ations with such management.
   (g)  (1) The Administrator is authorized to make grants to
any  State, municipality, or intermunicipal or  interstate agency
for the construction of publicly owned treatment works.
   (2) The Administrator shall not  make grants from funds au-
thorized for any fiscal year beginning after June 30, 1974, to  any
State, municipality,  or intermunicipal or interstate agency for
the erection, building, acquisition,  alteration, remodeling,  im-
provement, or extension of treatment works unless the grant ap-
plicant  has satisfactorily  demonstrated  to  the  Administrator
that—
      (A) alternative waste management techniques  have been
    studied and  evaluated and the  works proposed  for  grant
    assistance will  provide for the application of the best prac-
    ticable waste treatment technology over the life of the works
    consistent with the purposes of this subchapter; and
      (B) as appropriate, the works proposed for grant assist-

-------
40           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

    ance will take into account and allow to the extent practic-
    able the application of technology at a later date which will
    provide for the reclaiming or recycling of water or otherwise
    eliminate the discharge of pollutants.
  (3) The Administrator shall  not approve any  grant after July
1, 1973, for treatment works under this section unless the  appli-
cant shows to  the satisfaction  of the Administrator  that each
sewer collection system discharging into such treatment works
is not subject to excessive infiltration.
  (4) The Administrator is authorized to make grants to  appli-
cants for treatment works grants under this section  for such
sewer system evaluation studies as may be necessary to carry out
the requirements of paragraph (3)  of this subsection. Such grants
shall be made in  accordance with  rules and regulations promul-
gated by the Administrator. Initial rules and regulations shall be
promulgated under this paragraph not later than 120 days after
October 18, 1972.
June  30, 1948, c.  758, Title II, § 201, as added Oct.  18, 1972,
Pub.L. 92-500,  § 2, 86 Stat. 833.

  § 1282. Federal share
  (a) The amount of any grant for treatment  works made under
this chapter from funds authorized for any  fiscal year beginning
after June  30, 1971,  shall  be 75 per  centum  of  the cost of
construction  thereof (as approved by the Administrator). Any
grant  (other than for reimbursement)  made prior to October
18,  1972, from any  funds  authorized for any fiscal year  begin-
ning after June 30, 1971, shall  upon the request of the applicant,
be increased to  the applicable percentage under this section.
  (b) The amount of the grant for any project approved by the
Administrator  after January 1, 1971, and  before July 1, 1971,
for the  construction of treatment  works,  the  actual  erection,
building or acquisition of  which  was  not  commenced  prior to
July  1, 1971,  shall, upon  the  request  of the applicant,  be  in-
creased to the applicable percentage under subsection (a) of this
section  for  grants for treatment works from  funds  for fiscal
years beginning after June 30, 1971, with respect to the cost of
such  actual  erection,  building, or  acquisition.  Such  increased
amount shall be  paid  from any funds  allocated to  the State in
which the treatment works is located without  regard to the fiscal
year  for which  such  funds  were authorized.  Such  increased
amount shall be paid for such project only if—
       (1) a sewage collection  system that is  a  part of the same

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY       41

    total waste treatment system  as the treatment works for
    which such grant was approved is under construction or is to
    be constructed for use in  conjunction with  such treatment
    works, and if the cost of such sewage collection system ex-
    ceeds the cost of such treatment works, and
       (2) the State water pollution control agency or other ap-
    propriate State authority certifies that the quantity of avail-
    able ground water will be insufficient, inadequate, or unsuit-
    able for public use, including the  ecological  preservation
    and  recreational use of surface water bodies, unless  efflu-
    ents from publicly owned treatment works after adequate
    treatment are returned to  the ground water consistent with
    acceptable technological standards.
June 30, 1948, c.  758, Title II, § 202, as added  Oct. 18, 1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 834.

  § 1283. Plans, specifications, estimates, and payments
   (a) Each applicant for a grant shall submit  to the Adminis-
trator  for his approval, plans, specifications, and  estimates for
each proposed project for the  construction of treatment works
for which a grant is applied for under section 1281 (g) (1) of this
title from funds allotted to the State under section 1285 of this
title and which otherwise meets the requirements of this  chapter.
The Administrator shall act upon such plans, specifications, and
estimates as  soon  as practicable  after  the same have been sub-
mitted, and his  approval of any such  plans,  specifications,  and
estimates shall be  deemed a contractual obligation  of the United
States  for the payment of its  proportional  contribution to such
project.
   (b) The  Administrator shall, from time to time as the work
progresses, make payments to the recipient of a grant for  costs
of construction incurred on a  project.  These payments  shall at
no time exceed the Federal share of  the cost  of construction  in-
curred to the date of the voucher covering such  payment plus
the Federal  share of the value of  the materials which  have
been stockpiled in the vicinity of such construction  in conformity
to plans and specifications for the project.
   (c) After  completion  of a project and approval of the final
voucher by the Administrator, he  shall pay out of the appropriate
sums the unpaid balance of the Federal  share payable on account
of such project.
   (d)  Nothing in  this  chapter  shall  be construed to  require,
or to authorize the Administrator to require, that grants  under

-------
42           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

this  chapter for construction  of  treatment works be made only
for projects which are operable  units usable for sewage  collec-
tion, transportation,  storage, waste  treatment,  or for similar
purposes without additional construction.
June 30, 1948, c.  758,  Title II,  § 203, as  added Oct.  18,  1972,
Pub. L. 92-500, §  2, 86  Stat. 835,  and amended Jan.  2,  1974.
Pub.L. 93-243, § 2, 87 Stat. 1069.

  §  1284.  Limitations and conditions
   (a)  Before  approving grants  for  any project for  any treat-
ment works  under  section  1281 (g)  (1)  of  this title  the Ad-
ministrator shall determine—
       (1)  that  such works  are included in any  applicable area-
     wide waste treatment  management plan  developed  under
     section 1288 of this title;
       (2)  that such works are in conformity with any applicable
     State plan under section 1313 (e) of this title;
       (3)  that  such works have been certified  by the appropri-
     ate State  water pollution  control agency as  entitled  to prior-
     ity over such other works  in the State in accordance with
     any applicable State plan under section 1313 (e) of this title;
       (4)  that  the applicant  proposing to  construct such works
     agrees to pay the non-Federal costs of such works and has
     made  adequate  provisions satisfactory to the Administrator
     for assuring proper and efficient  operation, including the em-
     ployment of trained  management and  operations personnel,
     and the maintenance of  such works  in  accordance with  a
     plan of operation approved by the State water pollution con-
     trol agency or, as appropriate,  the interstate agency, after
     construction thereof;
       (5)  that the size and  capacity of such works relate directly
     to the needs to be served by such works, including  sufficient
     reserve capacity. The amount of reserve capacity  provided
     shall be approved by the Administrator on the  basis of  a
     comparison of the cost of constructing such reserves as  a
     part  of the works to  be funded  and the  anticipated cost
     of providing expanded capacity at a date when such capacity
     will be required;
       (6) that  no specification for bids in connection with such
     works shall be written in such  a manner as to contain pro-
     prietary,  exclusionary,  or discriminatory requirements other
     than those based  upon  performance, unless  such require-
     ments are necessary to test or  demonstrate a specific thing

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY       43

    or  to  provide  for  necessary interchangeability  of  parts
    and equipment,  or  at least  two  brand  names,  or  trade
    names of comparable  quality or utility are listed  and are
    followed by the words "or equal".
  (b) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchap-
ter, the  Administrator shall not approve any grant for any treat-
ment works under section 1281(g)  (1) of this title after March 1,
1973,  unless he shall first have determined that the applicant
(A)  has adopted or  will adopt a system of  charges to assure
that each recipient of waste treatment  services within the ap-
plicant's jurisdiction, as determined by  the Administrator,  will
pay its  proportionate share of  the costs of operation  and  main-
tenance (including replacement) of any waste treatment services
provided by the applicant;  (B)  has made  provision  for the
payment to such  applicant by the industrial users of the  treat-
ment works, of that portion of the cost of construction of such
treatment works  (as determined by the Administrator) which is
allocable to the treatment of such industrial wastes to the extent
attributable to the Federal share of  the cost  of  construction;
and (C) has legal,  institutional, managerial, and financial capa-
bility to insure adequate  construction,  operation, and mainte-
nance of treatment works throughout the applicant's  jurisdic-
tion, as  determined by the Administrator.
  (2) The  Administrator shall, within one hundred  and eighty
days after  October 18, 1972, and after consultation with appro-
priate State, interstate,  municipal, and intermunicipal agencies,
issue guidelines applicable to payment of waste treatment  costs
by industrial  and  nonindustrial recipients of  waste treatment
services which shall establish (A) classes of users  of such  serv-
ices, including categories of industrial users; (B) criteria against
which to determine the adequacy of charges imposed on classes
and categories of users  reflecting all factors that  influence the
cost of waste treatment,  including strength, volume, and delivery
flow rate characteristics of waste; and  (C)  model systems and
rates of user charges typical of various treatment works serving
municipal-industrial communities.
  (3) The grantee shall retain an amount of the revenues  de-
rived  from  the payment of costs by industrial users of  waste
treatment services, to the extent costs  are attributable to the
Federal share  of  eligible project costs  provided  pursuant to this
subchapter as  determined  by the Administrator, equal to  (A)
the amount of  the non-Federal cost of such project paid by the
grantee plus (B) the amount, determined in accordance with reg-

-------
44           LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

illations promulgated by the Administrator, necessary for future
expansion and reconstruction of the project, except that such re-
tained amount shall  not exceed  50  per centum of such revenues
from  such project. All revenues from such project  not retained
by the grantee shall be deposited  by the  Administrator in the
Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. That portion of the revenues
retained by  the  grantee attributable  to  clause  (B)  of the first
sentence  of  this paragraph, together with any interest thereon
shall  be used solely  for  the purposes of future expansion and
reconstruction of the project.
  (4)  Approval by  the Administrator of a grant  to  an  inter-
state  agency established by interstate compact for any treatment
works shall  satisfy  any other requirement that such  works  be
authorized by Act of  Congress.
June  30, 1948, c. 758, Title II, §  204, as added Oct.  18, 1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 835.

  § 1285.  Allotment of grant funds
  (a)  Sums authorized to be appropriated pursuant  to  section
1287  of this title for each  fiscal year beginning after June 30,
1972, shall  be allotted by the Administrator  not later than the
January  1st immediately  preceding the beginning  of  the fiscal
year  for which  authorized, except that  the  allotment  for fiscal
year 1973 shall be made not later than 30 days after October 18,
1972.  Such  sums  shall be allotted  among  the States by the
Administrator in  accordance with regulations promulgated  by
him,  in the ratio that the  estimated  cost  of constructing  all
needed publicly  owned treatment works in each  State bears to
the estimated cost of construction  of all needed publicly owned
treatment works in all of  the  States,  For the fiscal years ending
June  30, 1973, and June 30, 1974, such ratio shall be determined
on  the basis of table III  of House Public  Works Committee
Print No. 92-50. For the  fiscal  year  ending June 30, 1975, such
ratio  shall  be determined one-half on the basis of table I of
House Public Works Committee Print Numbered 93-28 and one-
half on the  basis of  table II of  such  print, except that no State
shall  receive an allotment less  than  that  which it  received for
the fiscal  year ending June 30, 1972, as set forth in table III
of such print. Allotments for fiscal years which begin after the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1975,  shall be made only  in accord-
ance  with a revised cost  estimate  made and submitted to Con-
gress in  accordance  with  section 1375(b)  of  this title and only
after such  revised cost estimate  shall have  been approved  by
law specifically enacted after October 18,1972.

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY       45

  (b)(l) Any sums allotted to a State under subsection (a) of
this section shall be available for obligation under section  1283
of this title on and after the date of such allotment. Such sums
shall continue available for obligation in such State for a period
of one year after the close of the fiscal year for which such sums
are authorized. Any amounts so allotted which are not obligated
by the end  of such one-year period shall be immediately reallotted
by the Administrator,  in accordance  with regulations  promul-
gated by him, generally on the basis of the ratio used in making
the last  allotment  of  sums under  this section. Such reallotted
sums  shall be added to the last allotments made  to  the States.
Any sum made  available to  a State by  reallotment under  this
subsection  shall be in  addition to any funds otherwise  allotted
to such State for grants under this subchapter during any fiscal
year.
  (2) Any sums which have been  obligated under section  1283
of this title and which are released by the  payment  of the final
voucher for the project shall be immediately credited to the State
to which such sums were last allotted.  Such released sums  shall
be added to the  amounts last allotted to such State and  shall be
immediately available for obligation in the  same manner and to
the same extent as such last allotment.
June  30, 1948, c. 758,  Title  II, § 205, as  added  Oct. 18,  1972
Pub.L. 92-500,  § 2, 86 Stat. 837, and amended  Jan. 2, 1974,
Pub.L. 93-243, § 1, 87 Stat. 1069.

  § 1286. Reimbursement and  advanced  construction—Publicly
owned treatment works construction initiated after June  30, 1966,
but before July 1,1972; reimbursement formula.
  (a) Any publicly owned treatment works in a State on which
construction  was initiated after June  30, 1966, but  before July
1, 1972,  which  was approved  by the  appropriate State water
pollution control agency and which the Administrator finds meets
the requirements of section 8 of this Act  in effect  at  the time of
the initiation of construction shall be reimbursed a total amount
equal to  the difference between the amount of Federal financial
assistance, if any, received under such section 8 for such project
and 50 percentum of the cost of such project, or 55 percentum
of the project cost where the Administrator also determines that
such  treatment  works was constructed  in conformity  with  a
comprehensive metropolitan treatment  plan as described in  sec-
tion 8(f) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as in effect
immediately prior to the date of enactment of the  Federal Water

-------
46           LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. Nothing in this sub-
section shall  result in any such works  receiving Federal grants
from  all  sources  in excess of 80 percentum of  the cost of such
project.

   Publicly owned treatment works construction initiated  between June 30,
             1956, and June 30, 1966, reimbursement formula

  (b) Any publicly owned treatment works constructed with or
eligible for Federal financial assistance  under this Act in a State
between June 30, 1956, and June  30, 1966, which was  approved
by the State water pollution control agency and which the  Ad-
ministrator finds meets the requirements of section 8 of this Act
prior to  the  date of  enactment of the  Federal  Water  Pollution
Control Act  Amendments of 1972 but which  was  constructed
without assistance under  such section 8 or which received such
assistance in amount less  than 30 percentum of the cost of such
project shall qualify  for  payments and reimbursement of State
or local funds used for such project from sums  allocated to such
State under  this section  in an amount which  shall not  exceed
the difference between the amount of such assistance, if any,
received  for  such project and 30  percentum of  the  cost of such
project.

                   Application for reimbursement

   (c) No publicly owned  treatment works shall  receive any pay-
ment or reimbursement under subsection (a) or (b)  of this sec-
tion unless an application  for such assistance is filed with the Ad-
ministrator within the one year period which begins on October
18, 1972. Any application filed within such one  year period may
be revised from time to time, as may be necessary.

                       Allocation of funds

   (d) The Administrator shall  allocate to each qualified project
under subsection  (a)  of this section each fiscal year for which
funds are  appropriated under subsection  (e) of this section an
amount which bears the same ratio to the unpaid balance of the
reimbursement due  such  project as the total of such  funds  for
such  year bears to the total unpaid balance of  reimbursement
due all such  approved projects on the date of enactment of such
appropriation. The Administrator shall allocate to each qualified
project under subsection  (b) of this section each fiscal year for
which funds are appropriated under subsection (e)  of this sec-

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY       47

tion an amount which bears the same ratio to the unpaid balance
of the  reimbursement due such project as the total of such funds
for such year bears to the  total  unpaid balance  of reimburse-
ment due all such  approved projects on the date of enactment
of such appropriation.

                   Authorization of appropriations
   (e)  There is authorized to be appropriated to carry  out  sub-
section (a)  of this section  not  to exceed $2,600,000,000 and, to
carry out subsection (b) of this section, not to exceed $750,000,-
000. The authorizations contained  in  this  subsection  shall be
the sole  source of funds for reimbursements authorized by this
section.

                        Additional funds
   (f)(l)  In any case where all funds  allotted to  a  State under
this subchapter  have been obligated under section 1283 of this
title, and there  is  construction  of any treatment  works project
without  the aid  of Federal funds  and in accordance  with all
procedures  and  all requirements applicable  to treatment works
projects, except those  procedures and requirements  which limit
construction of  projects to those  constructed with the aid of
previously allotted Federal funds,  the  Administrator, upon his
approval of an application made under this subsection  therefor,
is authorized to  pay the Federal share of the cost of construction
of such project  when additional funds are allotted to the State
under  this subchapter if prior to the construction  of the project
the Administrator  approves plans,  specifications,  and  estimates
therefor  in  the same manner as other treatment works  projects.
The Administrator may not approve an application under  this
subsection unless an authorization  is  in  effect for the future
fiscal  year  for which  the  application requests payment, which
authorization will  insure such  payment  without  exceeding the
State's expected  allotment from such  authorization.
   (2)  In determining the  allotment for any fiscal  year under
this subchapter, any treatment  works project  constructed in ac-
cordance with this  section  and without the aid of  Federal funds
shall not be considered completed until an application under the
provisions of this subsection with respect to such project  has been
approved by the Administrator,  or the  availability  of funds
from which this project is  eligible for reimbursement has ex-
pired, whichever first occurs.
June 30,  1948, c. 758, Title II, §  206,  as added  Oct  18, 1972,

-------
48           LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

Pub.L. 92-500, § 2,  86 Stat.  838,  and amended Dec. 28, 1973,
Pub.L. 93-207, § 1(2), 87 Stat. 906.

  § 1287.  Authorization of appropriations

  There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this sub-
chapter, other than sections 1288 and 1289 of this title, for the
fiscal  year ending June 30, 1973, not to exceed $5,000,000,000,
for the  fiscal  year ending June  30,  1974,  not  to  exceed
$6,000,000,000, and  for the  fiscal  year ending  June 30, 1975,
not to exceed $7,000,000,000.
June  30, 1948, c. 758,  Title  II, § 207, as added Oct.  18, 1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 839.

  § 1288.  Areawide waste treatment management—Identification
and designation of areas having substantial water quality control
problems

   (a)  For the purpose of encouraging  and facilitating the de-
velopment and implementation of areawide waste treatment man-
agement plans—
       (1)  The Administrator, within ninety  days  after October
    18, 1972, and after consultation  with appropriate  Federal,
    State, and  local authorities,  shall by  regulations publish
    guidelines for the  identification  of  those areas which, as a
    result of urban-industrial  concentrations or other factors,
    have substantial water quality control problems.
       (2) The Governor  of  each State, within sixty  days after
    publication of the  guidelines issued pursuant to  paragraph
    (1) of this subsection, shall  identify each area  within the
    State  which, as a  result of urban-industrial concentrations
    or other factors, has  substantial water quality control prob-
    lems. Not later than one hundred and twenty days following
    such  identification  and after consultation with appropriate
    elected and other officials of local governments having juris-
    diction in such areas,  the Governor shall  designate  (A)
    the boundaries of each such area, and (B) a single represen-
    tative organization, including elected officials from local gov-
    ernments or their  designees,  capable of developing effective
    areawide waste treatment management plans for such area.
    The Governor may in  the same  manner at any later time
    identify any additional  area (or modify an existing area)
    for which he determines areawide waste treatment manage-
    ment  to be appropriate, designate the boundaries of such

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY       49

    area,  and designate an organization capable of developing
    effective areawide waste  treatment management plans for
    such area.
      (3)  With  respect  to  any area  which, pursuant  to the
    guidelines published under paragraph (1) of this subsection,
    is located in two or more States, the Governors  of the re-
    spective  States shall  consult and cooperate in carrying out
    the provisions of paragraph  (2), with a view toward desig-
    nating the boundaries of the interstate area having common
    water quality control problems and for which areawide waste
    treatment management plans would  be  most effective,  and
    toward designating,  within  one hundred and  eighty  days
    after publication of guidelines issued pursuant to paragraph
    (1) of this  subsection,  of a  single representative organiza-
    tion capable of developing effective  areawide waste treat-
    ment management plans for such area.
      (4)  If a Governor  does not act,  either by designating or
    determining  not to make a designation  under  paragraph
    (2)  of this subsection, within  the time required by  such
    paragraph, or if, in the case of an interstate area, the  Gov-
    ernors of the States  involved do not designate  a planning
    organization within the time required by paragraph (3) of
    this subsection, the chief elected officials of local  govern-
    ments  within  an  area may by agreement designate   (A)
    the boundaries for such an area, and (B) a single represen-
    tative organization including elected officials from such  local
    governments, or their designees, capable  of developing an
    areawide waste treatment management plan for  such  area.
      (5)  Existing regional agencies may be designated under
    paragraphs  (2), (3), and (4)  of this subsection.
      (6)  The State shall act as a planning agency for all por-
    tions of such State which are  not designated  under para-
    graphs (2),  (3), or (4) of this subsection.
      (7)  Designations under this  subsection  shall be subject
    to the approval of the  Administrator.

                        Planning process '
  (b) (1) Not later than  one year after the date of  designation
of any  organization under  subsection  (a) of  this section  such
organization  shall  have  in  operation  a continuing  areawide
waste treatment management planning  process  consistent  with
section  1281  of this title. Plans prepared in accordance with this
process  shall contain alternatives for waste treatment manage-

-------
50           LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

ment, and be applicable to all wastes generated within the area
involved. The initial plan prepared in accordance with such proc-
ess shall be certified by the Governor and submitted to the  Ad-
ministrator not later than two years after the planning process is
in operation.
  (2) Any plan prepared under  such process shall include,  but
not be limited to—
      (A)  the identification  of  treatment works necessary to
    meet the anticipated municipal and  industrial waste treat-
    ment needs of the area over a twenty-year period, annually
    updated  (including an  analysis of alternative waste treat-
    ment systems), including any requirements for the acquisi-
    tion of land for treatment  purposes; the  necessary waste
    water collection  and urban storm water runoff systems;  and
    a program to provide the necessary financial arrangement
    for the development of such treatment works;
      (B)  the  establishment of construction priorities for such
    treatment works and time schedules for the initiation  and
    completion of all treatment works;
      (C) the establishment of a regulatory program to—
           (i)  implement the waste treatment  management re-
         quirements of section 1281 (c) of this title,
           (ii)  regulate the location, modification, and  construc-
         tion of any  facilities within such area which may result
         in any discharge in such area, and
           (iii) assure that any industrial or commercial wastes
         discharged into any treatment  works in such area meet
         applicable pretreatment requirements;
      (D)  the  identification of those agencies  necessary to  con-
    struct, operate,  and maintain  all facilities required by the
    plan and otherwise to carry out the plan;
      (E)  the  identification of the measures necessary  to carry
    out the plan  (including financing),  the period of time neces-
    sary to carry out the plan, the costs of carrying out the plan
    within such  time,  and the  economic,  social,  and  environ-
    mental impact of carrying  out the plan within such time;
      (F)  a process to  (i) identify, if appropriate, agricultur-
    ally and silviculturally related nonpoint sources of pollution,
    including runoff from manure disposal areas,  and from land
    used for livestock and  crop  production, and  (ii)  set forth
    procedures and  methods  (including land use  requirements)
    to control to the extent feasible such sources;
      (G)  a process to (i) identify, if  appropriate, mine-related

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY       51

    sources of pollution including new, current, and abandoned
    surface and  underground mine  runoff, and  (ii)  set forth
    procedures and  methods  (including land use requirements)
    to control to the extent feasible such sources;
       (H) a process to  (i) identify construction activity-related
    sources of pollution, and (ii) set  forth procedures and meth-
    ods (including land use requirements)  to  control to the ex-
    tent feasible such sources;
       (I)  a  process to  (i) identify, if appropriate, salt water
    intrusion into rivers, lakes,  and  estuaries resulting  from
    reduction of  fresh water  flow from any cause, including ir-
    rigation,  obstruction,  ground water extraction, and diver-
    sion, and (ii) set  forth procedures and methods to control
    such intrusion to the extent feasible where such procedures
    and methods  are otherwise a part of  the waste treatment
    management plan;
       (J)  a process to control  the  disposition of all residual
    waste  generated in such area  which could affect water
    quality; and
       (K) a process to control the disposal of  pollutants on land
    or  in  subsurface excavations within such area  to protect
    ground and surface water  quality.
  (3)  Area wide  waste  treatment  management plans  shall  be
certified annually by the Governor or his designee (or Governors
or their designees, where  more than one State is involved) as
being consistent with applicable  basin  plans and such areawide
waste  treatment  management plans  shall  be  submitted to the
Administrator for his approval.
  (4)  Whenever  the Governor of any  State  determines  (and
notifies the Administrator) that  consistency  with a  statewide
regulatory  program  under section 1313  of this title so  requires,
the requirements  of clauses  (F)  through (K)  of  paragraph
(2) of this subsection shall be  developed and submitted by the
Governor to the Administrator for application to all regions with-
in such State.

                    Regional operating  agencies
  (c)  (1) The Governor of each State,  in consultation  with the
planning agency designated under subsection (a) of this section,
at the time a plan is submitted to the Administrator, shall desig-
nate one or more  waste  treatment management agencies (which
may be an existing or  newly created local, regional,  or  State
agency or political subdivision) for each area designated under

-------
52           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

subsection  (a)  of this section and submit such  designations to
the Administrator.
  (2) The  Administrator shall accept any such designation, un-
less, within 120 days of such designation, he finds that the desig-
nated management agency (or agencies) does not have adequate
authority—
       (A)  to carry  out appropriate  portions  of  an  areawide
    waste  treatment  management plan developed under subsec-
    tion (b) of this section;
       (B)  to manage effectively waste  treatment works and re-
    lated facilities serving  such area in  conformance with  any
    plan required by subsection (b) of this section;
       (C)  directly or by contract, to design and construct new
    works, and to operate and maintain new and existing works
    as required by any plan developed pursuant to subsection (b)
    of this section;
       (D) to  accept and utilize  grants,  or other funds from
    any source, for waste treatment management purposes;
       (E)  to raise revenues,  including the assessment of waste
    treatment charges;
       (F)  to incur short- and long-term indebtedness;
       (G) to assure in implementation  of an  areawide waste
    treatment management plan that each participating commu-
    nity pays its proportionate share of treatment costs;
       (H) to refuse to receive any wastes from any municipality
    or subdivision thereof, which  does not comply with any pro-
    visions of an approved plan  under  this section applicable
    to such area; and
       (I)  to accept for treatment industrial wastes.

                 Conformity of works with area plan
   (d)  After  a waste treatment management agency having the
authority required by subsection  (c)  of this section  has  been
designated under such subsection for an area and a plan for such
area has been approved under subsection (b)  of  this section,
the Administrator shall  not make any grant for construction of
a publicly  owned treatment works  under section 1281  (g)  (1)
of this title within such area except to such designated agency
and for works in conformity with such plan.

              Permits not to conflict with approved plans
   (e) No permit under  section 1342 of this title shall be issued
for any  point source which is in  conflict  with  a plan approved
pursuant to subsection (b) of this section.

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY       53

                            Grants
   (f)  (1)  The Administrator shall  make grants to any agency
designated under subsection  (a)  of  this section for payment of
the reasonable costs of developing  and operating  a continuing
areawide waste treatment management planning  process under
subsection (b) of this section.
   (2) The amount granted to any agency under paragraph (1)
of this subsection shall be 100 percentum of the costs of develop-
ing and operating a continuing areawide waste treatment man-
agement  planning process under subsection  (b)  of this section
for each  of the fiscal years ending  on June 30,  1973, June 30,
1974, and  June 30, 1975, and  shall  not exceed  75 percentum
of such costs in each succeeding fiscal  year.
   (3)  Each applicant for a grant  under this subsection  shall
submit to the Administrator for his approval each proposal for
which a grant is applied for under this subsection. The Adminis-
trator shall act upon such proposal as soon as practicable after it
has been submitted, and his approval of that proposal shall be
deemed a contractual  obligation of the United  States for the
payment  of its contribution to such proposal. There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out  this  subsection  not to exceed
$50,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, not to exceed
$100,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, and not to
exceed $150,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,  1975.

                Technical assistance by administrator
   (g) The Administrator  is authorized, upon request of the Gov-
ernor or the designated planning agency, and without reimburse-
ment, to  consult  with, and provide  technical assistance  to,  any
agency designated under  subsection (a)  of this section in the
development  of areawide  waste  treatment  management plans
under subsection (b) of this section.

             Technical assistance by Secretary of the Army
   (h)  (1) The Secretary of the Army, acting through  the Chief
of Engineers, in cooperation with the Administrator is authorized
and  directed,  upon request of the  Governor or the designated
planning organization, to  consult with, and provide technical as-
sistance to, any agency designated under subsection (a) of this
section in developing and  operating  a continuing areawide waste
treatment management planning process under subsection (b) of
this section.

-------
54           LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

  (2) There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of
the Army, to carry out this  subsection, not to exceed $50,000,000
per fiscal year for the fiscal years ending June 30,  1973,  and
June 30,1974.
June 30, 1948, c.  758, Title II, § 208, as added Oct.  18, 1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 839.

  §  1289. Basin planning

  (a) The President, acting through the Water Resources Coun-
cil,  shall, as  soon  as practicable, prepare a Level B plan under
the Water Resources Planning Act  for all basins in the United
States. All such plans shall  be completed not later than January
1, 1980,  except that priority in the preparation of such plans
shall be  given to  those basins and portions  thereof  which are
within those areas designated under paragraphs  (2),  (3),  and
(4) of subsection (a) of section 1288 of this title.
  (b) The President, acting through the Water Resources Coun-
cil,  shall report annually to  Congress  on progress being made
in carrying  out this  section. The first such report shall be  sub-
mitted not later than January 31, 1973.
  (c) There is  authorized to be appropriated to carry out  this
section not to exceed $200,000,000.
June 30,  1948,  c.  758, Title II,  §  209, as added Oct. 18, 1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 843.

  § 1290. Annual  survey
  The Administrator shall annually make a  survey to  determine
the efficiency of the operation  and maintenance of  treatment
works constructed with grants made under this chapter, as com-
pared to the efficiency planned at the time the grant  was made.
The results  of such annual survey shall be included in the report
required under section 1375 (a) of this title.
June  30, 1948,  c.  758, Title  II,  § 210, as added Oct. 18, 1972,
Pub.L. 92-500,  §  2, 86 Stat.  843.

  § 1291. Sewage  collection systems
  No grant shall  be made for a sewage collection system under
this subchapter unless such grant (1) is for replacement or major
rehabilitation of an  existing collection system and is necessary to
the total integrity and performance of the waste treatment works
servicing such community, or (2) is for a new collection system
in  an  existing community with sufficient existing or  planned

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY       55

capacity adequately to treat such collected sewage and is consist-
ent with section 1281 of this title.
June 30, 1948, c.  758,  Title II, § 211, as added Oct.  18,  1972,
Pub. L. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 843.

  § 1292. Definitions

  As used in this subchapter—
   (1) The term "construction"  means any one  or  more of the
following: preliminary  planning to  determine  the feasibility of
treatment works, engineering, architectural,  legal, fiscal,  or eco-
nomic investigations or studies, surveys,  designs,  plans, work-
ing drawings, specifications, procedures, or  other necessary ac-
tions, erection, building, acquisition, alteration,  remodeling, im-
provement, or extension of treatment works,  or the inspection or
supervision of any of the foregoing items.
   (2) (A) The term "treatment works" means any devices and
systems used  in the storage, treatment, recycling, and reclama-
tion of municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature
to implement  section 1281 of this title, or necessary to  recycle
or reuse water at the most economical cost over the estimated
life of the works, including intercepting sewers, outfall  sewers,
sewage  collection  systems,  pumping, power, and  other  equip-
ment, and their  appurtenances; extensions, improvements, re-
modeling, additions, and alterations thereof; elements essential
to provide a reliable recycled supply such as standby treatment
units and clear well facilities; and any works,  including  site ac-
quisition of the land that will be an integral part of the treatment
process  or is used for ultimate disposal of residues resulting from
such treatment.
   (B)  In addition to the  definition contained in subparagraph
(A) of this  paragraph,  "treatment  works" means  any  other
method  or  system for preventing, abating, reducing, storing,
treating, separating, or disposing of municipal waste, including
storm water runoff,  or  industrial waste, including waste in com-
bined storm water and sanitary sewer systems.  Any application
for construction grants which  includes wholly or in part such
methods or systems shall,  in  accordance with  guidelines pub-
lished  by  the Administrator   pursuant  to  subparagraph  (C)
of this  paragraph, contain adequate  data and analysis  demon-
strating such proposal to  be, over  the life  of  such works, the
most cost efficient alternative to  comply with sections 1311 or
1312 of this title, or the  requirements of section  1281  of this
title.

-------
56           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

  (C) For the purposes of subparagraph (B)  of this paragraph,
the Administrator shall,  within  one hundred and  eighty  days
after  October 18, 1972, publish  and  thereafter revise no less
often  than annually,  guidelines for the evaluation  of  methods,
including cost-effective analysis, described  in  subparagraph (B)
of this paragraph.
  (3) The term "replacement" as used in this subchapter means
those  expenditures  for  obtaining and installing equipment, ac-
cessories, or  appurtenances during the useful life of the  treat-
ment works necessary to maintain the capacity and performance
for which such works are designed and constructed.
June 30,  1948, c. 758, Title II, § 212, as added  Oct.  18, 1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 844.

         SUBCHAPTER III—STANDARDS AND ENFORCEMENT

  § 1311. Effluent limitations—Illegality of pollutant discharges
except in compliance with law
  (a) Except as in  compliance  with this section and sections
1312,  1316, 1317, 1328, 1342, and 1344 of this  title, the  discharge
of any pollutant by any person shall be unlawful.

                Timetable for achievement of objectives
  (b) In order to carry out the objective of this chapter there
shall be achieved—
       (1) (A)  not later  than July 1,  1977,  effluent limitations
    for point sources, other than publicly owned treatment works,
    (i)  which shall require the  application of  the best practic-
    able control technology currently available as denned by the
    Administrator pursuant to section 1314 (b) of this title, or
     (ii) in the case of a discharge into a publicly owned treat-
    ment works which meets the requirements of subparagraph
     (B) of this paragraph, which  shall require compliance with
    any applicable pretreatment requirements and  any require-
    ments under section 1317 of this title; and
       (B) for publicly owned treatment works in  existence on
    July 1, 1977, or  approved pursuant to section  1283 of this
    title prior to June 30,  1974 (for  which construction  must
    be  completed within  four years of approval), effluent limi-
    tations based upon secondary treatment as  denned by the
    Administrator pursuant to section 1314 (d) (1) of this title;
    or,
       (C) not later than July 1, 1977, any more stringent limi-

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY       57

    tation, including  those  necessary to  meet  water  quality
    standards, treatment standards, or schedules  of compliance,
    established pursuant to any State  law or regulations (under
    authority preserved by section 1370 of this title)  or  any
    other Federal law or  regulation,  or  required to implement
    any applicable  water quality standard  established pursuant
    to this chapter.
      (2) (A) not later than July 1, 1983, effluent limitations
    for categories and classes of point sources, other than publicly
    owned treatment works,  which  (i) shall require application
    of the  best available technology economically  achievable
    for such  category or class, which  will result in  reason-
    able further progress toward the national goal of eliminating
    the discharge of  all  pollutants, as determined in accordance
    with  regulations issued  by the Administrator  pursuant to
    section 1314 (b) (2) of this title,  which such  effluent limita-
    tions  shall require the elimination of  discharges of all pollu-
    tants if the Administrator finds, on the basis  of information
    available to him  (including information developed pursuant
    to section 1325 of this title), that such elimination is tech-
    nologically and economically achievable for  a  category or
    class of point sources as determined in accordance with regu-
    lations  issued  by the Administrator  pursuant to  section
    1314(b)  (2) of this title, or  (ii)  in the case of the intro-
    duction  of  a  pollutant  into  a publicly owned  treatment
    works which meets  the requirements of subparagraph  (B)
    of this  paragraph,  shall  require  compliance with  any ap-
    plicable pretreatment  requirements and any  other require-
    ment under section 1317 of this title; and
      (B) not later  than  July 1, 1983, compliance by all pub-
    licly owned  treatment  works with  the requirements set forth
    in section 1281  (g)(2)  (A) of this title.

                     Modification of timetable
  (c) The Administrator may modify the requirements  of  sub-
section (b)  (2)  (A)  of this  section with respect to  any point
source for which a  permit  application  is filed after July 1, 1977,
upon  a showing by the owner or operator  of such  point source
satisfactory  to  the Administrator  that  such  modified require-
ments (1) will represent the maximum use  of technology within
the economic capability  of  the owner  or operator;  and  (2)
will result in reasonable further progress toward the elimination
of the discharge of pollutants.

-------
58           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

               Review and revision of effluent limitations
  (d) Any effluent limitation required by paragraph (2) of sub-
section  (b)  of this section shall be reviewed at least every five
years and, if appropriate, revised pursuant to the procedure es-
tablished under such paragraph.

        All point discharge source application of effluent limitations

  (e) Effluent limitations established pursuant to this section
or section 1312 of this title shall be applied to all point sources
of discharge of pollutants in accordance  with the provisions  of
this chapter.

        Illegality of discharge of radiological, chemical, or biological
             warfare agents or high-level radioactive waste
  (f) Notwithstanding  any other provisions of this chapter it
shall be unlawful to discharge any radiological, chemical, or bio-
logical  warfare  agent  or high-level radioactive waste  into  the
navigable waters.
June  30, 1948, c. 758,  Title III,  § 301,  as added Oct. 18, 1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, §  2, 86 Stat. 844.

  § 1312. Water quality related effluent limitations

  (a)  Whenever, in the  judgment of  the Administrator, dis-
charges of  pollutants  from  a point source  or group  of point
sources, with the application of effluent limitations required un-
der section  1311 (b)  (2) of this  title, would interfere  with the
attainment  or maintenance of that water quality  in a specific
portion of the navigable waters which shall assure  protection of
public water  supplies,  agricultural and  industrial uses, and the
protection and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish,
fish and wildlife, and allow recreational activities in  and on the
water,  effluent limitations (including alternative  effluent control
strategies)  for such point source  or sources shall be established
which can reasonably be expected to contribute to the attainment
or maintenance of such water quality.
   (b)  (1)  Prior to establishment of any effluent limitation pur-
suant to subsection (a) of this section, the Administrator shall
issue notice of  intent to  establish  such  limitation and  within
ninety days of such notice hold a public hearing to determine the
relationship of the economic  and social  costs of achieving any
such  limitation or limitations, including  any economic  or social
dislocation in the affected community or communities, to the so-

-------
         WATER—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY       59

cial and economic benefits to be obtained  (including the attain-
ment of the objective of this chapter) and to determine whether
or not such effluent limitations can be implemented with available
technology or other alternative control strategies.
   (2)  If a person affected by  such  limitation demonstrates at
such  hearing  that (whether or not  such  technology or other
alternative control strategies are available) there  is no  reason-
able relationship between the economic and social  costs and the
benefits to  be  obtained  (including attainment of the objective of
this chapter),  such limitation shall not become effective and the
Administrator shall adjust such limitation  as  it applies to such
person.
   (c)  The establishment of  effluent  limitations under this  sec-
tion shall not operate to delay the application of any effluent limi-
tation established under section 1311 of this title.
June  30, 1948, c.  758, Title  III, § 302, as  added  Oct.  18, 1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 846.

  § 1313. Water quality standards and implementation plans—
Existing water quality standards
   (a)  (1)  In  order to carry out the purpose of  this  chapter,
any water quality standard applicable to interstate  waters which
was  adopted by any State and  submitted  to,  and  approved by,
or is  awaiting approval by,  the Administrator pursuant to  this
Act as  in effect immediately  prior to the date of  enactment of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972,
shall remain in  effect unless the Administrator determines that
such standard is not consistent with the applicable requirements
of this  Act as in  effect immediately prior to the date  of enact-
ment  of the Federal Water  Pollution Control  Act Amendments
of 1972. If the  Administrator  makes such a  determination he
shall, within  three months after October  18, 1972, notify the
State and specify the changes needed to meet such  requirements.
If such changes  are not adopted by the State within ninety days
after  the date of such notification, the Administrator shall pro-
mulgate such  changes in accordance with subsection  (b)  of  this
section.
  (2)  Any  State  which, before October 18, 1972, has adopted,
pursuant to its  own law, water  quality standards  applicable to
intrastate waters  shall  submit such  standards to  the  Adminis-
trator within  thirty days after October 18,  1972.  Each such
standard shall remain  in effect, in the same manner and  to the
same  extent as  any other  water quality  standard  established

-------
60           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
                                *

under this chapter unless the Administrator determines that such
standard is inconsistent with the applicable requirements of this
Act as in effect immediately prior to  the  date  of enactment of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
If the Administrator makes such a determination he shall not
later than  the one hundred and twentieth day after the date
of submission of such standards, notify the  State  and specify
the changes needed to meet such requirements.  If such changes
are not adopted by the State within ninety days after such noti-
fication,  the  Administrator shall promulgate  such changes  in
accordance with subsection (b) of this section.
   (3)  (A)  Any State which prior  to October 18, 1972, has not
adopted pursuant to its own laws water quality standards  appli-
cable to intrastate waters shall, not later than one hundred and
eighty days after October 18, 1972,  adopt and submit such stand-
ards to the Administrator.
   (B)  If the Administrator determines that any such standards
are consistent with the applicable  requirements of  this Act as
in effect  immediately prior to the date of enactment of the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, he shall
approve such standards.
   (C)  If the Administrator determines that any such standards
are not consistent with the applicable requirements of this Act as
in effect immediately prior to the date of enactment of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments  of 1972, he shall, not
later than the ninetieth day after the date  of submission of such
standards,  notify  the  State and  specify  the  changes to  meet
such requirements. If such changes are not adopted by the State
within ninety days after the  date  of  notification, the Adminis-
trator  shall promulgate  such standards pursuant to subsection
(b) of this section.

                      Proposed regulations
   (b)  (1)  The Administrator  shall promptly prepare and pub-
lish proposed regulations setting forth water quality standards
for a State in accordance with  the applicable  requirements of
this Act  as in effect immediately prior to the date of enactment
of the Federal Water Pollution  Control  Act  Amendments  of
1972, if—
       (A) the  State  fails to submit  water quality standards
    within the times prescribed in  subsection (a) of this section.
       (B) a  water quality standard  submitted by such  State
    under  subsection  (a)  of  this  section  is determined  by the

-------
         WATER—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY       61

    Administrator not to be consistent with  the applicable re-
    quirements of subsection (a) of this section.
  (2)  The Administrator shall  promulgate any water quality
standard published in a proposed regulation not later than one
hundred and ninety days after the date he publishes any such
proposed standard, unless prior to such promulgation, such State
has adopted a water quality standard  which the Administrator
determines to be in accordance with subsection  (a)  of  this sec-
tion.

                Review; revised standards; publication
  (c)  (1) The Governor of a State or  the State water pollution
control agency of such  State  shall from  time to time  (but at
least  once each three-year period  beginning  with  October  18,
1972) hold public hearings for the  purpose of reviewing applica-
ble  water quality standards and, as appropriate, modifying and
adopting standards. Results of such review shall be  made avail-
able to the Administrator.
  (2)  Whenever the State revises or adopts a new standard, such
revised or new standard shall be submitted to the Administrator.
Such  revised or new water quality standard shall consist of the
designated uses  of the navigable waters involved and the water
quality criteria  for such  waters  based  upon  such  uses. Such
standards shall be such as to protect the public health or welfare,
enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes of this chap-
ter. Such standards shall be established taking into consideration
their use and value for public water supplies, propagation of fish
and wildlife,  recreational purposes, and agricultural, industrial,
and other purposes, and also taking into consideration their use
and value for navigation.
  (3)  If the  Administrator, within sixty days after  the date of
submission of the revised or new standard, determines that such
standard meets the  requirements of this chapter, such standard
shall thereafter be  the water quality standard  for the applicable
waters  of that State.  If  the Administrator determines  that
any such revised or new standard is not consistent with the ap-
plicable requirements  of this  chapter, he shall  not later than
the ninetieth day after the date of submission of such standard
notify the State and specify the changes  to meet such require-
ments.  If  such  changes  are not adopted by  the State  within
ninety days after the date of notification, the Administrator shall
promulgate such standard  pursuant to paragraph  (4)  of this
subsection.
  (4)  The Administrator shall  promptly prepare and  publish

-------
62           LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

proposed regulations setting forth a revised or new water quality
standard for the navigable waters involved—
       (A) if a revised or new water quality standard submitted
    by such  State under paragraph (3) of this  subsection for
    such  waters  is determined by the Administrator not to be
    consistent with the applicable requirements of this chapter,
    or
       (B) in any case where the Administrator determines that
    a  revised or  new standard is necessary to meet the require-
    ments of this chapter.
The Administrator shall promulgate any revised or new standard
under  this paragraph not later than ninety days after he pub-
lishes  such proposed standards,  unless prior  to such promulga-
tion, such State  has adopted a revised or new water quality
standard  which the  Administrator determines to be in accord-
ance with this chapter.
    Identification of areas with insufficient controls; maximum daily load
   (d)  (1) (A)  Each State shall  identify those waters within its
boundaries for  which the effluent limitations required by section
1311(b) (1) (A) of this title and section 1311 (b) (1) (B) of this
title are not stringent enough to implement any water quality
standard  applicable  to such  waters.  The State shall establish a
priority ranking for  such waters, taking into account the severity
of the  pollution and the uses to be made of such waters.
   (B)  Each  State shall  identify those  waters or parts thereof
within its boundaries for which controls on thermal discharges
under  section 1311 of this title are not stringent enough to assure
protection and propagation of a balanced indigenous population
of shellfish, fish, and wildlife.
   (C)  Each State shall establish for the waters identified in para-
graph  (1) (A) of this subsection,  and in accordance with  the
priority ranking, the total maximum daily load, for those pollu-
tants  which the  Administrator identifies under section 1314(a)
 (2) of this title as suitable for such calculation. Such load shall be
established at a level necessary to implement the applicable water
quality standards with seasonal variations and a margin of safety
which  takes into account any lack of knowledge  concerning  the
relationship between effluent limitations and water quality.
   (D) Each State shall estimate for the waters identified in para-
graph  (1) (B)  of this subsection the total maximum daily ther-
mal load  required to assure protection and propagation of a bal-
anced, indigenous population of  shellfish, fish and wildlife. Such
estimates shall take  into account the normal water temperatures,

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY       63

flow rates, seasonal variations, existing sources  of heat input, and
the dissipative capacity of the identified waters or parts thereof.
Such estimates shall include a calculation  of the maximum heat
input that can be made into each such part and shall include a
margin of safety which takes into  account any lack of knowl-
edge concerning  the development of thermal water  quality cri-
teria for such protection and propagation in the identified waters
or parts thereof.
   (2)  Each State shall submit to the Administrator from time
to time, with the first such submission not later than one hundred
and  eighty days after  the date of publication of the first identi-
fication of pollutants  under section 1314(a)  (2)  (D) of  this
title, for his approval the  waters identified  and  the loads  es-
tablished under  paragraphs  (1)  (A), (1)  (B), (1)  (C),  and
(1)  (D) of this  subsection. The Administrator shall either ap-
prove  or disapprove such identification and load not later than
thirty  days  after the  date of submission. If the Administrator
approves such identification and load, such  State shall incorporate
them into its current  plan under subsection (e) of this section.
If the Administrator  disapproves  such identification  and load,
he shall not later than thirty  days after the date of such  disap-
proval identify  such  waters  in  such State and  establish such
loads for such waters  as  he  determines necessary to implement
the water quality standards applicable to  such waters and upon
such identification and establishment the  State shall incorporate
them into its current  plan under subsection (e) of this section.
   (3)  For the  specific purpose of developing  information, each
State  shall  identify all waters within its boundaries which  it
has  not  identified  under  paragraph (1)   (A)  and  (1)  (B) of
this subsection and estimate for  such waters the total maximum
daily load with  seasonal  variations and margins of  safety, for
those  pollutants  which the Administrator identifies  under  sec-
tion 1314(a)  (2) of this title as  suitable for such  calculation
and  for  thermal discharges, at  a  level that  would  assure  pro-
tection and  propagation  of a  balanced   indigenous  population
of fish, shellfish and wildlife.
                    Continuing planning process
   (e)  (1) Each  State shall have a continuing planning process
approved under paragraph  (2)  of this subsection which is  con-
sistent with this chapter.
   (2)  Each  State shall  submit  not later than 120  days  after
October 18, 1972, to the  Administrator for his approval a  pro-
posed  continuing planning process which is consistent with this

-------
64           LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

chapter. Not later than thirty days after the date of submission
of such a process the Administrator shall either approve or dis-
approve such process. The Administrator shall from time to time
review each  State's  approved planning  process for the purpose
of insuring that such planning process is at all times consistent
with  this chapter.  The Administrator  shall  not  approve  any
State permit program under subchapter IV of this chapter for
any  State which  does  not  have an  approved  continuing  plan-
ning process under this section.
   (3)  The  Administrator shall  approve any  continuing  plan-
ning process submitted to him under this section which will re-
sult  in plans for all navigable waters within such  State,  which
include, but are not limited to, the following:
       (A)  effluent  limitations and schedules  of compliance  at
     least as  stringent as those required  by  section 1311 (b)  (1),
     section  1311 (b) (2), section 1316, and section 1317 of this
     title, and  at  least as stringent as  any requirements  con-
     tained  in  any applicable water quality  standard in effect
     under authority of this section;
       (B) the incorporation of all elements  of any applicable
     areawide waste management  plans under  section 1288  of
     this title, and applicable basin plans under section 1289  of
     this title;
       (C) total  maximum daily load for  pollutants  in accord-
     ance with subsection (d) of this section;
       (D) procedures for revision;
       (E)  adequate authority for intergovernmental  coopera-
     tion;
       (F) adequate implementation, including schedules of com-
     pliance, for revised or new water quality standards, under
     subsection (c) of this section;
       (G)  controls over the  disposition of all residual waste
     from any water treatment processing;
       (H)  an inventory and  ranking,  in  order of priority,  of
     needs for construction of waste  treatment works required
     to  meet the  applicable  requirements of sections  1311 and
     1312 of this title.

                        Earlier compliance
   (f)  Nothing in this section shall  be construed to affect any
 effluent  limitation, or  schedule  of compliance required by any
 State to be implemented prior to the  dates set forth  in sections
 1311 (b)  (1) and  1311 (b) (2) of this title nor to  preclude any

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY       65

State from requiring compliance with  any effluent limitation or
schedule of compliance at dates earlier than such dates.

                         Heat standards

  (g)  Water quality standards relating  to  heat shall  be con-
sistent with the requirements of section 1326 of this title.

                  Thermal water quality standards
  (h)  For the purposes of  this chapter the term  "water quality
standards" includes thermal water quality standards.
June 30, 1948, c.  758, Title III, § 303, as added  Oct. 18, 1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 846.

  §  1314.  Information and guidelines—Criteria development and
publication
  (a)  (1) The Administrator, after  consultation  with appro-
priate  Federal and State agencies and other interested  persons,
shall develop and publish,   within  one year  after  October 18,
1972 (and from time to time thereafter revise) criteria for water
quality accurately reflecting the latest scientific knowledge  (A)
on the kind  and extent  of  all identifiable effects  on health  and
welfare including, but not  limited to, plankton,  fish, shellfish,
wildlife, plant life, shorelines, beaches,  esthetics,  and  recrea-
tion which may be expected from the  presence of pollutants in
any  body of  water, including ground water;  (B)  on the con-
centration  and dispersal of  pollutants,  or  their byproducts,
through biological, physical, and  chemical processes; and  (C)
on the  effects of  pollutants on biological  community diversity,
productivity, and  stability,  including information  on the factors
affecting rates of  eutrophication and rates of organic and inor-
ganic sedimentation for varying types of receiving waters.
  (2)  The Administrator,  after  consultation with appropriate
Federal and  State agencies and other interested  persons, shall
develop and publish, within  one  year after October 18, 1972 (and
from time to time thereafter revise)  information  (A)  on the
factors necessary  to  restore  and  maintain the  chemical,  physi-
cal,  and biological  integrity of  all navigable  waters,   ground
waters, waters of the  contiguous  zone,  and  the  oceans;  (B)
on the factors necessary for the  protection and propagation of
shellfish, fish and  wildlife for classes and categories of receiving
waters and to allow recreational activities in and on the water;
and  (C)   on  the  measurement  and  classification  of  water
quality; and  (D)  for the purpose of section  1313 of this title,

-------
66           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

on and the identification  of pollutants  suitable for maximum
daily  load measurement correlated  with  the  achievement  of
water quality objectives.
  (3) Such criteria and information and revisions thereof shall
be issued to  the States and  shall be published in the  Federal
Register and otherwise made available to the public.

                    Effluent limitation guidelines
  (b)  For the purpose  of  adopting  or revising effluent limita-
tions under this chapter the Administrator shall, after consulta-
tion  with  appropriate Federal  and State  agencies  and other
interested persons, publish within one year of October 18, 1972,
regulations, providing guidelines  for  effluent  limitations  and,
at least annually thereafter, revise, if  appropriate, such  regula-
tions. Such regulations shall—
       (1) (A) identify,  in  terms of amounts of constituents
    and chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of pol-
    lutants, the degree  of effluent reduction attainable  through
    the  application of  the  best  practicable control  technology
    currently  available for classes  and  categories of point
    sources (other  than publicy  owned treatment works) ; and
       (B) specify factors to be taken  into account in determin-
    ing the control measures and practices to  be applicable to
    point sources (other than publicly owned treatment works)
    within such categories  or classes. Factors relating to  the
    assessment of best  practicable  control   technology  cur-
    rently available to  comply with subsection  (b)  (1)  of sec-
    tion  1311 of  this title shall include  consideration of  the
    total cost of application of technology in  relation to the  ef-
    fluent reduction benefits to be achieved from  such application,
    and shall also take into account the- age  of equipment and
    facilities  involved,  the process  employed,  the engineering
    aspects of the application of various types of control tech-
    niques, process changes,  non-water  quality  environmental
    impact (including  energy requirements),  and  such other
    factors as the Administrator deems appropriate;
       (2) (A) identify, in  terms of amounts of constituents
     and  chemical,  physical,  and biological  characteristics  of
    pollutants,  the  degree  of  effluent  reduction   attainable
    through the  application of the best control  measures  and
    practices  achievable including treatment techniques, proc-
    ess  and  procedure  innovations,  operating  methods,  and

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY       67

     other alternatives for classes and categories of point sources
     (other than publicly owned treatment works); and
       (B) specify factors to be  taken into account in  deter-
     mining the best measures and practices  available to comply
     with subsection (b)  (2)  of section 1311 of this title to be
     applicable  to  any   point  source   (other  than   publicly
     owned treatment  works) within  such categories or classes.
     Factors  relating to the  assessment of best available  tech-
     nology  shall  take  into account  the age  of  equipment  and
     facilities involved,  the process employed, the engineering as-
     pects of the  application  of various  types  of  control  tech-
     niques, process changes,  the cost of achieving such effluent
     reduction,  non-water  quality environmental impact  (includ-
     ing  energy requirements),  and such other factors  as the
     Administrator deems appropriate; and
       (3)  identify control measures and  practices available to
     eliminate the  discharge  of  pollutants from categories  and
     classes  of point sources, taking into account the cost of
     achieving such elimination of the discharge of pollutants.

               Pollution discharge elimination procedures
   (c)  The Administrator, after consultation with appropriate
Federal  and  State agencies and other  interested persons,  shall
issue to the  States and appropriate  water pollution control
agencies within 270 days after October  18, 1972  (and from time
to time thereafter) information  on the processes, procedures, or
operating methods which  result in the  elimination or reduction
of the discharge  of pollutants  to  implement standards of  per-
formance under section 1316 of this title.  Such information shall
include technical  and  other data,  including  costs,  as  are  avail-
able on  alternative methods of  elimination or reduction of the
discharge of pollutants. Such  information,  and revisions thereof,
shall be  published in the  Federal Register and  otherwise  shall
be made available to the public.

       Secondary treatment information; alternative waste treatment
                 management techniques and systems
   (d)  (1) The Administrator, after  consultation with appropri-
ate Federal and  State  agencies  and other  interested persons,
shall publish  within sixty days after  October  18,  1972  (and
from time to time thereafter) information, in terms of amounts
of constituents and chemical, physical,  and  biological  charac-
teristics  of pollutants,  on the  degree  of  effluent reduction attain-
able through the application of secondary treatment.

-------
68           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

  (2)  The Administrator,  after  consultation with appropriate
Federal and  State agencies  and other interested persons,  shall
publish within nine months after October 18,  1972  (and  from
time to time  thereafter) information on alternative waste treat-
ment management techniques and  systems  available to imple-
ment section 1281 of this title.

       Identification and evaluation of nonpoint sources of pollution;
          processes, procedures, and methods to control pollution
  (e)  The Administrator,  after  consultation with appropriate
Federal and  State agencies  and other interested persons,  shall
issue to appropriate Federal agencies, the States, water pollution
control agencies, and agencies designated under section 1288 of
this title, within  one year  after October 18,  1972  (and  from
time to time thereafter) information including  (1)  guidelines
for identifying and evaluating the  nature and extent of non-
point sources of pollutants,  and (2)  processes,  procedures, and
methods to control pollution resulting from—
       (A) agricultural and silvicultural activities, including run-
     off from fields and crop and forest lands;
       (B) mining activities, including runoff and siltation from
     new,  currently operating, and abandoned surface and under-
     ground mines;
       (C) all construction  activity,  including  runoff  from the
     facilities resulting from such construction;
       (D) the disposal of pollutants in wells  or  in subsurface
     excavations;
       (E) salt water  intrusion resulting from  reductions of
     fresh water  flow from any cause including  extraction of
     ground  water,  irrigation,  obstruction, and diversion; and
       (F) changes in the movement, flow, or circulation of any
     navigable  waters   or  ground  waters,   including  changes
     caused by the construction of dams, levees, channels, cause-
     ways, or flow diversion facilities.
Such information and revisions thereof shall be  published in the
Federal Register  and otherwise  made available  to  the public.

               Guidelines for pretreatment of pollutants
  (f)  (1) For the purpose  of assisting States  in carrying out
programs under  section 1342  of  this  title,  the Administrator
shall publish, within one hundred and twenty days after October
18, 1972, and review at least annually  thereafter and,  if ap-
propriate, revise guidelines for pretreatment of  pollutants which

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY        69

he  determines  are  not  susceptible to  treatment by  publicly
owned treatment works.  Guidelines under this subsection shall
be  established to control and  prevent the  discharge  into  the
navigable waters, the  contiguous  zone,  or  the ocean (either
directly or through publicly owned treatment works) of any pol-
lutant which  interferes with, passes through, or  otherwise is
incompatible with such works.
  (2)  When  publishing  guidelines under this  subsection,  the
Administrator shall designate the  category or categories  of treat-
ment works to which the guidelines shall apply.

                     Test procedure guidelines
  (g)  The Administrator  shall, within  one hundred and  eighty
days from October 18,  1972, promulgate guidelines establishing
test procedures  for the analysis of pollutants that shall include
the factors  which must be provided in any  certification  pursu-
ant to section 1341  of  this title or permit application pursuant
to section 1342 of this title.

           Guidelines for monitoring,  reporting, enforcement,
                 funding, personnel, and manpower
  (h)  The  Administrator shall  (1)  within sixty days  after
October  18,  1972, promulgate guidelines for the  purpose  of es-
tablishing uniform application forms and other minimum require-
ments for the  acquisition of information from owners and  opera-
tors of point sources of discharge subject to any State  program
under  section 1342  of this  title,  and (2)  within sixty days
from October 18, 1972, promulgate guidelines establishing  the
minimum procedural and other elements of any  State  program
under section 1342 of this title which shall include:
       (A) monitoring requirements;
       (B)  reporting   requirements  (including  procedures  to
    make information available to  the public);
       (C) enforcement provisions; and
       (D) funding, personnel qualifications, and manpower re-
    quirements  (including a requirement that no board or body
    which approves  permit applications or protions thereof shall
    include,  as  a member, any  person  who receives,  or  has
    during the previous two years received, a significant portion
    of his income dirctly or indirectly from permit  holders or
    applicants for a permit).

    Restoration  and enhancement of publicly owned fresh water lakes
  (i)  The Administrator  shall, within  270 days after October

-------
70           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

18, 1972  (and from time  to  time thereafter), issue  such in-
formation on methods, procedures, and processes as may be ap-
propriate to restore and enhance the quality of  the  Nation's
publicly owned fresh water lakes.

Agreements with Secretaries of  Agriculture, Army, and Interior  to provide
  maximum utilization of programs to achieve and maintain water quality;
  transfer of funds; authorization of appropriations
   (j)  (1)  The Administrator  shall, within  six  months from
October  18,  1972,  enter into  agreements  with  the  Secretary
of Agriculture,  the Secretary of the Army, and  the  Secretary
of the Interior to provide  for  the maximum utilization of the
appropriate programs authorized under other Federal law to be
carried out by such Secretaries  for the purpose of  achieving and
maintaining water quality  through appropriate implementation
of plans approved under section 1288 of this title.
   (2)  The  Administrator,  pursuant to  any agreement under
paragraph (1) of this subsection is authorized to transfer to the
Secretary of  Agriculture,  the  Secretary of the  Army,  or the
Secretary of the Interior any funds appropriated under paragraph
(3)  of this subsection to supplement any  funds  otherwise ap-
propriated to carry out appropriate programs authorized to be
carried out by such Secretaries.
   (3)  There is authorized  to be appropriated to  carry out the
provisions of this subsection, $100,000,000 per fiscal year for the
fiscal year ending June  30, 1973, and for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1974.
June 30, 1948, c.  758, Title III, § 304, as added  Oct.  18, 1972,
Pub.L  92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 850.

   §  1315. Water quality inventory; State reports;  transmittal to
Congress
   (a)  The  Administrator,  in cooperation with the States and
with the assistance of appropriate Federal  agencies,  shall  pre-
pare a report to be submitted to  the  Congress  on  or before
January 1,1974, which shall—
       (1) describe the specific  quality, during 1973, with appro-
     priate supplemental descriptions as shall be required to take
     into  account  seasonal, tidal, and  other variations, of all
     navigable waters and the waters of the contiguous zone;
       (2) include an inventory of all point sources of  discharge
     (based on  a qualitative and quantitative  analysis  of dis-
     charges) of  pollutants,  into  all navigable waters and  the
     waters of the contiguous zone; and

-------
         WATER—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY       71

       (3)  identify  specifically those  navigable  waters,  the
    quality of which—
           (A) is adequate  to  provide for the protection and
         propagation of a balanced population of  shellfish, fish,
         and wildlife and allow  recreational activities in and on
         the water;
           (B) can  reasonably  be  expected to attain such level
         by 1977 or 1983; and
           (C) can  reasonably  be  expected to attain such level
         by any later date.
  (b)  (1)  Each State shall prepare and submit to the Adminis-
trator by January 1, 1975, and  shall bring up to date each year
thereafter, a report which shall include—
       (A) a  description of the water quality of all  navigable
    waters in such State during the preceding year,  with appro-
    priate supplemental descriptions as shall be required to take
    into account seasonal, tidal, and other variations, correlated
    with the  quality of water required by the objective of this
    chapter (as identified by the Administrator pursuant to cri-
    teria published  under section 1314(a)  of this  title)  and the
    water quality described in  subparagraph  (B) of this para-
    graph;
       (B) an analysis  of the extent to which  all  navigable
    waters of such State provide for the protection and propaga-
    tion of a balanced  population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife,
    and allow recreational activities in and on the water;
       (C) an analysis  of the extent to which the elimination of
    the  discharge of pollutants and a  level  of water quality
    which provides  for the protection and propagation of a bal-
    anced  population of shellfish,  fish, and wildlife and allows
    recreational activities in and on the water, have  been or will
    be achieved  by the requirements of  this  chapter,  together
    with recommendations as to additional action necessary to
    achieve such objectives and for what  waters such additional
    action is necessary;
       (D) an estimate of  (i)  the  environmental impact,  (ii)
    the economic and social  costs necessary to achieve the objec-
    tive of this  chapter in  such  State,  (iii)  the  economic and
    social  benefits of such achievement, and (iv)  an estimate of
    the date of such achievement; and
       (E) a  description of the nature and extent  of nonpoint
    sources of pollutants, and  recommendations  as to the pro-
    grams which must be undertaken to control each category of

-------
72           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

    such  sources, including  an estimate of the costs  of  imple-
    menting such programs.
  (2)  The Administrator shall transmit such State reports, to-
gether with an analysis thereof, to Congress on or before October
1, 1975, and annually thereafter.
June  30, 1948, c. 758, Title  III, § 305,  as  added Oct.  18, 1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 853.

  §  1316. National standards of performance—Definitions

  (a)  For purposes of this section:
  (1)  The  term "standard of  performance" means a standard
for the control of the discharge of pollutants which reflects the
greatest degree of effluent  reduction which the Administrator
determines to be achievable through application of the best avail-
able demonstrated control technology, processes, operating meth-
ods, or other  alternatives, including,  where practicable, a stand-
ard permitting no discharge of pollutants.
  (2)  The  term "new source"  means any  source, the construc-
tion of which is commenced after the  publication  of proposed
regulations prescribing  a  standard  of  performance under this
section which will be applicable to such  source, if such standard
is thereafter promulgated in accordance with this section.
  (3)  The term "source" means any  building, structure, facility,
or installation from which there is or may be the discharge of
pollutants.
  (4)  The  term "owner or operator"  means  any  person who
owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises a source.
  (5)  The  term "construction" means any placement, assembly,
or installation of facilities  or equipment (including contractual
obligations  to purchase such  facilities or  equipment)  at the
premises where such equipment will  be  used, including prepara-
tion work at such premises.

   Categories of sources; Federal standards of performance for new sources
   (b)  (1)  (A) The Administrator shall, within  ninety days
after October 18, 1972, publish  (and from time to time  thereafter
shall revise)  a  list of categories of  sources,  which shall, at the
minimum, include:
     pulp and paper mills;
     paperboard, builders paper and board mills;
     meat product and rendering processing;
     dairy product processing;
     grain mills;

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      73

    canned and preserved fruits and vegetables processing;
    canned and preserved seafood processing;
    sugar processing;
    textile mills;
    cement manufacturing;
    feedlots;
    electroplating;
    organic chemicals manufacturing;
    inorganic chemicals manufacturing;
    plastic and synthetic materials manufacturing;
    soap and detergent manufacturing;
    fertilizer manufacturing;
    petroleum refining;
    iron and steel manufacturing;
    nonferrous metals manufacturing;
    phosphate manufacturing;
    steam electric powerplants;
    ferroalloy manufacturing;
    leather tanning and finishing;
    glass and asbestos manufacturing;
    rubber processing; and
    timber products processing.
  (B)  As soon as practicable, but in no case more than one year,
after a  category of sources  is included in  a  list  under subpara-
graph  (A) of this  paragraph,  the Administrator shall  propose
and publish regulations  establishing Federal standards of per-
formance for new sources within such category. The Administra-
tor  shall afford interested persons  an opportunity for written
comment on such proposed  regulations. After considering  such
comments, he shall  promulgate,  within one hundred and twenty
days after publication of such proposed regulations, such stand-
ards with such adjustments  as  he  deems  appropriate. The Ad-
ministrator  shall,  from time   to   time,  as  technology  and
alternatives  change, revise such standards following the proce-
dure required by this subsection for  promulgation of such stand-
ards.  Standards  of  performance,   or  revisions thereof,   shall
become  effective  upon  promulgation. In  establishing or  revis-
ing Federal standards of performance for new sources under this
section, the  Administrator shall take into  consideration the cost
of achieving such effluent reduction, and  any non-water quality
environmental impact and energy requirements.
  (2) The Administrator may distinguish among classes, types,
and sizes  within  categories of new sources  for  the purpose  of

-------
74           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

establishing such standards and shall consider the type of process
employed (including whether batch or continuous).
  (3) The provisions of this section  shall  apply  to  any  new
source owned or operated by the United States.

            State enforcement of standards of performance
  (c) Each State may develop and submit  to the Administrator
a procedure under  State law  for applying  and enforcing stand-
ards of performance for new sources located in such State.  If
the Administrator  finds  that  the procedure and the law of any
State require  the application and enforcement of  standards  of
performance to at least the same extent as required by this sec-
tion, such State is authorized to apply and enforce such  standards
of performance (except with respect  to new sources  owned  or
operated by the United States).

               Protection from more stringent standards
  (d)  Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, any
point source the construction of which  is  commenced  after Oc-
tober 18, 1972, and which  is so constructed as to meet all ap-
plicable  standards  of performance shall not be  subject to any
more stringent standard of performance during a ten-year period
beginning  on  the  date  of  completion of  such  construction  or
during  the period  of depreciation or amortization  of such fa-
cility for the purposes of section 167 or 169 (or both) of Title 26,
whichever period ends first.

           Illegality of operation of new sources in violation of
                 applicable standards of performance
  (e)  After the effective date of standards of performance pro-
mulgated under this  section,  it shall be unlawful for any owner
or operator of any  new source to operate such source in violation
of any standard of performance applicable to such source.
June 30, 1948, c. 758, Title III, § 306, as added  Oct. 18, 1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, § 2,  86 Stat. 854.

  §  1317. Toxic and  pretreatment effluent  standards;  establish-
ment; revision;  illegality  of source  operation in  violation  of
standards
   (a) (1) The Administrator  shall,  within  ninety  days after
October 18, 1972, publish (and from time  to time thereafter  re-
vise) a list which includes any toxic pollutant or combination of
such pollutants for which  an effluent standard  (which  may  in-

-------
         WATER—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY       75

elude a prohibition of the discharge of such pollutants or combi-
nation of such pollutants)  will be established under this section.
The Administrator in publishing such  list shall take into account
the toxicity of the pollutant, its persistence,  degradability, the
usual or  potential  presence of the affected organisms in any wa-
ters, the importance  of the  affected organisms  and the nature
and extent of the effect of the toxic pollutant  on  such organisms.
  (2) Within one hundred and eighty  days after the date of
publication of any list,  or revision  thereof, containing toxic pol-
lutants or combination of pollutants under paragraph (1) of this
subsection, the Administrator, in accordance with section 553 of
Title 5, shall publish a  proposed effluent standard (or a prohibi-
tion)  for such pollutant or combination of pollutants which shall
take into account the toxicity of the pollutant, its persistence, de-
gradability, the  usual  or  potential  presence of  the  affected
organisms  in any  waters,  the  importance of the affected  orga-
nisms and the nature and extent of the effect of the toxic pollu-
tant on such organisms, and he shall publish a notice for a public
hearing on such proposed standard  to be held within thirty days.
As  soon  as possible after  such hearing,  but not later  than six
months after publication of  the proposed effluent standard (or
prohibition), unless the Administrator finds, on  the record, that
a modification  of  such proposed standard  (or  prohibition)  is
justified  based upon a preponderance of evidence  adduced at such
hearings, such standard (or prohibition)  shall be promulgated.
  (3) If after a  public hearing the Administrator finds that a
modification of such proposed standard (or prohibition) is  justi-
fied, a revised effluent standard (or prohibition) for such pollu-
tant  or   combination   of   pollutants  shall  be   promulgated
immediately. Such standard  (or prohibition)  shall be reviewed
and, if appropriate, revised at least every three years.
  (4) Any  effluent standard  promulgated  under  this section
shall be  at that level which  the Administrator  determines pro-
vides an  ample margin of safety.
  (5) When  proposing  or promulgating  any effluent standard
(or  prohibition)   under this section,  the Administrator  shall
designate the category  or categories of sources to which the ef-
fluent standard  (or prohibition)  shall apply. Any disposal of
dredged  material  may be included in such a category  of sources
after consultation with the Secretary of the Army.
  (6) Any effluent standard (or prohibition)  established  pur-
suant to  this section  shall take effect on  such date or  dates as
specified  in the order promulgating such standard, but in no case
more than one year from the date of such promulgation.

-------
76           LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

  (7) Prior to publishing any regulations pursuant to this  sec-
tion the Administrator shall, to the maximum extent practicable
within the time provided, consult  with appropriate advisory com-
mittees, States,  independent experts, and Federal departments
and agencies.
  (b) (1)  The  Administrator shall, within one  hundred  and
eighty days after October 18, 1972, and from time to time there-
after, publish  proposed regulations establishing  pretreatment
standards for introduction  of pollutants into treatment  works
(as defined  in section  1292  of  this title)  which are  publicly
owned for those pollutants which are determined not to be  sus-
ceptible to treatment by such  treatment  works or which  would
interfere with the operation of such treatment works. Not later
than ninety days after such publication, and after opportunity
for public hearing, the Administrator shall promulgate such  pre-
treatment standards. Pretreatment standards under this subsec-
tion shall specify a time for compliance  not to exceed three years
from  the date of promulgation and shall be established to  pre-
vent the discharge of any pollutant through treatment works (as
defined  in section 1292 of this title) which  are  publicly owned,
which pollutant  interferes with, passes through, or otherwise  is
incompatible with such works.
  (2) The Administrator shall,  from  time  to  time, as control
technology,  processes, operating  methods, or other alternatives
change, revise such  standards following the procedure  estab-
lished by this subsection for promulgation of such standards.
  (3) When  proposing  or  promulgating   any  pretreatment
standard under  this  section,  the  Administrator shall designate
the category or  categories  of sources  to which such  standard
shall apply.
  (4) Nothing in this subsection shall affect any pretreatment
requirement established by any State or local law not in conflict
with  any pretreatment standard  established  under this subsec-
tion.
  (c) In order to insure that any source introducing pollutants
into a publicly owned treatment works, which source would  be a
new source subject to section 1316 of this title if it were  to dis-
charge pollutants, will not cause a violation of the effluent  limita-
tions  established for any such treatment  works,  the Administra-
tor shall promulgate pretreatment standards for the category of
such sources simultaneously with the promulgation of standards
of performance under section 1316 of this title for the equivalent
category of  new sources. Such pretreatment  standards shall  pre-

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY       77

vent the discharge of  any pollutant into such treatment works,
which pollutant may interfere with, pass through, or otherwise
be incompatible with such works.
   (d) After the effective date of any effluent standard or prohi-
bition or pretreatment standard promulgated under this section,
it shall be unlawful for any owner or operator of any source to
operate any source in  violation of any such  effluent standard or
prohibition or pretreatment standard.
June 30, 1948, c.  758, Title III,  §  307,  as added Oct. 18, 1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 856.

  § 1318. Inspections, monitoring, and entry

   (a) Whenever required to carry out the objective of this chap-
ter, including  but  not  limited to (1)  developing or assisting in
the development of  any effluent  limitation,  or other  limitation,
prohibition, or effluent standard, pretreatment  standard,  or
standard of performance under  this chapter; (2)  determining
whether any person is  in violation of any such effluent  limitation,
or other limitation, prohibition  or effluent  standard, pretreat-
ment  standard, or standard of performance;  (3)  any  require-
ment established under this section; or (4) carrying out  sections
1315,1321,1342, and 1364 of this title—
      (A) the Administrator shall require the owner or opera-
    tor of any point source to  (i) establish and maintain  such
    records, (ii) make such reports, (iii) install, use,  and main-
    tain such  monitoring  equipment   or  methods   (including
    where appropriate, biological monitoring  methods),  (iv)
    sample such effluents (in  accordance with such methods, at
    such locations, at such intervals, and in  such manner as the
    Administrator shall prescribe), and (v) provide such other
    information as he may reasonably require; and
      (B)  the Administrator or his authorized representative,
    upon presentation of his credentials—
           (i)  shall have a right of entry to, upon, or  through
        any premises  in which an effluent source is located or in
        which any  records required  to be maintained under
        clause (A) of this subsection are located, and
           (ii) may at reasonable times  have access to and  copy
        any records,   inspect  any monitoring  equipment  or
        method required under clause (A),  and  sample any ef-
        fluents which the owner or operator of such source is
        required to sample under such clause.
   (b) Any records,  reports, or information  obtained  under this

-------
78           LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

section (1) shall, in the case of effluent data,  be related to any
applicable effluent limitations, toxic, pretreatment, or new source
performance  standards, and (2) shall be available to the public,
except that upon a showing satisfactory to the Administrator by
any person that  records, reports, or information, or particular
part thereof  (other than effluent data), to which the Administra-
tor has access under this section, if  made public would divulge
methods  or  processes entitled  to  protection  as trade secrets of
such person, the Administrator shall consider such record,  re-
port, or information, or particular portion thereof confidential in
accordance with the purposes of section 1905 of Title 18, except
that such record, report,  or information may be  disclosed to
other officers, employees, or authorized representatives of  the
United States concerned with carrying out this chapter or  when
relevant in any proceeding under this chapter.
   (c) Each State may develop and submit to the Administrator
procedures under State law for inspection, monitoring, and  entry
with respect to  point sources located in such  State. If the Ad-
ministrator  finds that the procedures and the law of any  State
relating to inspection, monitoring, and  entry are applicable to at
least the same extent as those required by this section, such State
is authorized to apply and enforce its procedures for inspection,
monitoring,  and  entry with  respect  to  point sources located in
such  State   (except  with respect to  point  sources owned or
operated by the United States).
June  30, 1948, c. 758, Title  III,  § 308, as added Oct. 18,  1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 858.

   § 1319. Enforcement—State enforcement; compliance orders

   (a)  (1) Whenever, on the basis of any information  available
to him, the Administrator finds that any person is in violation of
any condition or limitation which  implements section 1311, 1312,
1316, 1317,  or 1318 of this title  in  a  permit  issued by a  State
under an approved  permit program  under section  1342 of this
title,  he  shall proceed under his authority in  paragraph  (3) of
this subsection or he shall notify  the person in alleged violation
and such State of such  finding. If beyond the thirtieth day after
the Administrator's notification   the State has not commenced
appropriate  enforcement action,  the Administrator shall issue
an order requiring such  person to comply with  such condition or
limitation or shall bring a civil  action in accordance  with sub-
section (b) of this section.
   (2)  Whenever, on the basis of information  available to him,

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY       79

the Administrator finds that violations of permit conditions or
limitations as set  forth in paragraph (1) of this subsection are
so widespread that such violations appear to result from a failure
of the State to enforce such permit conditions or limitations  ef-
fectively, he shall  so notify the State. If the Administrator finds
such failure extends beyond the thirtieth day after  such notice,
he shall give public notice of such finding. During the period be-
ginning with  such public notice and ending when  such State
satisfies the Administrator that it  will enforce such conditions
and limitations  (hereafter referred to in this section as the pe-
riod of "federally assumed enforcement"), the Administrator
shall enforce any  permit  condition or limitation with respect to
any person—
       (A) by issuing an order to comply with such  condition or
    limitation, or
       (B) by bringing a civil  action under  subsection  (b)  of
    this section.
   (3)  Whenever on the  basis  of  any information  available to
him the Administrator finds that any person is in  violation of
section 1311, 1312, 1316, 1317,  or 1318 of this title, or is in viola-
tion of any permit condition or limitation implementing any of
such sections in a permit issued under section 1342  of this title
by him or by a State, he shall issue an  order requiring such
person to  comply  with such section or requirement,  or he shall
bring  a civil  action in accordance  with subsection   (b) of this
section.
   (4)  A copy of any order issued under this subsection  shall be
sent immediately by the Administrator to the State in which the
violation occurs and other affected States. Any order issued under
this subsection shall be by personal service and shall state with
reasonable specificity the  nature of the violation, specify a time
for compliance, not to exceed thirty days, which the  Administra-
tor determines is reasonable, taking into account the seriousness
of the  violation and any good faith efforts to comply with applica-
ble requirements.  In  any case  in  which  an order  under this
subsection  (or notice to a violator under  paragraph  (1)  of this
subsection) is issued  to a  corporation, a copy of such order (or
notice) shall be served on any  appropriate corporate  officers. An
order issued under this subsection relating to a  violation of sec-
tion 1318  of this  title shall not take effect until the person to
whom  it is issued has had  an  opportunity to  confer with the
Administrator concerning the alleged violation.

-------
80           LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

                          Civil actions
  (b) The Administrator is authorized to commence a civil action
for appropriate relief, including a permanent or temporary  in-
junction, for any violation for which he is authorized to issue a
compliance order under subsection (a) of this section. Any action
under this subsection may be brought in the  district court of the
United States for the district in which the defendant is located or
resides or is doing business, and such court shall have jurisdic-
tion to restrain such violation and to require compliance. Notice
of the commencement of such action shall be given immediately
to the appropriate State.

                       Criminal penalties
  (c) (1) Any person who willfully or negligently violates sec-
tion 1311, 1312, 1316,  1317, or 1318 of this  title, or any permit
condition or limitation implementing any of such sections in a
permit issued under section 1342 of this title  by the Adminis-
trator  or by a State, shall  be  punished by a fine  of  not less
than $2,500 nor more than $25,000 per day of violation, or by
imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both. If the con-
viction is for a violation committed after a first conviction of such
person under this paragraph, punishment  shall be by a fine of  not
more than  $50,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment  for
not more than two years, or by both.
   (2)  Any  person who knowingly makes any  false statement,
representation, or certification in any application, record, report,
plan, or other document filed or required  to be maintained under
this chapter or who  falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders
inaccurate any monitoring device or method  required to be main-
tained under this chapter, shall upon conviction, be punished by a
fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not  more
than six months, or by both.
   (3)  For  the  purposes  of  this  subsection, the term "person"
shall mean,  in addition to the definition contained in section 1362
(5) of this title, any  responsible corporate  officer.

                          Civil penalties
   (d)  Any  person who violates  section 1311, 1312, 1316,  1317,
or  1318 of  this title, or any permit condition or limitation  im-
plementing  any of such sections in a permit  issued under section
1342 of this title by the Administrator, or  by  a State,  and any
person who violates  any order issued by the  Administrator  under

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY       81

subsection  (a)  of this section, shall be subject to a civil penalty
not to exceed $10,000 per day of such violation.

               State liability for judgments and expenses
   (e)  Whenever a municipality  is a party  to a  civil action
brought  by the United  States under this section,  the State in
which  such municipality is located shall  be joined  as a party.
Such State shall be liable for payment of any  judgment, or
any expenses incurred as a result of complying with  any judg-
ment, entered against the municipability in such action to the
extent that the laws of that State prevent the municipality from
raising revenues needed to comply with such judgment.
June 30, 1948, c. 758, Title III,  § 309, as added Oct. 18, 1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 859.

   §  1320. International  pollution abatement—Hearing;  partici-
pation by foreign nations

   (a) Whenever the Administrator,  upon receipts of reports, sur-
veys, or  studies from any duly constituted international agency,
has reason to believe that pollution is  occurring which  endangers
the health  or  welfare of persons  in a foreign  country,  and the
Secretary of State requests him to abate such pollution,  he shall
give form  notification  thereof  to  the  State  water pollution
control agency of the State or States in which such discharge or
discharges  originate and to the appropriate interstate  agency, if
any. He  shall also  promptly call  such a hearing, if he  believes
that such pollution is occurring in sufficient quantity to warrant
such action, and if such foreign  country has given the  United
States  essentially the same rights with respect to the prevention
and control of pollution occurring  in that country  as is given
that country by this subsection. The Administrator,  through the
Secretary of State, shall  invite the foreign country which may be
adversely affected by the pollution  to attend and  participate in
the hearing, and the representative of such country shall, for the
purpose  of the hearing and any further proceeding resulting
from such  hearing, have all the rights of a State water pollution
control agency. Nothing in  this subsection shall be construed to
modify, amend, repeal, or otherwise affect the provisions of the
1909 Boundary Waters  Treaty between Canada and the United
States  or the Water Utilization Treaty of 1944 between Mexico
and the  United States   (59 Stat.  1219), relative to the control
and abatement of pollution in waters covered by those treaties.

-------
82           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

        Functions and responsibilities of Administrator not affected
  (b) The calling  of a hearing under this  section shall  not be
construed by the courts, the Administrator, or any person as limit-
ing, modifying, or otherwise affecting the functions and responsi-
bilities of the Administrator under this section to establish  and
enforce water quality requirements under this chapter.

      Hearing board; composition; findings of fact; recommendations;
                  implementation of board's decision
  (c) The Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register a
notice of a public hearing before a hearing board of  five or more
persons appointed by the Administrator. A majority  of the mem-
bers of the  board and the chairman who  shall be  designated by
the Administrator  shall not be officers or employees of Federal,
State, or local governments. On the basis of the evidence presented
at such hearing, the board shall within  sixty days after com-
pletion of the hearing make findings of fact  as to whether or not
such pollution is occurring and shall  thereupon by  decision, in-
corporating its findings therein, make such recommendations to
abate the pollution as may be appropriate and shall transmit
such decision and the record of the hearings to the Administrator.
All such decisions shall be public. Upon receipt of such decision,
the Administrator shall  promptly implement the board's deci-
sion in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.

                     Report by alleged polluter
  (d) In connection with any hearing called  under  this  subsec-
tion, the board is authorized to require any person whose alleged
activities result in discharges causing or contributing  to polltion
to file with  it in such  forms as it may prescribe, a  report based
on existing  data, furnishing such  information as may reasonably
be  required as to  the  character, kind,  and quantity  of such
discharges  and  the use  of facilities  or other means to prevent
or reduce such discharges by the person filing such a  report. Such
report shall be made under oath or otherwise, as the board  may
prescribe, and shall be filed with the board  within  such  rea-
sonable  period  as it  may prescribe,  unless  additional  time  is
granted by it. Upon a showing satisfactory to the board by the
person  filing such  report that such  report or portion  thereof
 (other than effluent data), to which the Administrator has access
under this section, if made public would divulge trade secrets or
secret processes of such person,  the board shall consider  such
report or portion  thereof confidential for  the purposes  of  sec-

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY       83

tion 1905 of Title 18.  If any  person required  to file any report
under this paragraph  shall fail to do  so  within the  time  fixed
by the board for  filing the same, and such failure shall continue
for thirty days after notice of  such default, such person shall for-
feit to the United States the  sum of $1,000 for each  and every
day  of the  continuance of such failure, which forfeiture  shall
be payable into the Treasury  of the United States,  and shall be
recoverable in a  civil suit in  the name of  the  United States in
the district court of the United States where such person has his
principal office or in any district in  which he does business. The
Administrator may upon  application therefor  remit or mitigate
any forfeiture provided for under this subsection.
                  Compensation of board members
  (e) Board members, other  than officers or employees of Fed-
eral, State, or local governments, shall be for each day  (including
traveltime)  during which  they  are  performing board business,
entitled to receive compensation at a rate fixed by the Adminis-
trator but not in excess of the maximum rate of pay for grade
GS-18, as provided  in the General Schedule under  section 5332
of Title 5, and shall, notwithstanding the limitations of sections
5703 and 5704 of Title 5, be fully  reimbursed for travel,  sub-
sistence, and related expenses.

                     Enforcement proceedings
  (f) When any  such  recommendation  adopted by the Adminis-
trator involves the institution  of enforcement proceedings against
any person  to obtain the  abatement of pollution subject to such
recommendation,  the Administrator  shall institute such proceed-
ings if he believes that the evidence warrants such proceedings.
The district court of the United States shall consider  and deter-
mine de novo all  relevant  issues, but shall receive in evidence the
record of the proceedings before the  conference or hearing board.
The court shall have jurisdiction to  enter such judgment and or-
ders enforcing such  judgment as it  deems  appropriate or to re-
mand such  proceedings to the  Administrator for such further
action as it may direct.
June 30, 1948, c. 758, Title III,  §  310, as added Oct. 18,  1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 860.

  §1321.  Oil and hazardous substance liability—Definitions

  (a) For the purpose of this section the term—
       (1) "oil" means oil of any kind or in any form, including,

-------
84           LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

    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  spill-
    ing, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying or dump-
    ing;
      (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 ves-
    sel;
      (4)  "public vessel" means a vessel  owned or bareboat-
    chartered and operated by the United States, or by a  State
    or political subdivision thereof, or by a foreign nation, except
    when such vessel is engaged in commerce;
      (5)  "United States" means the  States, the District of Co-
    lumbia, the Commonwealth of  Puerto Rico, the Canal Zone,
    Guam, American Samoa,  the Virgin Islands, and the Trust
    Territory of the Pacific Islands;
      (6)  "owner or operator" means (A) in the case of a vessel,
    any person owning, operating, or chartering by demise, such
    vessel, and (B) in the case  of an onshore facility, and an
    offshore facility, any person owning or operating such on-
    shore  facility or off shore facility,  and (C)  in the case of
    any  abandoned  offshore facility, the person who owned or
    operated  such facility immediately  prior to  such abandon-
    ment;
      (7)  "person"  includes an individual, firm, corporation, as-
    sociation, and a partnership;
      (8)  "remove" or "removal" refers to  removal of the oil or
    hazardous substances from the water and shorelines or the
    taking of such other actions as may be necessary to minimize
    or mitigate damage to the public health or welfare, including,
    but not limited to,  fish,  shellfish, wildlife,  and public and
    private property, shorelines, and beaches;
      (9)  "continguous 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;

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY       85

       (12) "act of God" means an act occasioned by an unantic-
    ipated grave natural disaster;
       (13) "barrel" means 42 United States gallons at 60 de-
    grees Fahrenheit;
       (14) "hazardous  substance"  means  any substance  desig-
    nated pursuant to subsection (b)  (2) of this section.

  Congressional declaration of policy against discharges of oil or hazardous
      substances; designation of hazardous substances; determination
                 of removability; liability; penalties

  (b)  (1)  The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of
the United States that there should be no discharges of  oil or
hazardous  substances into or upon  the navigable  waters of the
United States, adjoining shorelines, or into  or upon the waters of
the contiguous zone.
  (2)  (A) The  Administrator shall develop, promulgate, and re-
vise as may be appropriate, regulations designating as hazardous
substances, other than oil as denned  in this  section, such elements
and compounds  which, when  discharged in any quantity into or
upon the navigable waters of the United States or adjoining  shore-
lines or the waters of the  contiguous zone, present an imminent
and substantial  danger to the public health  or welfare, including,
but not limited to, fish, shellfish, wildlife, shorelines, and beaches.
  (B)  (i)  The  Administrator shall include in any designation
under  subparagraph (A)  of this  subsection a  determination
whether  any such designated hazardous substance can actually
be removed.
  (ii)  The owner  or operator of  any vessel, onshore facility,
or offshore facility  from which there is discharged  during the
two-year period beginning on October 18, 1972, any  hazardous
substance determined not removable under clause (i) of this sub-
paragraph shall be liable, subject to the defenses to liability pro-
vided under subsection  (f) of this section, as appropriate,  to the
United States for a civil penalty per discharge established by the
Administrator  based on toxicity, degradability,  and  dispersal
characteristics of such  substance, in an amount  not to exceed
$50,000, except that  where the United States can show that such
discharge was a result  of willful negligence or willful miscon-
duct within the  privity and knowledge of the owner, such  owner
or operator shall be  liable to the United States for  a civil penalty
in such amount  as the Administrator shall  establish, based upon
the toxicity, degradability,  and dispersal characteristics of such
substance.

-------
86           LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

  (iii) After the expiration of the two-year period referred to in
clause  (ii) of this subparagraph, the owner or operator of any
vessel, onshore facility, or offshore facility, from which there is
discharged any  hazardous substance determined not  removable
under clause (i) of this subparagraph shall be liable,  subject to
the defenses to liability provided in subsection (f) of this section,
to the United States for either one or the other of the following
penalties, the determination of which  shall be in the  discretion
of the Administrator:
       (aa)  a penalty in such amount as the Administrator shall
    establish, based on the toxicity, degradability,  and dispersal
    characteristics of the substance, but not less than $500 nor
    more than $5,000; or
       (bb)  a penalty determined by the  number  of  units dis-
    charged multiplied by the amount established  for such unit
    under clause  (iv)  of this subparagraph,  but such penalty
    shall not be more than $5,000,000  in the case of a discharge
    from a vessel and $500,000 in the case of a discharge from
    an onshore or offshore facility.
  (iv) The  Administrator shall establish by regulation, for each
hazardous substance designated under subparagraph (A) of this
paragraph, and within 180 days of the date of such designation, a
unit of measurement based upon the usual trade practice and, for
the purpose of determining the penalty under clause (iii) (bb) of
this subparagraph, shall establish for each such unit a fixed mone-
tary amount which  shall  be not less than  $100 nor  more than
$1,000 per unit. He shall establish  such fixed amount based on
the toxicity, degradability, and dispersal characteristics  of the sub-
stance.
  (3) The discharge of oil or hazardous substances into or upon
the navigable  waters  of  the  United  States, adjoining  shore-
lines, or into or upon the waters of the contiguous zone in harm-
ful  quantities as determined by the President under  paragraph
(4) of this subsection, is prohibited, except (A) in the case of
such discharges of  oil into the waters  of  the contiguous zone,
where permitted under article IV of the International Convention
for the  Prevention of Pollution  of the Sea by  Oil, 1954, as
amended, and  (B) where permitted in  quantities  and at  times
and locations or under such circumstances or conditions  as the
President may, by regulation, determine not to be  harmful. Any
regulations issued under this subsection shall be consistent with
maritime safety and with marine and navigation laws and reg-
ulations and applicable water quality standards.

-------
         WATER—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY       87

  (4) The President shall by regulation, to be issued as soon as
possible after October  18, 1972  determine for the purposes of
this section, those quantities of oil  and any hazardous substance
the discharge of which, at such  times, locations, circumstances,
and conditions,  will be harmful to the public health  or welfare
of the United States,  including,  but not limited to,  fish, shell-
fish,  wildlife,  and public and  private property, shorelines,  and
beaches except that in the case of the discharge of  oil into or
upon  the  waters of the contiguous zone,  only those  discharges
which threaten  the fishery resources of the  contiguous zone or
threaten to pollute or contribute to the pollution of the territory
or the territorial sea  of the United States  may be determined
to be harmful.
  (5) Any person in charge  of a vessel or of an onshore facility
or an offshore facility  shall,  as soon as he has knowledge of any
discharge of oil  or a hazardous substance from such vessel or fa-
cility  in  violation of  paragraph  (3)  of this  subsection,  im-
mediately notify the  appropriate agency  of the United  States
Government of  such  discharge. Any such person who fails to
notify immediately such agency of such  discharge  shall,  upon
conviction, be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned for not
more  than one  year,  or both.  Notification received pursuant to
this paragraph  or information obtained  by  the exploitation of
such notification shall not be  used  against  any such person in
any criminal case, except a prosecution  for perjury or for giving
a false statement.
  (6) Any owner or operator  of any vessel,  onshore  facility, or
offshore facility from  which  oil  or a  hazardous substance  is
discharged in  violation of paragraph (3) of this subsection shall
be assessed a civil penalty by the  Secretary of the  department
in which the Coast Guard is operating of not more than $5,000
for each offense. No penalty shall be assessed unless the  owner
or operator charged shall have been given notice and opportunity
for a hearing on  such charge. Each violation is a separate of-
fense. Any such  civil penalty may be  compromised by such
Secretary.  In determining the amount of the  penalty, or the
amount agreed upon in compromise, the appropriateness of such
penalty  to the  size of the  business of the  owner or operator
charged, the effect on the owner or operator's ability to continue
in business, and the gravity  of the violation, shall be considered
by such Secretary. The Secretary of the Treasury shall withhold
at the request of such Secretary the clearance required by section
91 of Title 46 of  any  vessel the  owner or operator of which is

-------
88           LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

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.

           Removal of discharged oil or hazardous substances;
                    National Contingency Plan
  (c)  (1)  Whenever any  oil or a hazardous substance is dis-
charged, into or upon the navigable waters  of the United States,
adjoining shorelines, or into or upon the waters of the contiguous
zone, the President  is  authorized to act to remove  or arrange
for the removal of such oil or substance at any time,  unless he
determines such removal  will be done properly by the  owner
or operator of  the vessel, onshore facility, or offshore facility
from which the discharge occurs.
  (2)  Within sixty  days  after October 18,  1972, the  President
shall prepare and publish a National Contingency Plan for re-
moval  of oil  and hazardous substances, pursuant to this subsec-
tion. Such  National  Contingency Plan shall provide for efficient,
coordinated,  and effective action to  minimize damage  from oil
and  hazardous substance discharges,  including containment, dis-
persal, and removal of oil and hazardous substances,  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 local agencies,  including, but not limited to, water  pollu-
     tion control, conservation, and port authorities;
       (B) identification,  procurement, maintenance,  and stor-
     age of equipment and supplies;
       (C) establishment or designation of a strike  force con-
     sisting 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 de-
     termined by  the President,  of  emergency task  forces  of
     trained personnel, adequate oil and hazardous substance pol-
     lution control  equipment  and material, and a  detailed oil
     and hazardous  substance  pollution prevention and removal
     plan;
       (D) a system of surveillance and notice designed  to in-
     sure earliest possible notice of discharges of oil and  hazardous
     substances to the appropriate Federal agency;
       (E) establishment of a national center to provide coordi-
     nation and  direction for operations in carrying out the Plan;
       (F) procedures  and techniques  to be employed in identi-

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY       89

    fying, containing, dispersing,  and removing oil  and hazard-
    ous substances;
      (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 pro-
    vide 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; and
      (H) a system whereby the State  or States affected  by a
    discharge of oil  or hazardous  substance  may act where
    necessary to remove such  discharge and such State or States
    may be reimbursed from  the fund established under subsec-
    tion (k) of this section for  the reasonable costs incurred in
    such removal.
The President may, from  time  to time, as  he deems  advisable
revise or otherwise  amend the National Contingency Plan. After
publication of the  National  Contingency Plan, the  removal of
oil and  hazardous  substances and actions  to minimize damage
from oil and hazardous substance discharges shall, to the greatest
extent possible, be  in accordance with the National  Contingency
Plan.

                   Maritime disaster discharges
  (d) Whenever a  marine disaster in or upon the navigable wa-
ters of the United  States has created a substantial threat of a
pollution hazard to the  public health or  welfare of the United.
States, including, but not limited  to, fish, shellfish,  and wildlife
and the public and  private shorelines and beaches of the United
States, because of  a discharge, or  an imminent discharge, of
large quantities of oil, or of a hazardous substance from a vessel
the United States may (A) coordinate and direct all public and
private  efforts directed  at the  removal  or elimination of such
threat; and  (B) summarily  remove, and, if necessary,  destroy
such vessel by whatever means  are  available without regard to
any provisions of law governing the employment of  personnel or
the expenditure of appropriated  funds.  Any  expense  incurred
under this subsection shall be  a  cost incurred  by the United

-------
90           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

States Government for  the  purposes of subsection (f)  of this
section in the removal of oil or hazardous substance.

                         Judicial 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
discharge of oil or hazardous substance into or upon the navi-
gable  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 for actual costs of removal
   (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  Govern-
ment,  or (D) an act or omission of a third party without regard
to whether any such act or omission was  or was not negligent, or
any combination of the foregoing clauses, such owner or operator
of  any vessel from which oil or a hazardous  substance is  dis-
charged in  violation of  subsection  (b)  (3) of this section shall,
notwithstanding any  other  provision  of law,  be  liable  to the
United States Government for the  actual  costs incurred under
subsection (c) of this section for the removal of such oil or sub-
stance by  the United States Government in an  amount not to
exceed $100 per gross ton of such vessel or  $14,000,000, which-
, ever is lesser, except that where the United States can show that
such  discharge  was the result of willful  negligence  or willful
misconduct within  the privity and knowledge of the owner, such
owner or operator shall be  liable to the United  States  Govern-
ment for the full amount of such costs.  Such costs shall constitute
a maritime lien on such vessel  which may be recovered  in  an
action in rem in the district court of the United States  for any
district  within  which any  vessel may  be found. The  United
States may also bring an  action against the owner or operator
of  such vessel in any court  of competent jurisdiction  to recover
such costs.
   (2)  Except where an owner or operator  of an onshore facility

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY       91

can prove that a discharge was caused solely by  (A) an act of
God,  (B) an  act of war, (C)  negligence  on the  part  of the
United States  Government, or (D) an act or omission of a third
party without regard to whether any such  act or omission was
or was  not  negligent, or  any  combination of  the foregoing
clauses, such owner or operator of any such facility from which
oil or a hazardous substance is discharged in violation of subsec-
tion  (b) (3) of this section shall be liable  to the United States
Government for the actual costs incurred under  subsection (c)
of this  section for the removal  of such oil  or substance  by the
United States  Government in an amount not to exceed $8,000,000,
except that where  the United  States can  show  that such  dis-
charge was the result of willful  negligence or willful misconduct
within the privity and knowledge of the owner,  such owner or
operator shall be liable to the United States Government for the
full amount of such costs. The United States may bring an action
against the owner or operator  of such facility in any court of
competent jurisdiction to recover such  costs. The Administrator
is authorized, by regulation, after  consultation with the Secre-
tary 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 bar-
rels or  less which he  determines because of size, type, and  lo-
cation do not present a substantial risk of the discharge of oil or
a hazardous substance in violation of subsection  (b) (3)  of this
section, and apply with  respect to such classifications differing
limits of liability which  may be less than the amount contained
in this paragraph.
   (3)  Except where an owner or operator of an offshore facility
can prove that a discharge was caused solely by  (A) an act of
God,  (B) an  act of war, (C)  negligence  on the  part  of the
United  States Government, or (D) an act or omission of  a third
party without regard to whether any such act or omission was or
was not negligent, or any combination of the foregoing clauses,
such owner or operator of any such facility from which oil or a
hazardous substance is discharged in violation of subsection (b)
(3) of  this section  shall, notwithstanding  any other provision
of law, be liable to the United States Government for the actual
costs  incurred under subsection (c)  of this section for  the  re-
moval of such oil or substance by the United States Government
in an  amount not to  exceed  $8,000,000 except that  where the
United  States  can show  that such discharge was the result of
willful  negligence or willful misconduct within the  privity and

-------
92           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

knowledge of the owner, such  owner or operator shall be liable
to the United States Government  for  the  full amount of such
costs. The United States may bring an action against the owner
or operator of such a facility in any court of competent jurisdic-
tion to recover such costs.

                       Third party liability
   (g)  In any case where an owner or operator of a vessel, of an
onshore  facility, or of an  offshore facility, from which oil or  a
hazardous substance is discharged  in violation of subsection (b)
(3) of this section,  proves that  such discharge of oil or hazardous
substance was  caused solely by an act or omission of  a third
party, or was caused solely by  such an act or omission in combi-
nation with an act of God, an act of war, or negligence on the
part of  the  United States Government,  such  third party shall,
notwithstanding any other provision  of law,  be  liable  to the
United States Government for the actual  costs incurred under
subsection (c) of this section for removal of such oil or substance
by the United States Government,  except where such third party
can prove that such discharge was caused  solely by (A) an act
of God,  (B) an act of war, (C) negligence  on the part of the
United States Government, or  (D)  an act or omission of another
party without regard to whether such act or omission was or was
not negligent, or  any combination of the  foregoing clauses.  If
such third party was the owner or operator  of a vessel which
caused the discharge of oil or a hazardous  substance in violation
of subsection (b)  (3) 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 or a hazardous substance in violation of subsection  (b)  (3)
of this section was the result of willful negligence or willful mis-
conduct within  the privity and knowledge of such third party,
such third party shall be liable to  the United States Government
for the full amount of such  removal costs. The United States
may bring an action against the third party in any court of com-
petent jurisdiction  to recover such removal costs.

     Rights against third parties who caused or contributed to discharge
   (h) The liabilities established by this section shall  in no way

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY       93

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 con-
tributed 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 or hazardous
substance.
                     Recovery of removal costs
   (i)  (1) In any case where an  owner or operator of a vessel or
an onshore facility or an offshore facility from which oil or a
hazardous substance is discharged in violation of subsection (b)
(3) of this section acts to remove such oil or substance in accord-
ance with regulations promulgated pursuant to this section, such
owner or operator shall be entitled to recover  the reasonable costs
incurred in such removal upon establishing, in a suit which may
be brought against the United States Government in the United
States Court of Claims, that  such discharge was caused solely
by (A)  an act of God, (B) an act of war, (C)  negligence on the
part of the United States Government, or (D) an act or omission
of a third party without regard to whether such act or omission
was or  was  not  negligent, or of any combination  of the  fore-
going causes.
   (2)  The provisions of this subsection shall  not apply in any
case where liability is established pursuant to the Outer Con-
tinental 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  funds established pursuant to subsection  (k) of
this section.

                       Regulations; penalty
   (j) (1)  Consistent with the National Contingency Plan  re-
quired by subsection  (c) (2)  of this section, as soon as practi-
cable  after October 18, 1972,  and from  time to time  thereafter,
the President shall issue  regulations consistent with maritime
safety and  with  marine and  navigation laws  (A) establishing
methods and procedures for removal of discharged oil and haz-
ardous substances,  (B) establishing criteria for the development
and implementation of local and regional oil and hazardous sub-
stance removal contingency plans, (C)  establishing procedures,
methods, and equipment  and other requirements for equipment to
prevent discharges  of oil and  hazardous substances from vessels
and from onshore facilities and  offshore facilities, and to contain

-------
94           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n

such discharges, and  (D)  governing the  inspection of vessels
carrying cargoes of oil and hazardous substances  and the inspec-
tion of such cargoes in order  to  reduce the likelihood of dis-
charges of oil from vessels in violation of this section.
  (2)  Any owner or operator of a vessel or an onshore facility
or an offshore facility and any other person subject to any regu-
lation issued under  paragraph (1) of this subsection who fails or
refuses to comply with the provisions of any  such  regulations,
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
President may assess and compromise such penalty. No penalty
shall  be assessed until  the owner,  operator,  or other person
charged shall  have been given  notice and an opportunity  for a
hearing on such charge. In determining the amount of the pen-
alty, or the amount agreed upon in compromise, the gravity of
the violation,  and  the  demonstrated  good faith of the owner,
operator, or other person charged in attempting to achieve rapid
compliance,  after notification  of  a  violation,  shall  be consid-
ered by the President.

                   Authorization of appropriations
  (k)  There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to a revolv-
ing  fund to  be established  in  the  Treasury  not to  exceed
$35,000,000  to carry out  the provisions of subsections  (c), (d),
(i), and  (I)  of this section.  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
  (OThe  President is authorized to delegate the administration
of this section to the heads of those Federal departments, agen-
cies, and  instrumentalities  which he determines to be appropri-
ate. Any moneys in the fund established by subsection (k) of this
section shall be available  to such Federal departments, agencies,
and instrumentalities to carry  out the provisions of  subsections
(c) and (i) of this section. Each such department,  agency, and
instrumentality,  in  order to  avoid duplication of effort,  shall,
whenever appropriate, utilize the personnel, services, and  facili-
ties of other Federal departments, agencies, and instrumentali-
ties.

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY       95

          Boarding and inspection of vessels; arrest; execution
                    of warrants or other process
  (m) Anyone authorized by the President to enforce the provi-
sions of this section may,  except as to public vessels, (A) board
and  inspect any vessel upon the navigable waters of the United
States or the waters of the contiguous zone,  (B) with or without
a warrant arrest any person  who violates the provisions of this
section or any regulation  issued thereunder in his presence or
view, and (C) execute any warrant or other process issued by
an officer or court of competent jurisdiction.

                          Jurisdiction
  (n)  The  several district courts of the United  States  are in-
vested with jurisdiction  for any actions, other than actions pur-
suant  to subsection (i)  (1)  of  this section, arising under  this
section. In  the  case  of  Guam  and the Trust  Territory of the
Pacific Islands, 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 Is-
lands,  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.

  Obligation for damages unaffected; local authority not preempted; existing
               Federal authority not modified or affected
  (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 hazardous substance or from the re-
moval of any such oil or hazardous substance.
  (2)  Nothing in this section shall be construed  as preempting
any  State or political subdivision thereof from imposing  any re-
quirement or liability with respect to the discharge of oil or  haz-
ardous substance 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
facilities under this chapter or any  other provision of law, or to
affect  any State or local  law not in conflict with  this  section.

-------
96           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
                      Financial responsibility
  (p)  (1)  Any vessel over three hundred  gross tons, including
any barge of equivalent size, but not including any barge that is
not self-propelled and that does  not carry oil or hazardous sub-
stances 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 pre-
scribed from time to time by the President, evidence of financial
responsibility of  $100 per gross ton, or $14,000,000, whichever
is the lesser, to meet the liability to the United States which such
vessel could be subjected under  this section. In cases where an
owner or operator owns, operates, or charters more than one such
vessel, financial responsibility need only be established to meet
the maximum liability to which the largest of such vessels could
be subjected. Financial responsibility may be established by any
one of, or a combination of, the following methods acceptable to
the President:  (A) evidence of insurance, (B) surety  bonds, (C)
qualification as a self-insurer, or (D)  other evidence of financial
responsibility.  Any bond filed shall be issued by a bonding com-
pany authorized to do business in the United States.
  (2)  The provisions  of paragraph  (1) of this subsection shall
be effective  April  3,  1971, with  respect  to oil  and one  year
after October  18,  1972,  with  respect  to hazardous  substances.
The  President shall delegate the responsibility to carry out the
provisions  of  this subsection  to the  appropriate agency head
within sixty days after  October 18, 1972. Regulations necessary
to implement this  subsection  shall be  issued within  six months
after October 18, 1972.
   (3) Any claim  for  costs  incurred by  such  vessel may  be
brought directly against the insurer or any other person provid-
ing  evidence  of  financial responsibility as  required  under this
subsection.  In the case of any  action pursuant  to this subsec-
tion such insurer or other person shall be  entitled to invoke  all
rights and defenses which would have been available to the owner
or operator if an  action had been  brought against him by the
claimant, and which would have been available  to  him  if  an
action had been brought against him by the owner or operator.
   (4) Any owner or operator of a vessel subject to this subsec-
tion,  who fails to comply with  the provisions of this  subsection
or any regulation issued thereunder, shall be subject  to a fine of
not more than $10,000.
   (5) The Secretary of  the Treasury may refuse the  clearance
required by section 91 of Title 46 to any  vessel subject to this
subsection, which does not have evidence furnished by the  Presi-

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY       97

dent that the financial  responsibility provisions of paragraph
(1) of this subsection have been complied with.
   (6)  The  Secretary  of the Department  in  which  the Coast
Guard is operated may (A) deny entry to  any port or place in
the United States  or the navigable waters of the United States,
to, and (B)  detain at the port or place in the United States from
which it is  about  to depart for  any other  port  or  place in the
United States, any vessel subject to this subsection, which upon
request, does not  produce  evidence furnished  by the President
that the financial  responsibility provisions  of paragraph (1) of
this subsection have been complied with.
June 30, 1948,  c.  758, Title III, §  311, as  added Oct.  18,  1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, §  2, 86 Stat.  862,  and amended  Dec.  28,  1973,
Pub.L. 93-207,  § 1 (4), 87 Stat. 906.

   § 1322. Marine sanitation devices—Definitions

   (a) For the purpose of this section, the term—
       (1) "new vessel" includes every description of watercraft
    or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used,
    as a means of transportation  on  the navigable waters, 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,
    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 politi-
    cal 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 re-
    tain body wastes;
       (7)  "manufacturer" means any person  engaged in the

-------
98           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

    manufacturing, assembling, or importation of marine sanita-
    tion devices  or of vessels subject  to standards  and regula-
    tions 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 spill-
    ing, leaking,  pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying or dump-
    ing.
                  Federal standards of performance
   (b)   (1)  As soon as possible,  after October 18,  1972, and
subject to the provisions  of  section 1254(j) of  this title,  the
Administrator, after  consultation with the Secretary of the de-
partment in which the  Coast Guard is operating, after  giving
appropriate consideration  to  the  economic  costs  involved, and
within the limits of available technology,  shall promulgate Fed-
eral standards of  performance  for marine sanitation devices
(hereafter in this section  referred  to as  "standards")   which
shall be designed to  prevent  the discharge  of untreated or in-
adequately treated sewage  into  or  upon  the navigable waters
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 consistant with standards promulgated  under this
subsection and with  maritime safety and the marine and navi-
gation laws and regulations governing the design, construction, in-
stallation, 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 regula-
tions under this section, which device is in compliance with such
initial  standards and regulations, shall be deemed in compliance
with this section until such times  as the device  is replaced or is
found  not to be in compliance with such initial  standards and
regulations.

            Initial standards; effective dates; revision; waiver
   (c)  (1) Initial standards  and regulations under  this section
shall become effective for new vessels two years after promulga-

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY       99

tion; and for existing vessels five years after promulgation. Revi-
sions of standards and regulations shall be effective upon promul-
gation, unless another effective  date is  specified, except that no
revision shall take effect before the effective date of the standard
or regulation being revised.
   (2) The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard
is operating with regard to his  regulatory  authority established
by this section, after consultation with the Administrator, may
distinguish  among classes, type, and sizes  of vessels  as  well  as
between new and existing vessels, and may waive applicability of
standards and  regulations  as necessary or  appropriate for such
classes, types,  and sizes  of vessels  (including existing  vessel
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.

            Vessels owned and operated by the United States
   (d)  The provisions of  this section and the standards and reg-
ulations 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 Secre-
tary of Defense.

                   Pre-promulgation consultation
   (e)  Before the standards  and regulations under this section
are promulgated, the Administrator and the Secretary of the de-
partment in which the  Coast Guard is operating shall  consult
with the Secretary of State; the Secretary of Health,  Education,
and Welfare; the  Secretary of Defense;  the Secretary  of the
Treasury;  the Secretary  of Commerce;  other  interested  Fed-
eral agencies; and the States and industries  interested; and other-
wise comply with the  requirements  of section  553 of Title 5.

          Regulation by States or political subdivisions thereof;
             complete prohibition upon discharge of sewage
   (f)  (1)  After the effective date of the  initial standards and
regulations promulgated  under this section, no State or political
subdivision thereof shall  adopt or enforce  any statute or regula-
tion of such State or  political  subdivision with respect  to the

-------
100          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

design, manufacture, or installation or use of any marine sanita-
tion device on any vessel  subject to the provisions of this sec-
tion.
  (2) If, after promulgation of the initial standards and  regula-
tions and prior to their effective date, a vessel is  equipped with
a marine sanitation device in  compliance with such  standards
and regulations and the installation and operation  of such device
is in accordance with such  standards and regulations, such stand-
ards and  regulations shall, for the purposes  of paragraph  (1)
of this subsection, become  effective with  respect to  such vessel on
the date of such compliance.
   (3) After the effective date of the initial standards and regula-
tions promulgated under  this section,  if any State  determines
that the protection and enhancement of the quality of some or
all  of the waters within such  State  require greater environ-
mental  protection, such  State may completely prohibit the  dis-
charge from all vessels of any sewage, whether treated  or  not,
into such waters, except that no such prohibition shall apply until
the  Administrator determines  that  adequate  facilities for the
safe and  sanitary removal  and treatment  of sewage from  all
vessels  are  reasonably available for such water to which such
prohibition  would apply. Upon  application of the  State, the Ad-
ministrator shall make such  determination within  90 days of the
date of such application.
   (4)  If the Administrator  determines upon application  by a
State that the protection and enhancement of the quality of speci-
fied waters within such   State requires such  a  prohibition, he
shall by  regulation completely  prohibit  the discharge  from a
vessel of any sewage (whether  treated or not) into such waters.

             Sales limited to  certified devices; certification of
                  test device; recordkeeping; reports
   (g) (1) No manufacturer  of a marine sanitation device shall
sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in
interstate commerce, or import into the United  States for sale
or  resale any marine sanitation  device  manufactured after the
effective  date of  the  standards  and  regulations promulgated
under this section unless  such  device is in  all material respects
substantially  the same as  a  test device certified under this  sub-
section.
   (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

-------
         WATER—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY      101

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 Administrator as to standards of
performance 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, installa-
tions, operation, material,  or other appropriate factors, he shall
certify the device.  Any device manufactured by such manufac-
turer which is in all material respects substantially the same as
the certified test device shall be deemed to be in conformity with
the appropriate standards  and  regulations established under this
section.
   (3) Every manufacturer shall establish and maintain such rec-
ords, make such  reports,  and  provide such information as  the
Administrator or the Secretary of the department in which  the
Coast Guard  is operating may reasonably require to enable him
to determine whether such manufacturer has  acted or is acting
in compliance with this section and regulations issued thereunder
and shall, upon request of  an officer or employee duly designated
by the Administrator or the Secretary of the department in which
the Coast Guard is operating,  permit such officer  or  employee
at reasonable times to have access to and copy such records.  All
information reported to or otherwise obtained by the Administra-
tor or the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard
is operating or their representatives pursuant to this subsection
which contains or  relates  to a trade secret or other matter re-
ferred to in section 1905 of Title 18 shall be considered confiden-
tial for the purpose of that section, except that such information
may be disclosed to other officers  or  employees concerned with
carrying out this section. This paragraph shall not apply in  the
case of the construction of a vessel by an individual for his own
use.

        Sale and resale of properly equipped vessels; operability of
                  certified marine sanitation devices
   (h) After the effective date  of standards and  regulations pro-
mulgated under this section, it shall be unlawful—
       (1)  for  the manufacturer  of any vessel  subject  to such
     standards and regulations  to manufacture for sale, to sell or
     offer for sale, or to  distribute for  sale or  resale  any such

-------
102          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n

    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
    purchaser, wrongfully to remove or  render inoperative any
    certified marine  sanitation device or element of  design of
    such device installed in such vessel;
       (3) for any  person to fail or refuse to permit access  to or
    copying of records or to fail to  make  reports  or provide
    information required under this section; and
       (4) for a vessel  subject to such  standards  and regulations
    to operate on the navigable waters of the United States,  if
    such vessel is  not equipped with an operable marine sanita-
    tion device certified pursuant to this section.

             Jurisdiction to restrain violations; contempts
   (i)  The district courts of the United States shall have juris-
dictions  to  restrain  violations of  subsection  (g)  (1)  of this
section and subsections (h)  (1) through (3) of this section. Ac-
tions  to restrain such violations shall be brought by, and in, the
name of the United States.  In case  of contumacy or  refusal  to
obey a subpena served upon any person under this subsection, the
district court of the United States  for  any district in which such
person is found or  resides or transacts business, upon application
by the United States and after notice to such person,  shall have
jurisdiction to issue  an order requiring such  person  to appear
and give testimony or to appear and produce documents, and any
failure to  obey  such order of the court  may be punished by
such court as a contempt thereof.

                            Penalties
   (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  viola-
tion.  Any person who  violates clause  (4)  of subsection (h)  of
this section or any regulation issued pursuant to this section shall
be liable  to a civil penalty of not  more  than $2,000 for each
violation. Each violation shall be a separate offense. The Secre-
tary  of the department in which  the  Coast Guard is  operating
may assess and compromise any such penalty. No penalty shall
be assessed until the person charged shall have been given  notice
and an opportunity for a hearing on such charge. In determining

-------
         WATER—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      103

the amount of the penalty, or the  amount agreed upon in com-
promise, the gravity of the violation, and the demonstrated good
faith of the person charged in attempting to achieve rapid com-
pliance, after  notification of a violation, shall be  considered by
said Secretary.
                      Enforcement authority
  (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 Administrator, other Federal agencies, or the States  to
carry out the provisions of this section.
            Boarding and inspection of vessels; execution of
                    warrants and other process
  (I)  Anyone authorized by the  Secretary of the department  in
which the Coast Guard is operating to enforce the provisions  of
this section may, except as to public vessels, (1) board  and in-
spect any vessel upon the navigable waters of the United States
and (2)  execute any warrant or other process issued by an of-
ficer or court of competent jurisdiction.
               Enforcement in United States possessions
  (m) In the case of Guam and the Trust Territory of the Pacific
Islands, 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 Is-
lands. 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,  Title  III,  §  312, as added Oct. 18, 1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 871.

  § 1323. Federal facilities pollution control
  Each department, agency,  or instrumentality of the executive,
legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government (1)
having jurisdiction over any property or facility, or (2) engaged
in any activity resulting, or which may result, in the discharge
or  runoff of pollutants shall comply with  Federal, State, inter-
state, and local requirements respecting control and abatement of

-------
104          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n

pollution to the same extent that any person is subject to  such
requirements, including  the payment  of  reasonable service
charges. The President may exempt  any effluent  source of any
department, agency, or instrumentality in the executive branch
from compliance with any such a requirement if he determines it
to be in the paramount interest of the United States to do so;
except that no exemption may be  granted from the require-
ments of section 1316 or  1317 of this title. No such exemptions
shall be granted due to lack of appropriation unless the President
shall have specifically requested such appropriation as a  part
of the budgetary process  and the  Congress shall  have  failed to
make available  such  requested appropriation.  Any exemption
shall be for  a period not in excess of one year,  but additional
exemptions may be granted for periods of not to exceed one year
upon the President's making a new determination. The President
shall report each January to the Congress all exemptions from
the requirements of this  section granted  during the  preceding
calendar year, together with his  reason for granting such exemp-
tion.
June 30, 1948, c. 758, Title  III, § 313, as added  Oct.  18, 1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 875.

  § 1324.  Clean lakes
   (a) Each State shall prepare or establish, and submit to the
Administrator for his approval—
       (1)  an identification  and classification according to eu-
    trophic condition of all publicly owned fresh  water lakes in
    such State;
      (2)  procedures,  processes,  and methods (including  land
    use requirements), to control  sources  of pollution of  such
    lakes; and
       (3)  methods and procedures,  in conjunction  with appro-
    priate Federal agencies, to  restore the quality of such lakes.
   (b)  The  Administrator shall provide  financial assistance to
States in order to carry out methods and procedures approved by
him under this section.
   (c) (1) The amount granted  to any State for any fiscal year
under this  section  shall not exceed 70 percentum of  the funds
expended  by such State in such year for carrying out  approved
methods and procedures under this section.
   (2) There is authorized to be  appropriated $50,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1973; $100,000,000 for the fiscal year
1974; and $150,000,000 for  the fiscal year  1975 for  grants to

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      105

States under this section which such sums shall remain available
until expended. The Administrator shall provide for an equitable
distribution of such sums to the States with approved methods
and procedures under this section.
June  30, 1948, c. 758, Title III, § 314, as added  Oct.  18, 1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 875.

  § 1325. National  Study Commission—Establishment
  (a) There is established a National Study Commission, which
shall make a full and complete investigation and study of all of
the technological aspects of achieving,  and  all  aspects  of the
total economic, social, and  environmental  effects of achieving or
not achieving,  the  effluent  limitations and goals  set forth for
1983 in section 1311 (b) (2) of this title.
                      Membership; chairman
  (b) Such Commission shall be composed of fifteen members,
including five members of the Senate, who are members of the
Public Works committee, appointed by the President  of the Sen-
ate, five members of the House, who are members of the Public
Works committee, appointed by the Speaker of the House, and five
members of the public appointed by the President.  The Chairman
of such Commission shall  be  elected from  among its members.
                        Contract authority
  (c) In the conduct of such study, the Commission is authorized
to contract with  the National Academy of Sciences and the Na-
tional Academy of Engineering (acting through the National Re-
search Council), the National Institute of  Ecology, Brookings
Institution,  and other nongovernmental entities, for  the investi-
gation of matters within their competence.
        Cooperation of departments, agencies, and instrumentalities
                       of executive branch
  (d) The  heads of the departments, agencies and instrumental-
ities of the executive  branch of the Federal Government  shall
cooperate with the Commission in carrying out the requirements
of this section, and shall furnish to the Commission such informa-
tion as  the  Commission  deems necessary to carry out this sec-
tion.
                       Report to Congress
  (e) A report shall be submitted to the Congress of the results
of such  investigation and study, together with recommendations,
not later than three years after October 18,1972.

-------
106          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

                   Compensation and allowances
   (f) The members of the Commission who are not officers or
employees of the United States, while  attending conferences or
meetings of the Commission or  while  otherwise serving at the
request of the Chairman shall be entitled to receive compensation
at a rate not  in excess of the maximum rate of pay for grade
GS-18, as provided in the General Schedule under  section 5332
of Title 5, including traveltime 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
for persons in the  Government service employed intermittently.

                     Appointment of personnel
   (g) In addition to authority to appoint personnel subject to the
provisions of Title  5 governing appointments in the competitive
service, and to pay such personnel in accordance with the provi-
sions of  chapter  51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such
title relating to classification  and General Schedule pay rates, the
Commission shall have authority to enter into contracts with pri-
vate or public organizations who shall furnish the Commission
with  such  administrative  and  technical  personnel  as may be
necessary to carry out the  purpose of this section. Personnel
furnished by such  organizations under this subsection are not,
and shall not be considered to be, Federal employees for any pur-
poses, but in the performance of their  duties shall be guided by
the  standards which apply to  employees  of the  legislative
branches under rules  41  and  43 of the Senate and  House of
Representatives, respectively.

                   Authorization of appropriation
   (h) There is authorized to be appropriated, for use in carry-
ing out this section, not to exceed $15,000,000.
June 30, 1948, c. 758, Title  III, § 315, as  added Oct. 18,  1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 875, and amended Dec. 28,  1973.
Pub.L. 93-207, §  1(5), 87 Stat.  906.

   §  1326.  Thermal  discharges—Effluent limitations that  will as-
sure protection and propagation of balanced, indigenous  popula-
tion of shellfish, fish, and wildlife.

   (a) With respect to any point source otherwise subject to the
provisions  of  section 1311 of  this title or section  1316  of this

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      107

title, whenever the owner or operator of any such source, after
opportunity for public hearing, can demonstrate to the satisfac-
tion of the Administrator (or, if appropriate, the State) that any
effluent limitation proposed for the control of the thermal  com-
ponent  of  any discharge from  such source  will require effluent
limitations more stringent than necessary to assure the projec-
tion and  propagation of a  balanced, indigenous  population of
shellfish, fish, and wildlife in  and on the  body of water  into
which  the discharge is  to be made,  the  Administrator  (or, if
appropriate, the State) may impose an effluent limitation under
such sections  for such plant, with respect to the thermal  com-
ponent  of  such discharge (taking  into account the  interaction
of such thermal component with other pollutants), that will assure
the protection and propagation  of a balanced, indigenous popula-
tion of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on that body of water.

                   Cooling water intake structures
   (b) Any standard established pursuant to  section 1311 of this
title or section 1316 of this title and applicable to  a point source
shall require that the location, design, construction, and capacity
of  cooling water intake structures reflect  the best  technology
available for minimizing adverse environmental impact.

  Period of protection from more stringent effluent limitations following dis-
     charge point source modification commenced after October 18,1972
   (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, any
point source  of a discharge having  a  thermal component, the
modification of which point source is commenced after October
18, 1972, and  which, as modified, meets effluent limitations estab-
lished under section 1311 of this title or, if more stringent, ef-
fluent limitations established under section 1313 of this title and
which effluent limitations will assure protection and propagation
of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife
in or on the water into which the discharge  is made, shall not be
subject to any more  stringent effluent limitation with  respect
to  the  thermal component of  its discharge during  a ten  year
period beginning on the date of completion of such modification or
during the period of depreciation  or amortization of such facility
for the purpose of section 167 or 169 (or both)  of Title 26, which
ever period ends first.

June 30,  1948,  c. 758, Title  III,  § 316, as added  Oct. 18,  1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 876.

-------
108          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

  § 1327.  Investigation  and study of  feasibility  of  alternate
methods of financing the cost of preventing, controlling, and
abating pollution
  (a) The Administrator shall continue to investigate and study
the feasibility of alternate methods of financing the cost of pre-
venting, controlling  and abating  pollution as  directed  in  the
Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970, including, but not lim-
ited to, the feasibility of establishing a pollution abatement trust
fund. The results of such investigation and study  shall be re-
ported to  the Congress not later than two years after enactment
of  this title, together  with recommendations  of the Adminis-
trator for financing the programs for preventing,  controlling
and abating pollution for the  fiscal years beginning after fiscal
year 1976, including any necessary legislation.
   (b)  There is authorized to be appropriated for use in carrying
out this section, not to exceed  $1,000,000.
June  30,  1948, c. 758, Title III, § 317, as added  Oct. 18, 1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 877.

  § 1328. Aquaculture

   (a)  The Administrator is authorized, after public hearings, to
permit the discharge of a specific pollutant or  pollutants under
controlled conditions associated with  an approved aquaculture
project under Federal or State supervision.
   (b)  The Administrator shall by regulation, not later than Jan-
uary  1, 1974, establish any  procedures  and guidelines he deems
necessary to carry out this section.
June  30,  1948, c. 758, Title III, § 318, as added  Oct. 18, 1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 877.

            SUBCHAPTER IV—PERMITS AND LICENSES

   § 1341.  Certification—Compliance  with  applicable  require-
ments; application; procedures; license suspension

   (a)  (1) Any applicant for a Federal license or permit to conduct
any activity including,  but not limited to, the construction or
operation of facilities, which  may result in any  discharge  into
the navigable waters, 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 inter-
state water pollution control agency having jurisdiction over the
navigable waters at  the point where the discharge originates or
will originate,  that any such discharge  will comply with  the ap-

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      109

plicable provisions of sections 1311, 1312, 1316, and 1317 of this
title. In the case of  any such activity for which there is not an
applicable  effluent limitation or other limitation under  sections
1311 (b)  and 1312 of  this title, and there is not an  applicable
standard under sections  1316 and  1317 of this title, the State
shall so  certify, except that any such certification  shall not be
deemed to satisfy section 1371 (c)  of this title. Such State or
interstate agency  shall establish procedures for public notice in
the case of all applications for certification  by it and, to the
extent it deems appropriate, procedures for public hearings in
connection with specific applications. In  any  case where a State
or interstate agency has no authority to give such a certification,
such certification shall be from the Administrator. If the State,
interstate agency, or Administrator, as the case may be, fails or
refuses to  act on a request for  certification, within a reasonable
period of time  (which  shall not exceed one year) after receipt of
such request,  the certification  requirements  of this  subsection
shall be  waived  with respect to such  Federal application. No
license or permit shall be granted until  the certification required
by this section  has been obtained or has been waived as provided
in the  preceding sentence. No license  or permit shall be granted
if certification  has been denied by  the  State, interstate agency,
or the Administrator, as the case may be.
   (2)  Upon receipt of  such  application  and  certification the
licensing or permitting agency  shall immediately notify  the Ad-
ministrator of  such  application and certification. Whenever such
a discharge may affect, as determined by the Administrator, the
quality of the waters of any other State,  the Administrator
within thirty days of  the date  of notice of application for such
Federal license or permit shall  so  notify such  other  State, the
licensing  or permitting  agency,  and 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  any water quality requirement in such  State,
and within such sixty-day period notifies the Administrator and
the licensing or permitting agency in  writing of its objection to
the issuance of such  license or  permit  and  requests a  public
hearing on such objection,  the  licensing or permitting  agency
shall hold such a hearing. The Administrator shall  at such hear-
ing 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 Ad-
ministrator, and upon any additional evidence, if any, presented

-------
110          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n

to the agency at the hearing, shall condition such license or per-
mit in such manner as may be necessary to  insure compliance
with applicable water quality requirements. If the imposition of
conditions cannot  insure such compliance such agency 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 per-
mit required for the operation of such facility unless, after no-
tice to the certifying State, agency, or Administrator, as the case
may be, which shall be given by  the  Federal agency to  whom
application  is made for  such operating  license  or permit, the
State, or if appropriate, the interstate agency  or the Administra-
tor, notifies 'such agency within sixty days after  receipt of such
notice that  there  is no  longer reasonable assurance  that there
will  be  compliance with  the applicable  provisions  of sections
1311, 1312, 1316, and 1317 of this title because of changes since
the construction license or permit certification was issued in  (A)
the construction or operation of the facility,  (B) the character-
istics of the  waters into which such  discharge is made,  (C)
the water quality criteria applicable to such  waters or (D) ap-
plicable  effluent limitations  or other  requirements. This para-
graph shall be inapplicable in any case where the applicant for
such operating license or permit has failed to provide the certi-
fying State, or, if  appropriate, the interstate  agency or the Ad-
ministrator,  with  notice of  any  proposed  changes in the  con-
struction or operation  of the facility with respect to which a
construction license or permit has been  granted, which changes
may result in violation  of section 1311, 1312, 1316, or 1317 of
this title.
   (4) Prior  to the initial operation of any federally licensed or
permitted facility or activity which may result in any discharge
into the navigable waters and with respect to which  a certifica-
tion  has been obtained pursuant  to paragraph (1)  of this  sub-
section, which facility or activity is not subject to a Federal op-
erating license or permit,  the licensee or permittee shall provide
an opportunity for such certifying State, or,  if appropriate, the
interstate agency  or the Administrator to review the manner in
which the facility  or activity shall be operated or conducted for
the purposes of assuring that applicable  effluent limitations or
other limitations or other applicable water quality requirements
will  not be violated. Upon  notification by the certifying State,

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      111

or if appropriate, the interstate agency or the Administrator that
the  operation  of  any  such  federally  licensed  or  permitted
facility or  activity will violate applicable effluent limitations or
other limitations or other  water quality requirements  such Fed-
eral agency may,  after public hearing, suspend  such  license or
permit. If  such license or permit is suspended,  it shall remain
suspended until notification is received from the certifying State,
agency, or  Administrator, as the  case  may be, that there is
reasonable assurance that such facility or activity will not violate
the applicable provisions of section 1311, 1312, 1316, or 1317 of
this title.
   (5)  Any Federal license or permit with  respect to which a
certification has been obtained under paragraph (1) of this sub-
section may be suspended  or revoked by the Federal  agency is-
suing  such  license or permit  upon the entering  of a judgment
under this chapter that such facility or  activity  has been oper-
ated in violation of the applicable provisions of section 1311, 1312,
1316, or 1317 of this title.
   (6)  No  Federal agency  shall be deemed  to be an applicant
for the purposes of this subsection.
   (7)  Except with respect to a permit issued under section 1342
of this title, in any case where actual construction  of a facility
has been lawfully commenced prior to April 3, 1970, no certifica-
tion shall be required under this subsection for a license or per-
mit issued after April 3,  1970,  to operate  such  facility, except
that any such license or permit issued without certification shall
terminate April 3,  1973, unless prior to  such termination date
the person having such license or permit submits to the Federal
agency which  issued such  license or permit a certification  and
otherwise meets the requirements of this section.

             Compliance with other provisions of law setting
                applicable water quality requirements

   (b) Nothing in this  section shall be construed  to limit  the
authority of any  department  or agency pursuant to  any other
provision of law to require compliance with any applicable water
quality requirements. The  Administrator shall, upon the request
of  any Federal  department  or agency, or  State or interstate
agency, or  applicant, provide, for the purpose  of  this section,
any relevant information on  applicable effluent  limitations, or
other  limitations,  standards,  regulations,  or  requirements, or
water quality criteria, and shall, when requested  by any such de-

-------
112          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n

partment or agency or State or interstate agency, or applicant,
comment  on  any  methods  to  comply  with  such limitations,
standards, regulations, requirements, or criteria.

     Authority of Secretary of the Army to permit use of spoil disposal
               areas by Federal licensees or permittees

   (c)  In order to  implement the provisions  of this section, the
Secretary of the  Army, acting  through the Chief of Engineers,
is authorized, if he deems it to be in the public interest, to permit
the use of spoil disposal areas under his jurisdiction by Federal
licensees or permittees, and to  make an appropriate charge for
such use. Moneys received from such  licensees or permittees shall
be deposited in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.

         Limitations and monitoring requirements of certification

   (d)  Any certification  provided under this  section shall set
forth any effluent limitations and other limitations, and monitor-
ing requirements necessary to  assure  that any applicant for a
Federal license or permit will comply with any  applicable effluent
limitations and other  limitations, under  section 1311 or 1312 of
this title, standard of performance  under section 1316  of this
title,  or prohibition,  effluent standard,  or pretreatment  stand-
ard under section 1317 of this title, and with  any other appropri-
ate requirement  of State law set forth in  such certification, and
shall become a condition on any Federal license or permit subject
to the provisions  of this section.

June 30, 1948, c. 758, Title  IV, § 401,  as added Oct. 18, 1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 877.

   §  1342. National pollutant discharge elimination system—Per-
mits for discharge of pollutants

   (a)  (1)  Except as provided in sections  1328 and 1344 of this
title, the Administrator may, after opportunity for public hear-
ing, issue a permit for the discharge  of any pollutant, or com-
bination of pollutants, notwithstanding  section 1311 (a) of this
title, upon condition that such  discharge will meet either all ap-
plicable requirements  under sections  1311, 1312, 1316,  1317, 1318,
and 1343 of this title,  or prior to  the taking of necessary imple-
menting actions relating to all such  requirements,  such condi-
tions  as the  Administrator  determines  are necessary  to  carry
out the provisions of this  chapter.

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      113

  (2)  The  Administrator  shall  prescribe  conditions  for such
permits to  assure  compliance with the  requirements of para-
graph  (1)  of this subsection, including conditions on data  and
information collection,  reporting, and  such other requirements
as he deems appropriate.
  (3)  The  permit  program of the Administrator  under para-
graph  (1)   of this subsection, and permits  issued  thereunder,
shall be subject  to the same terms, conditions, and requirements
as apply to a State permit program and permits issued thereunder
under subsection (b) of this section.
  (4) All permits for discharges into the navigable waters issued
pursuant to section  407 of this title,  shall  be  deemed to be
permits issued under this title, and permits issued under this  title
shall be deemed to be permits issued  under section  407 of  this
title, and shall continue in force and effect for their  term unless
revoked, modified,  or suspended in accordance with the provi-
sions of this chapter.
  (5)  No permit for a discharge into the navigable waters shall
be issued under section 407 of this  title after October 18, 1972.
Each  application for a  permit under section 407 of this title,
pending on October 18, 1972, shall be deemed to be an application
for a permit under this section. The Administrator shall authorize
a State, which he determines has the capability of administering
a permit program which will carry  out the objective  of  this
chapter, to issue permits for discharges into the navigable waters
within  the  jurisdiction  of  such  State. The Administrator  may
exercise the authority  granted him by the preceding  sentence
only during the period  which begins  on October 18, 1972,  and
ends either on the ninetieth day after the date of the first  promul-
gation of guidelines required by section 1314 (h) (2)  of this title,
or the date of approval by the Administrator of a  permit  pro-
gram for such State under  subsection  (b) of this  section, which-
ever date first occurs, and no such  authorization to a State shall
extend beyond  the last day of such period.  Each  such  permit
shall be subject to such conditions  as  the  Administrator deter-
mines  are necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter.
No such permit shall issue if the Administrator objects  to  such
issuance.
                      State permit programs
   (b)  At any time after the promulgation of the guidelines re-
quired by  subsection (h)  (2) of section 1314 of this title, the
Governor of  each  State desiring to administer its  own permit
program for  discharges into navigable waters within its juris-

-------
114          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

diction may  submit  to the Administrator  a  full and complete
description of the program its proposes to establish and adminis-
ter under State law or under an interstate compact. In addition,
such State shall submit a statement from  the  attorney general
(or the attorney for those State water pollution control agencies
which  have independent legal counsel),  or  from the chief legal
officer  in the case of an interstate agency, that  the laws of such
State,  or  the interstate compact, as the case may be, provide
adequate authority to carry out the  described program. The Ad-
ministrator shall approve each such submitted program  unless
he determines that adequate authority does not exist:
   (1) To issue permits which—
       (A) apply, and insure compliance  with, any  applicable
    requirements of sections 1311, 1312, 1316, 1317, and 1343 of
    this title;
       (B) are for  fixed terms  not exceeding five years;  and
       (C) can be terminated or modified  for  cause  including,
    but not limited to, the following:
           (i) violation of any condition of the permit;
           (ii) obtaining a permit by misrepresentation, or  fail-
         ure to disclose fully all relevant facts;
           (iii) change  in  any condition that requires either a
         temporary  or permanent  reduction or elimination of
         the permitted discharge;
       (D) control the disposal of pollutants into  wells;
   (2)  (A) To issue  permits which apply, and insure compliance
    with, all applicable requirements of section  1318 of this title,
    or
       (B) To inspect, monitor, enter, and  require reports to at
    least the same extent as required in section 1318 of this title;
   (3)  To insure that the public,  and any other  State  the waters
of which may be affected, receive notice of each  application for a
permit and to provide an opportunity for public hearing  before
a ruling on each such application;
   (4)  To insure  that the Administrator receives notice of  each
application (including a copy thereof) for a permit;
   (5)  To insure that  any State  (other  than the  permitting
State), whose waters may be affected by the issuance of a permit
may submit written recommendations  to  the  permitting State
 (and the Administrator) with respect to any permit  application
and, if any  part of such written recommendations are  not ac-
cepted by the  permitting State, that the permitting State will
notify such affected State (and the  Administrator) in writing of

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      115

its failure to so accept such recommendations  together with its
reasons for so doing;
  (6) To insure that no permit will be issued if, in the judgment
of the Secretary of the Army acting through the Chief of Engi-
neers,  after consultation with the  Secretary of the department
in which the Coast Guard is  operating, anchorage and naviga-
tion  of any of  the navigable  waters would be substantially im-
paired thereby;
  (7) To abate violations of the permit or the permit program,
including civil and criminal penalties and other ways and means
of enforcement;
  (8) To insure that any permit for a discharge from a publicly
owned treatment works includes conditions to require adequate
notice  to the permitting agency of (A) new introductions  into
such works of pollutants from any source which would be a  new
source as denned in  section  1316 of this title  if such  source
were discharging pollutants, (B) new introductions of pollutants
into such works from a source which would be  subject to  section
1311 of this title if it were discharging such pollutants, or (C) a
substantial change in  volume or character of pollutants being
introduced  into such  works by a source introducing  pollutants
into such works at the time of issuance of the permit. Such notice
shall include information on the quality  and quantity of effluent
to be introduced into  such treatment works and any anticipated
impact of such change in the quantity or quality of effluent to be
discharged from  such publicly owned  treatment  works;  and
  (9) To insure that any industrial user of any publicly owned
treatment works  will comply with sections 1284 (b),  1317,  and
1318 of this title.

     Suspension of federal program upon submission of State program;
               withdrawal of approval of State program
  (c) (1) Not later than ninety days after the date on which a
State has submitted a program  (or revision thereof)  pursuant
to subsection (b)  of  this section, the Administrator  shall  sus-
pend the issuance of permits under subsection (a)  of this  section
as to those navigable waters subject to such program unless he
determines that the State permit  program does  not meet the
requirements of subsection (b)  of this section or does not  con-
form to the guidelines issued  under section 1314 (h) (2)  of  this
title. If the Administrator so determines, he shall notify the State
of any revisions or modifications necessary to conform to  such
requirements or guidelines.

-------
116          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

  (2) Any State permit program under this section shall at all
times be in accordance with this section and  guidelines promul-
gated pursuant to section 1314(h)  (2) of this title.
  (3) Whenever the Administrator determines after public hear-
ing that a  State is not administering a program approved under
this  section in  accordance with requirements  of this section, he
shall so notify  the State and, if appropriate corrective action is
not taken within  a reasonable time, not  to exceed  ninety days,
the Administrator shall withdraw approval of  such program.  The
Administrator shall not withdraw approval of any such program
unless he shall  first have notified the State, and made public,
in writing, the reasons for such withdrawal.


                   Notification of Administrator
  (d) (1) Each State shall transmit to the Administrator a copy
of each permit  application  received by such  State  and provide
notice to the Administrator of  every  action related to the  con-
sideration of such permit application, including each permit  pro-
posed to be issued by such State.
  (2) No  permit shall  issue (A) if  the  Administrator  within
ninety days of the date of his notification under subsection  (b)
(5)  of  this section  objects in writing to the  issuance of such
permit,  or (B)  if the  Administrator within ninety days  of  the
date of transmittal of the proposed permit by  the  State objects
in writing to the issuance  of such permit as being outside  the
guidelines and requirements of this chapter.
  (3)  The Administrator may, as to any permit application,
waive paragraph (2) of this subsection.


                  Waiver of notification requirement
   (e) In accordance with guidelines promulgated pursuant to sub-
section  (h) (2) of section 1314 of this title, the Administrator
is authorized to waive the requirements of subsection  (d)  of
this section at  the time he approves a program pursuant to  sub-
section  (b)  of this  section  for  any  category  (including   any
class, type,  or  size within  such  category)  of point  sources
within the State submitting such program.
   (f) The Administrator shall promulgate regulations establish-
ing categories of point sources which  he determines shall not be
subject to  the  requirements of subsection  (d) of this  section in

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      117

                      Point source categories
any State with a program approved pursuant to subsection (b)
of this section. The Administrator may distinguish among classes,
types, and sizes within any category of point sources.

           Other regulations for safe transportation, handling,
              carriage, storage, and stowage of pollutants
   (g)  Any permit issued under this section for the discharge of
pollutants into the navigable waters from a vessel or other float-
ing craft shall be subject to any applicable regulations promul-
gated by the Secretary of the department in which  the  Coast
Guard is operating, establishing specifications for safe transpor-
tation, handling,  carriage, storage, and  stowage  of pollutants.

  Violation of permit conditions; restrictions or prohibition upon introduction
       of pollutant by source not previously utilizing treatment works
   (h)  In the event any  condition of a permit for discharges
from a treatment works (as denned in section 1292 of this title)
which  is publicly owned  is  violated, a  State with a program
approved under  subsection (b)  of  this section or the Adminis-
trator, where no State program  is approved, may proceed in a
court of competent jurisdiction to restrict or prohibit the  intro-
duction of any pollutant into such  treatment works by a source
not utilizing  such treatment works  prior to the finding that such
condition was violated.

                   Federal enforcement not limited
   (i)  Nothing in this section shall  be construed  to limit the au-
thority of the Administrator to take action pursuant  to section
1319 of this title.

                        Public information
   (j)  A copy of each permit application  and each permit issued
under  this section shall be available  to the public. Such permit
application or permit, or portion thereof, shall further be  avail-
able on request for the purpose of reproduction.

                      Compliance with permits
   (k)  Compliance with  a  permit issued pursuant to this section
shall be deemed  compliance,  for purposes of sections 1319  and
1365 of this  title, with sections 1311, 1312, 1316, 1317, and 1343

-------
118          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n

of this title, except any standard imposed under section  1317
of this title for a toxic pollutant injurious  to  human health.
Until December 31, 1974, in any case where a permit for dis-
charge has  been applied for  pursuant to this  section, but  final
administrative disposition of such application has not been made,
such discharge shall not be a  violation of (1) section 1311, 1316,
or 1342 of this title, or (2)  section 407  of this title, unless the
Administrator  or other plaintiff proves that final administrative
disposition of such application has not been made because of the
failure of the  applicant  to furnish information reasonably re-
quired or requested in  order  to process the  application. For the
180-day period beginning on October 18, 1972, in  the case of any
point source discharging any pollutant or combination of pollu-
tants immediately prior to such date of enactment which source
is not subject to section 407  of this title, the discharge by  such
source shall not be a violation of  this chapter if such a source
applies for a permit for discharge pursuant to this section within
such 180-day period.
June 30, 1948,  c.  758,  Title IV, § 402, as added  Oct. 18,  1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 880.

  § 1343. Ocean discharge criteria
   (a)  No permit under section 1342 of this title  for a discharge
into the territorial sea, the waters of the contiguous zone, or the
oceans shall be issued,  after promulgation  of guidelines estab-
lished under subsection  (c) of this section, except in compliance
with such guidelines. Prior  to  the promulgation of such guide-
lines, a permit may  be issued under such section  1342 of this
title if the Administrator determines it to be in the public inter-
est.
   (b)  The  requirements of  subsection  (d)  of section 1342 of
this title may not be waived in the case of permits for discharges
into the territorial sea.
   (c)  (1)   The Administrator shall, within  one  hundred and
eighty days after October 18, 1972 (and from time to time there-
after),  promulgate guidelines for determining the degradation
of the waters of the territorial seas, the contiguous zone, and the
oceans, which shall include:
       (A)  the effect of disposal of pollutants on human health
     or welfare, including but not limited to plankton, fish,  shell-
     fish, wildlife, shorelines, and beaches;
       (B)  the effect of disposal  of  pollutants  on marine life
     including  the transfer, concentration,  and dispersal of pol-

-------
         WATER—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      119

    lutants or  their  byproducts  through  biological, physical,
    and chemical  processes;  changes in marine ecosystem diver-
    sity, productivity, and stability;  and  species and community
    population changes;
       (C)  the effect of disposal of pollutants on  esthetic, recre-
    ation, and economic values;
       (D)  the persistence and permanence of the effects of dis-
    posal of pollutants;
       (E)  the effect of the  disposal at varying rates, of partic-
    ular volumes and concentrations of pollutants;
       (F)  other possible locations and methods  of disposal  or
    recycling of  pollutants  including land-based  alternatives;
    and
       (G)  the effect on  alternate uses of  the oceans, such  as
    mineral exploitation and scientific study.
  (2) In any event where insufficient information exists on any
proposed discharge to make a reasonable judgment on any of the
guidelines established pursuant to this subsection  no permit shall
be issued under section 1342 of this title.
June 30, 1948, c.  758, Title IV,  §  403, as added Oct. 18,  1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 883.

  § 1344. Permits for dredged or fill material

  (a) The  Secretary of the  Army, acting through the  Chief  of
Engineers,  may issue permits, after notice  and opportunity for
public hearings, for the discharge of dredged or fill material into
the navigable waters at specified disposal sites.
  (b)  Subject to  subsection  (c) of  this  section,  each such dis-
posal site shall be  specified for each such permit by the Secretary
of the Army (1) through the application  of guidelines developed
by the Administrator, in  conjunction with the Secretary of the
Army, which  guidelines shall be  based  upon criteria comparable
to the  criteria applicable  to  the  territorial  seas,  the  contiguous
zone, and the ocean under section  1343(c)  of this title, and (2)
in any case where such guidelines  under  clause (1) alone would
prohibit the  specification of a site,  through the  application
additionally of the economic impact of  the site on  navigation
and anchorage.
  (c) The  Administrator is  authorized to prohibit the specifica-
tion  (including the withdrawal of specification)  of any defined
area as a disposal site, and he is authorized to deny or restrict the
use of any defined area  for specification  (including the  with-
drawal  of  specification) as a disposal  site, whenever he deter-

-------
120          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

mines, after notice  and opportunity for  public hearings, that
the discharge of such materials into such  area will  have an un-
acceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies,  shellfish
beds and fishery areas (including spawning and  breeding areas),
wildlife,  or  recreational areas. Before  making  such determina-
tion, the Administrator shall  consult with the Secretary of the
Army. The  Administrator  shall set forth  in writing  and make
public his findings and his reasons for making any determination
under this subsection.
June  30, 1948, c. 758, Title IV,  §  404, as added Oct. 18, 1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, § 2,  86 Stat. 884.

  § 1345. Disposal of sewage sludge
   (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter or of
any other law, in any case  where the  disposal of sewage sludge
resulting from the operation of a treatment works as defined in
section 1292 of this title (including the removal of in-place sew-
age sludge from one location and its deposit at another location)
would result in any  pollutant from such sewage sludge  entering
the navigable waters, such disposal is prohibited except in ac-
cordance with a permit issued by the Administrator under this
section.
   (b) The Administrator shall issue  regulations governing the
issuance of  permits for the disposal of sewage sludge subject to
this  section. Such regulations shall  require  the application to
such  disposal of each criterion,  factor, procedure,  and  require-
ment applicable to a permit  issued under section  1342 of this
title, as the Administrator determines  necessary to carry out the
objective of this chapter.
   (c) Each  State desiring to administer its own permit  program
for disposal of sewage sludge within its jurisdiction may do so
if upon  submission  of such program the  Administrator deter-
mines such program is adequate to carry out the objective of this
chapter.
June 30, 1948, c.  758,  Title IV,  § 405, as added Oct. 18,  1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 884.

              SUBCHAPTER V—GENERAL PROVISIONS

   §  1361. Administration—Authority  of Administrator to  pre-
scribe regulations
   (a) The Administrator is authorized to  prescribe such regula-
tions as  are  necessary to  carry out  his  functions under this
chapter.

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY      121

            Utilization of other agency officers and employees
   (b)  The Administrator, 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 chapter.

                         Recordkeeping
   (c)  Each recipient  of  financial assistance under  this chapter
shall keep  such records as the Administrator shall prescribe, in-
cluding 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
   (d)  The Administrator and the Comptroller  General of the
United States,  or any of their duly authorized  representatives,
shall have  access, for the purpose of audit and  examination, to
any books, documents, papers, and records of the recipients that
are pertinent to the grants received under this chapter.

  Awards for outstanding technological achievement or innovative processes,
   methods, or devices in waste treatment and pollution abatement programs
   (e)  (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 demonstra-
ted an outstanding technological achievement  or an innovative
process, method, or device in their waste treatment and pollution
abatement  programs.  The  Administrator  shall,  in  consultation
with the appropriate State water pollution control  agencies, es-
tablish regulations under which such recognition may be applied
for and granted,  except  that no applicant shall be eligible for
an award under this subsection  if such applicant is not in total
compliance with all applicable water quality  requirements under
this chapter, or otherwise  does  not have  a  satisfactory record
with respect to environmental quality.
   (2)  The Administrator shall award  a certificate or plaque of
suitable design to each industrial  organization or political sub-
division  which qualifies  for such recognition under regulations
established under this subsection.

-------
122          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

  (3) The President of the United States,  the  Governor of the
appropriate State, the  Speaker of the House of Representatives,
and the President pro  tempore of the Senate shall be notified of
the award by the Administrator and the awarding of such recog-
nition shall be published in the Federal Register.

          Detail of Environmental Protection Agency personnel
               to State water pollution control agencies
   (f) Upon the request of a State water pollution control agency,
personnel of the Environmental Protection Agency may be de-
tailed to such agency for the purpose of carrying out the provi-
sions of this chapter.
June 30,1948, c. 758, Title V, § 501, as added Oct. 18, 1972, Pub.L.
92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 885.

  §  1362. Definitions
  Except as otherwise specifically provided, when  used  in this
chapter:
   (1)  The  term "State  water pollution control agency" means
the State agency designated by the Governor having responsibil-
ity for enforcing State laws relating to the abatement of pollu-
tion.
   (2)  The term  "interstate agency" means an agency of two or
more States established by or pursuant to an agreement or com-
pact approved by the Congress, or any other agency of two or
more  States,  having  substantial powers  or  duties  pertaining
to the control  of pollution  as  determined  and  approved by the
Administrator.
   (3)  The term "State"  means a State, the District of Columbia,
the  Commonwealth  of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam,
American Samoa, and  the  Trust Territory of the  Pacific Is-
lands.
   (4)  The term "municipality"  means a  city, town, borough,
county, parish, district, association, or other public body created
by or pursuant  to  State law and having  jurisdiction over dis-
posal of sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes, or an Indian
tribe  or  an authorized  Indian tribal organization, or  a desig-
nated  and approved management agency  under section  1288  of
this title.
   (5)  The term  "person" means an individual, corporation, part-
nership, association, State,  municipality, commission, or political
subdivision of a State, or any interstate body.
   (6) The term "pollutant" means dredged spoil, solid waste,

-------
         WATER—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      123

incinerator residue,  sewage,  garbage,  sewage sludge,  munitions,
chemical  wastes,  biological  materials,  radioactive  materials,
heat,  wrecked  or  discarded  equipment, rock, sand,  cellar  dirt
and industrial,  municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into
water. This  term does  not  mean  (A) "sewage from  vessels"
within the meaning of section 1322 of this  title; or  (B)  water,
gas, or other material which is injected into a well to facilitate
production of oil or  gas, or water derived in association with oil
or gas production and disposed of in a well, if the well used
either to  facilitate  production  or  for disposal purposes  is  ap-
proved by authority of  the State  in  which  the  well  is located,
and if such State determines that such injection  or disposal will
not result in the  degradation of  ground  or surface water  re-
sources.
  (7) The term  "navigable waters"  means the  waters  of  the
United States, including the territorial  seas.
  (8) The term  "territorial  seas" means the belt of the seas
measured  from the  line of ordinary  low water along that por-
tion of  the coast which is in  direct contact with the open  sea
and the line marking the seaward limit of inland waters, and ex-
tending seaward a distance of three miles.
  (9) The term  "contiguous zone" means  the  entire zone  es-
tablished or to  be  established by the United  States under  article
24 of the  Convention of the Territorial Sea and the  Contiguous
Zone.
  (10) The term  "ocean" means any portion of the high seas
beyond the contiguous zone.
  (11) The term "effluent limitation" means any restriction es-
tablished  by  a  State or the  Administrator on quantities, rates,
and concentrations  of chemical, physical, biological,  and other
constituents which are discharged  from point sources into navi-
gable waters, the  waters of the contiguous  zone,  or  the  ocean,
including schedules of compliance.
  (12) The term "discharge of a pollutant"  and the  term "dis-
charge of pollutants" each means (A)  any addition of any pollu-
tant to navigable waters from any point source,  (B) any addi-
tion  of  any  pollutant to the waters  of the contiguous zone  or
the ocean from any point source  other than a  vessel or other
floating craft.
  (13)  The  term "toxic pollutant" means  those pollutants,  or
combinations of  pollutants,  including disease-causing  agents,
which after  discharge and upon exposure, ingestion, inhalation
or assimilation into any organism, either  directly from the  en-

-------
124          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

vironment or  indirectly by ingestion through food  chains, will,
on the basis of information available to the Administrator, cause
death, disease, behavioral  abnormalities, cancer, genetic  muta-
tions, physiological malfunctions (including malfunctions  in  re'
production)  of physical deformations, in such organisms or their
offspring.
  (14)  The term "point  source"  means  any  discernible, con-
fined  and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any
pipe,  ditch,  channel, tunnel, conduit, well,  discrete  fissure, con-
tainer, rolling stock, concentrated  animal  feeding operation, or
vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may
be discharged.
  (15) The term "biological monitoring" shall mean the determi-
nation of the effects on  aquatic  life, including accumulation
of pollutants in tissue, in receiving waters due  to the  discharge
of pollutants  (A) by techniques and procedures, including sam-
pling of organisms representative of appropriate  levels of the food
chain appropriate to the volume and the physical, chemical, and
biological characteristics of the effluent, and (B) at appropriate
frequencies and locations.
  (16) The term "discharge" when used without qualification in-
cludes a discharge of a pollutant, and a discharge of pollutants.
  (17) The term "schedule of compliance" means a schedule of
remedial measures including an enforceable sequence  of actions
or operations  leading to compliance with  an effluent limitation,
other limitation, prohibition, or standard.
  (18)  The term "industrial user"  means those  industries identi-
fied in the Standard Industrial  Classification Manual,  Bureau of
the Budget, 1967, as amended and supplemented, under the cate-
gory  "Division D—Manufacturing" and such other classes of sig-
nificant waste producers as, by regulation, the Administrator
deems appropriate.
  (19)  The  term  "pollution"  means  the man-made  or  man-
induced alteration of the chemical, physical, biological,  and radio-
logical integrity of water.
June  30, 1948,  c. 758,  Title V,  §  502, as  added Oct.  18,  1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 886.

  § 1363. Water Pollution Control Advisory Board

  (a) (1) There is hereby established in the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency a Water Pollution Control  Advisory Board, com-
posed of the Administrator or his  designee, who shall  be  Chair-

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      125

man, and nine members appointed by the President, none of whom
shall be Federal  officers or employees. The appointed members,
having due regard for the purposes of this chapter, shall be se-
lected from among representatives of various State,  interstate,
and local  governmental agencies, of public or private interests
contributing to, affected by, or concerned with pollution, and of
other public and private agencies, organizations, or groups dem-
onstrating an active interest in the field of 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 ap-
pointed for the remainder of such term, and (ii) the terms of of-
fice 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, and (iii) the term of any mem-
ber 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 re-
appointment  within  one  year  after  the end of  his preceding
term.
   (B)  The members  of the Board who are not officers or employ-
ees of the United States, while attending  conferences or meetings
of the  Board or  while otherwise serving at the request of the
Administrator,  shall be entitled to receive compensation at  a
rate to be fixed by  the  Administrator, but not exceeding $100
per diem,  including traveltime, 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
for persons in the Government service employed intermittently.
   (b) The Board shall  advise, consult with, and make recommen-
dations to the Administrator on matters of policy relating to the
activities and functions of the Administrator under this  chapter.
   (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 Environmental Protection Agency.
June 30, 1948, c.  758, Title V, § 503,  as  added Oct. 18, 1972,
Pub.L.  92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 887.

-------
126          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

  § 1364.  Emergency powers
  Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Ad-
ministrator upon receipt  of  evidence that a pollution  source  or
combination of sources is presenting an imminent and substantial
endangerment to the health of persons or to the welfare of per-
sons where such endangerment is to the livelihood of such persons,
such as inability to market shellfish, may bring suit on behalf  of
the United  States in the appropriate district court to immedi-
ately restrain any person causing or contributing to the alleged
pollution to stop the discharge of pollutants causing or contri-
buting to  such pollution or to take such  other action  as may  be
necessary.
June 30, 1948, c. 758, Title V, § 504, as added Oct. 18, 1972, Pub.-
L. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 888.

  § 1365.  Citizen suits—Authorization; jurisdiction

   (a)  Except  as provided  in  subsection  (b) of  this  section,
   any citizen may commence a civil action on his own behalf—
       (1)  against any person (including (i) the United States,
    and (ii) any other governmental instrumentality or agency
    to the extent permitted by the eleventh amendment to the
    Constitution) who is  alleged to be  in violation of  (A)  an
    effluent  standard or  limitation under  this chapter or (B)
    an order issued  by the Administrator or a  State with respect
    to such a standard or limitation, or
       (2)  against the Administrator where there is alleged a
    failure of the Administrator to  perform  any act or duty
    under this chapter which is not discretionary with the Ad-
    ministrator.
  The district courts shall have jurisdiction, without regard  to the
amount in controversy or the citizenship of the  parties, to en-
force such as effluent standard or limitation,  or such an  order,
or to order the Administrator to perform  such act or duty,  as
the case may be, and to  apply  any appropriate civil  penalties
under section 1319 (d) of this title.

                             Notice
   (b) No action may be commenced—
       (1)   under  subsection  (a)   (1)   of  this  section—
           (A) prior to sixty days after the plaintiff has  given
         notice of the alleged violation (i)  to  the Administrator
         (ii) to the  State in which the alleged violation occurs,

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      127

         and (iii) to any alleged  violator of the standard,  limi-
         tation, or order, or
           (B) if the  Administrator  or  State has  commenced
         and is diligently prosecuting  a civil or criminal action
         in  a court  of  the  United States, or a  State to require
         compliance  with the standard, limitation, or order, but
         in  any such action in a court of the United States any
         citizen may intervene as a matter of right.
       (2)  under subsection  (a)   (2)  of this   section  prior to
    sixty days after the plaintiff  has given notice of such action
    to the Administrator,
except that  such  action may be brought  immediately after such
notification  in the case  of an action under this section respecting
a violation  of sections 1316  and 1317(a)  of  this title.  Notice
under  this  subsection  shall be  given in  such manner  as the
Administrator shall prescribe by regulation.

                 Venue; intervention  by Administrator
  (c)  (1)   Any  action respecting  a  violation  by  a discharge
source of an effluent  standard or limitation or an order respecting
such standard or limitation may  be brought under this  section
only in the judicial district in which such source is located.
  (2)  In such  action under this  section, the Administrator, if
not a party,  may intervene as a matter of right.

                         Litigation costs
  (d) The court,  in  issuing any final order in any action brought
pursuant to this section, may award costs of litigation (including
reasonable attorney  and expert witness fees) to any party, when-
ever the court determines  such award  is appropriate. The  court
may, if a temporary restraining order  or preliminary injunction
is sought, require the filing of a  bond or equivalent security in
accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

             Statutory or common law rights not restricted
  (e) Nothing in this section shall  restrict any right which any
person  (or  class of persons)  may have under any statute or
common law to  seek  enforcement  of  any  effluent  standard or
limitation or to seek any other relief (including relief against the
Administrator or a State agency).

                    Effluent standard or limitation
  (f) For purposes of this section, the  term "effluent standard or
limitation under  this chapter" means (1) effective  July 1,  1973,

-------
128          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n

an unlawful act under  subsection (a)  of section  1311 of this
title; (2)  an effluent limitation or other limitation under section
1311 or 1312 of this title; (3) standard  of  performance under
section  1316 of this title; (4) prohibition, effluent standard  or
pretreatment standards under  section  1317  of  this  title;  (5)
certification  under section 1341  of this title;  or (6)  a permit
or condition thereof issued under section 1342 of this title, which
is in effect under this  chapter (including a requirement applica-
ble by reason of section 1323 of this title).

                            Citizen
  (g) For the purposes of this section the term "citizen" means a
person or persons having an interest which is  or may be adversely
affected.
                   Civil action by State Governors
   (h) A Governor of a State may commence  a civil action under
subsection (a) of this section, without regard  to the limitations
of subsection  (b)  of this  section,  against  the  Administrator
where there is alleged a failure of the Administrator to  enforce an
effluent standard or limitation under this chapter  the violation of
which  is  occurring in another State  and is  causing  an adverse
effect on the public health or welfare in  his State, or is causing a
violation of any water quality requirement in his State.
June 30,  1948,  c. 758, Title  V,  §  505,  as added  Oct.  18, 1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 888.

  §  1366. Appearance
  The Administrator  shall request the  Attorney General to ap-
pear and represent the United  States  in any civil or criminal
action instituted under this  chapter  to  which the Administrator
is a  party. Unless the Attorney General notifies the Administrator
within  a  reasonable time, that he will  appear in a civil action,
attorneys who  are officers or employees of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall appear and  represent  the United States
in such action.
June 30,  1948,  c.  758, Title V,  § 506, as added Oct. 18, 1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 889.

   §  1367. Employee protection—Discrimination against persons
filing, instituting, or testifying in proceedings under this chapter
prohibited
   (a)  No person  shall fire, or  in any other way discriminate
against, or cause to be fired or discriminated against, any em-

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      129

ployee or any authorized representative of employees  by reason
of the fact that such employee  or representative has filed, in-
stituted, or caused to be filed or  instituted any proceeding under
this chapter, or has testified or is about to testify in any proceed-
ing resulting from  the administration or  enforcement  of the
provisions of this chapter.

          Application for review; investigation; hearing; review
     (b)  Any employee or a representative of employees who be-
lieves that he has been fired  or otherwise discriminated against
by any person in violation of subsection (a) of this section may,
within thirty days after such alleged violation occurs, apply to
the Secretary of  Labor for a review of such firing or  alleged
discrimination. A copy of the application shall be sent  to such
person who shall be the respondent. Upon receipt of such applica-
tion, the Secretary of  Labor shall cause such investigation to be
made as he deems appropriate. Such investigation shall provide
an opportunity for a public hearing at the request of  any party
to such review to enable the parties to present information relat-
ing to such alleged violation.  The parties shall be given written
notice of the time and place  of the hearing  at  least five days
prior to the  hearing.  Any such  hearing shall be of record  and
shall  be subject  to section 554  of Title 5.  Upon receiving the
report of such investigation,  the Secretary of Labor shall make
findings of fact. If he finds that such violation  did occur, he shall
issue  a decision, incorporating an order  therein and his findings,
requiring the party  committing  such violation to take such af-
firmative action  to abate the violation as the Secretary of Labor
deems appropriate, including, but not limited to, the rehiring or
reinstatement of the employee or representative  of employees to
his former position with compensation. If he finds that there was
no such violation, he shall issue an order denying the application.
Such  order issued by the Secretary of Labor under this subpara-
graph shall be subject to judicial review in  the same manner as
orders and decisions of the Administrator are  subject to judicial
review under this chapter.

                       Costs and expenses
  (c) Whenever an  order is  issued under  this section to abate
such violation, at the request of the applicant, a sum equal to the
aggregate amount of  all  costs and expenses  (including  the at-
torney's fees), as determined  by  the Secretary of Labor, to have
been  reasonably incurred by the applicant  for, or in connection

-------
130          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

with, the institution and prosecution  of such proceedings, shall
be assessed against the person committing such violation.

            Deliberate violations by employee acting without
               direction from his employer or his agent
   (d) This section shall have no application to any employee who,
acting without direction from his employer (or his agent) deliber-
ately violates any prohibition of effluent limitation or other limi-
tation  under  section 1311  or  1312 of  this  title, standards  of
performance under section  1316 of this title, effluent standard,
prohibition or pretreatment standard  under section 1317 of this
title, or any  other  prohibition or limitation established  under
this chapter.

               Investigations of employment reductions

   (e) The Administrator shall  conduct continuing  evaluations of
potential loss or shifts of employment  which may result from the
issuance of any effluent limitation or order  under this  chapter,
including,  where  appropriate investigating threatened  plant
closures or reductions  in employment allegedly resulting from
such limitation  or order. Any employee  who  is  discharged  or
laid-off,  threatened  with  discharge  or  lay-off,  or  otherwise
discriminated against by any  person  because of  the alleged re-
sults of any effluent limitation or order issued under this chapter,
or any representative of such employee, may request the Admin-
istrator to conduct a full investigation of the matter. The Admin-
istrator  shall thereupon  investigate the matter and,  at the re-
quest of any  party, shall hold public hearings on not less than
five days notice,  and shall at such hearings  require the parties,
including the employer involved, to present information relating
to the actual or  potential effect of such limitation  or order  on
employment  and  on any  alleged discharge, lay-off, or other dis-
crimination  and  the detailed  reasons or  justification therefor.
Any such hearing shall be of record and shall be subject to sec-
tion 554 of Title 5. Upon receiving the report of such investiga-
tion, the Administrator shall make findings of fact as to the effect
of such effluent  limitation  or  order  on employment  and on the
alleged discharge, lay-off, or discrimination and shall  make such
recommendations as he deems  appropriate. Such report, findings,
and recommendations shall be  available to the public. Nothing in
this subsection shall be construed to require or authorize the Ad-
ministrator  to modify or  withdraw  any  effluent  limitation  or
order issued under this chapter.

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      131

June 30, 1948, c. 758,  Title V, §  507, as  added Oct. 18, 1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 890.

  § 1368. Federal procurement—Contracts with violators pro-
hibited
  (a)  No Federal agency may enter into any contract with any
person, who has been convicted of any  offense  under  section
1319(c) of this  title,  for  the  procurement of goods,  materials,
and services if such  contract is to be performed at any facility at
which  the  violation  which  gave rise to such conviction occurred,
and if  such facility is owned, leased, or supervised by such  person.
The prohibition  in the preceding sentence shall continue until the
Administrator certifies that the condition giving rise to such con-
viction has been corrected.
                      Notification of agencies
   (b)  The Administrator shall establish procedures to provide all
Federal agencies with the notification necessary  for the purposes
of subsection (a) of  this section.
                 Implementation by Presidential order
   (c)  In  order  to  implement the purposes and  policy  of  this
chapter to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's water,
the  President shall, not  more  than  one  hundred and  eighty
days after October  18,  1972,  cause to be  issued an  order (1)
requiring each Federal agency authorized to enter into contracts
and each  Federal agency which is  empowered to  extend Fed-
eral assistance by way of grant, loan, or  contract to effectuate
the purpose and policy of this  chapter  in such contracting or
assistance  activities, and (2) setting forth  procedures, sanctions,
penalties, and such  other provisions, as the President determines
necessary to carry out such requirement.
                           Exemptions
   (d)  The President may  exempt any contract, loan, or grant
from all or part  of the provisions of this section where he deter-
mines  such exemption is necessary in the paramount interest of
the United States and he shall notify the Congress of such  exemp-
tion.
                     Annual report to Congress
   (e)  The President shall annually report to  the Congress on
measures taken  in compliance with the  purpose and intent of this
section, including, but not limited to, the progress  and problems
associated  with such compliance.
June 30, 1948,  c. 758, Title V, § 508, as  added  Oct. 18,  1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 891.

-------
132          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n

  § 1369.  Administrative procedure and judicial  review
  (a) (1) For purposes of obtaining information under section
1315 of this title, or carrying out section 1367(e)  of this title, the
Administrator may issue subpenas  for the attendance and testi-
mony of witnesses and the production of relevant papers, books,
and documents, and he may administer oaths. Except for effluent
data,  upon  a showing satisfactory to the Administrator that
such papers, books, documents, or information or particular part
thereof, if made public, would divulge trade secrets or secret proc-
esses, the Administrator shall consider such  record,  report, or
information or particular portion thereof, confidential in accord-
ance with the purposes of section  1905 of Title  18, except that
such paper, book,  document,  or information may be disclosed to
other officers,  employees,  or  authorized representatives  of the
United States concerned with carrying out this chapter, or when
relevant in  any proceeding  under  this  chapter.  Witnesses  sum-
moned shall be paid  the  same fees and  mileage that are paid
witnesses  in the courts of the United States. In case of contumacy
or refusal to obey a subpena served upon any person under this
subsection, the district court of the  United States for any district
in which such  person  is found or  resides or transacts business,
upon  application by the United States  and after notice to such
person, shall have jurisdiction to issue an order requiring such
person to  appear and give testimony before the Administrator, to
appear and  produce papers, books, and documents before the Ad-
ministrator, or both,  and  any failure to obey such  order of the
court may be punished by such court as a contempt thereof.
   (2)  The  district courts of the United  States  are authorized,
upon  application  by  the  Administrator,  to  issue  subpenas for
attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of rele-
vant  papers, books, and  documents,  for  purposes  of obtaining
information under sections 1314 (b) and (c) of this title. Any pa-
pers,  books, documents, or other  information or part thereof,
obtained by reason of such  a subpena shall be subject to the
same requirements as are provided  in paragraph  (1) of this  sub-
section.
   (b)  (1)  Review of the Administrator's action  (A) in promul-
gating any  standard of performance under section  1316 of this
title,  (B)   in  making  any  determination  pursuant  to  section
1316(b) (1) (C)  of this title, (C)  in promulgating any effluent
standard, prohibition,  or pretreatment standard under  section
1317  of this  title, (D) in  making any  determination  as to a
State permit program  submitted under section  1342 (b)  of this

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      133

title, (E) in approving or promulgating any effluent limitation or
other limitation under section 1311, 1312, or 1316 of this title, and
(F) in issuing- or denying any permit under  section 1342 of this
title, may be had by any interested person in  the Circuit Court of
Appeals of the United States for the Federal judicial district in
which such person resides or transacts  such business upon ap-
plication by such  person.  Any  such application shall be made
within ninety days  from  the  date of such  determination, ap-
proval, promulgation, issuance or denial, or after such date only
if such application is based solely on grounds which arose after
such ninetieth day.
   (2) Action of the Administrator with  respect to  which review
could have  been obtained under paragraph (1) of this subsection
shall not be subject to judicial review in any  civil  or criminal
proceeding for enforcement.
   (c) In any judicial proceeding brought under subsection  (b) of
this section in which  review is sought of a determination under
this chapter required to  be made on  the record after notice and
opportunity for hearing, if any party applies to the court for leave
to adduce additional evidence,  and shows to the satisfaction of
the court that  such additional evidence is material and that there
were reasonable grounds for the failure  to adduce  such evidence
in the proceeding before the Administrator, the court may order
such additional evidence  (and evidence in rebuttal thereof) to be
taken before the Administrator, in such manner and upon such
terms and  conditions as the court may  deem  proper. The Ad-
ministrator may  modify his findings as to  the facts, or make
new  finding's,  by reason  of the additional evidence so taken and
he shall file such modified or new findings, and  his recommenda-
tion, if any, for the modification or setting aside of  his original
determination, with the return of such additional evidence.
June 30,  1948, c. 758, Title V, §  509, as added Oct. 18, 1972, Pub.
L. 92-500,  § 2, 86 Stat. 891, and amended Dec. 28, 1973, Pub.L.
93-207, § 1 (6), 87 Stat. 906.

  § 1370. State authority

  Except as expressly provided in this chapter, nothing in this
chapter shall  (1)  preclude or deny  the right  of  any State or
political  subdivision thereof or interstate agency to adopt or
enforce (A) any standard  or limitation respecting  discharges of
pollutants,  or  (B) any requirement respecting  control or abate-
ment of pollution; except that if an  effluent limitation, or other
limitation,  effluent standard, prohibition, pretreatment standard,

-------
134          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

or standard of performance is in effect under this chapter, such
State or political subdivision or interstate agency may not adopt
or enforce any  effluent limitation, or other limitation, effluent
standard, prohibition, pretreatment standard, or standard of per-
formance which is less stringent than the effluent limitation, or
other limitation,  effluent  standard,  prohibition,  pretreatment
standard, or standard of performance under this chapter; or (2)
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, Title V, § 510, as added Oct.  18,  1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 893.

   §  1371. Authority under other laws and regulations
   (a) This chapter shall  not be construed as  (1)  limiting the
authority  or functions  of  any officer or agency of the United
States under any other law  or regulation not  inconsistent with
this  chapter; (2) affecting or impairing the authority of the Sec-
retary of  the Army  (A)  to maintain navigation or  (B)  under
the Act of March 3,  1899; except that any permit issued under
section 1344 of this title shall he conclusive as to the effect on water
quality of  any  discharge resulting from any activity subject to
section 403 of this title, or (3) affecting or impairing the provi-
sions of any treaty of the United States.
   (b) Discharges of  pollutants into  the navigable waters sub-
ject  to the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1910 and  the Supervisory
Harbors Act of 1888  shall be regulated pursuant to this chapter,
and not subject to such Act of 1910 and the Act of 1888 except as
to effect on navigation and anchorage.
   (c) (1)  Except for the  provision of Federal  financial  assist-
ance for the purpose of  assisting the construction of publicly
owned  treatment works as  authorized by section  1281  of this
title, and the issuance of a  permit under section 1342 of this title
for the  discharge of  any  pollutant by  a new  source  as defined
in section  1316 of this title, no action  of the Administrator taken
pursuant to this chapter shall be deemed a major Federal action
significantly  affecting the quality of the  human  environment
within the  meaning of the National Environmental  Policy  Act of
1969; and
   (2) Nothing in the  National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
shall be deemed to—
      (A) authorize  any Federal agency authorized to license or
     permit the conduct of any activity which may result in the

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      135

    discharge of a pollutant into the navigable waters to review
    any effluent limitation or other requirement established pur-
    suant to this chapter or  the adequacy of any certification
    under section 1341 of this title; or
      (B)  authorize any  such agency to  impose, as a condition
    precedent to the issuance of any license or permit, any ef-
    fluent limitation other than  any  such limitation established
    pursuant to this chapter.
  (d) Notwithstanding this chapter  or any other provision of
law, the Administrator (1) shall  not require any State to consider
in the development  of  the ranking in order of priority of needs
for  the construction of treatment works (as denned in subchapter
II of this chapter),  any water pollution control agreement which
may have been entered into between  the  United States and any
other nation, and (2)  shall not  consider any such  agreement in
the  approval of any such priority ranking.
June 30, 1948, c. 758, Title V,  § 511, as added Oct. 18, 1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, §  2, 86  Stat.  893, and amended  Jan. 2, 1974,
Pub.L. 93-243, § 3, 87 Stat. 1069.

  § 1372. Labor standards

  The Administrator shall take  such action as  may be necessary
to insure that all laborers  and mechanics employed by contractors
or  subcontractors on  treatment works  for which grants are
made under  this chapter  shall be paid wages  at  rates  not less
than those  prevailing for  the same type of work on similar con-
struction in the immediate locality, as determined by the Secre-
tary of Labor, in accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act. The Secre-
tary 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 and section 276c of
Title 40.
June 30, 1948, c. 758,  Title  V,  § 513, as added  Oct. 18,  1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 894.

  §  1373. Public health agency coordination

  The permitting agency under section 1342 of this  title  shall
assist the applicant for a permit under such section in coordinat-
ing the requirements of this chapter with those of the appropriate
public health agencies.
June 30, 1948, c. 758, Title V,   § 514, as added  Oct. 18, 1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 894.

-------
136          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

  § 1374. Effluent Standards and Water Quality Information Ad-
visory Committee—Establishment; membership; term
  (a) (1) There is established an Effluent Standards and Water
Quality Information Advisory Committee, which shall be  com-
posed of a Chairman and eight members who shall be appointed
by the Administrator within sixty  days after October  18, 1972.
  (2) All members of the Committee shall be selected  from the
scientific community, qualified by education, training, and experi-
ence to provide, assess, and evaluate scientific and technical infor-
mation on effluent standards and limitations.
  (3) Members of the Committee shall serve for a term of four
years and may be reappointed.

                   Action on proposed regulations
  (b)  (1) No later  than one hundred and eighty  days prior to
the date on  which the Administrator is required to publish any
proposed regulations required by section  1314(b) of this  title,
any proposed standard of performance for new sources required
by section 1316 of this title, or any proposed toxic effluent stand-
ard required by section 1317 of this title, he shall transmit to the
Committee a notice of intent to propose  such  regulations.  The
Chairman of the Committee within ten days after receipt of such
notice may publish a notice of a public hearing by the Committee,
to be held within thirty days.
   (2)  No later than one hundred and twenty days after receipt
of such notice, the Committee shall transmit to the Administra-
tor such scientific and technical information as is in its possession,
including that presented at any public hearing, related to the
subject matter contained in such notice.
   (3)  Information  so transmitted to the  Administrator  shall
constitute a  part of the  administrative record and comments on
any proposed regulations or standards  as  information to be con-
sidered with other  comments and  information in making any
final determinations.
   (4)  In preparing information for transmittal, the Committee
shall avail itself of the technical and  scientific services of any
Federal agency,  including the United  States Geological Survey
and any national environmental laboratories  which may be estab-
lished.

                Secretary; legal counsel; compensation
     (c) (1) The Committee shall appoint and prescribe the duties
of a Secretary, and  such legal counsel as it deems necessary. The

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTOKY      137

Committee shall appoint such other employees as it deems neces-
sary to exercise and  fulfill its  powers and responsibilities. The
compensation of all employees appointed by the Committee  shall
be fixed in accordance  with chapter 51 and subchapter III of
chapter 53 of Title 5.
  (2) Members of the Committee shall be entitled to receive  com-
pensation at a rate to be fixed by the President but not in excess
of the maximum rate of pay for grade GS-18, as provided in the
General Schedule under section 5332 of Title 5.

                       Quorum; Special panel
  (d) Five members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum,
and official actions of the Committee shall be taken only on the
affirmative vote of at least five members.  A special  panel  com-
posed of one or more  members upon order of the Committee  shall
conduct any hearing  authorized by this section and  submit the
transcript of such hearing to the entire Committee for its action
thereon.

                            Rules
  (e)  The Committee is  authorized  to make such rules as are
necessary for the orderly transaction of its business.
June 30,  1948, c.  758, Title V, § 515,  as added  Oct.  18, 1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 894.

  § 1375. Reports to Congress
  (a)  Within  ninety days following  the convening of each ses-
sion of Congress, the  Administrator shall submit to the Congress
a report, in addition to any other report required by this chapter,
on measures taken toward implementing  the objective of  this
chapter, including, but not limited to, (1) the progress and prob-
lems associated with  developing comprehensive  plans  under sec-
tion 1252 of this title, areawide plans under section 1288 of this
title, basin plans under section 1289 of this title, and plans under
section 1813(e) of this title; (2) a  summary of  actions taken
and results achieved  in the field  of  water pollution  control re-
search, experiments,  studies,  and related  matters by the  Ad-
ministrator and other Federal agencies and by other persons and
agencies under  Federal grants or contracts;  (3)  the progress
and problems associated with the  development of effluent limita-
tions  and  recommended  control techniques;  (4)  the  status of
State programs,  including a detailed summary of the progress
obtained as compared to that planned under State program plans

-------
138          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

for development and enforcement of water quality requirements;
(5) the identification and status of enforcement actions pending or
completed under this chapter during the preceding year; (6) the
status  of  State,  interstate,  and  local pollution  control  pro-
grams  established pursuant to, and assisted  by, this chapter;
(7) a summary of the  results of the survey required to be taken
under  section 1290 of  this title;  (8)  his activities including re-
commendations under  sections 1259 through 1261 of this  title;
and  (9)  all  reports and recommendations made by the Water
Pollution Control Advisory Board.
   (b)  (1) The Administrator, in  cooperation  with  the States,
including water pollution control agencies and  other water pol-
lution  control planning agencies, shall  make (A) a detailed es-
timate of the cost  of carrying out the provisions of this chapter;
(B)  a  detailed estimate, biennially revised, of the cost of con-
struction  of all needed publicly owned treatment works in all of
the States and of  the cost of construction  of all needed publicly
owned treatment works in each of the States;  (C) a comprehensive
study of the economic impact on affected  units of government of the
cost of installation of treatment facilities; and  (D) a  comprehen-
sive analysis of the national requirements for and the  cost of
treating  municipal,  industrial, and other  effluent to  attain the
water  quality objectives as established by his chapter or appli-
cable State law. The Administrator shall submit such detailed
estimate and such comprehensive study of such cost to the Con-
gress  no  later than February 10  of each  odd-numbered  year.
Whenever the  Administrator, pursuant to  this subsection, re-
quests and receives an  estimate of cost from a State, he  shall
furnish copies of such estimate together with such detailed esti-
mate to Congress.
   (2)  Notwithstanding  the second sentence of paragraph (1)
of this subsection, the Administrator shall  make a preliminary
detailed estimate called  for by subparagraph (B) of such  para-
graph  and shall submit such preliminary detailed estimate to the
Congress no later than September 3,  1974. The Administrator
shall require each State to  prepare an  estimate of cost for such
State,  and shall utilize the survey form EPA-1, O.M.B. No. 158-
R0017, prepared for the 1973 detailed estimate, except that such
estimate  shall include all costs of  compliance  with  section 1281
(g)(2)(A) of this title  and water quality standards established
pursuant to  section  1313 of this title, and all costs of  treatment
works as  defined  in section 1292(2) of this title, including all
eligible costs of constructing sewage collection  systems and cor-

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      139

recting  excessive infiltration or inflow and all  eligible costs of
correcting  combined  storm and sanitary sewer  problems  and
treating storm water flows.  The survey  form  shall be distrib-
uted by the Administrator to each State  no later than January
31,  1974. June 30, 1948, c. 758, Title V,  §  516,  as added Oct.
18,  1972, Pub.L.  92-500,  § 2,  86 Stat. 895, and  amended Jan.
2,1974,  Pub.L. 93-243, § 4,  87 Stat. 1069.

  § 1376. Authorization of appropriations
  There are authorized  to be  appropriated  to carry out  this
chapter, other  than sections  1254,  1255,  1256(a), 1257, 1258,
1262, 1263, 1264, 1265, 1286, 1287,  1288(f) and (h), 1289, 1314,
1321 (c), (d),  (i), (I), and  (k), 1324, 1325, and  1327,  $250,-
000,000  for the fiscal year ending June  30,  1973,  $300,000,000
for the  fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, and  $350,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30,1975.
June  30, 1948, c.  758, Title  V, § 517, as added  Oct. 18, 1972,
Pub.L. 92-500,  § 2, 86 Stat. 896.
1.2q FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
AMENDMENTS
              December 28,1973, P.L. 93-207, 87 Stat. 906.

                          AN ACT


To amend the Federal Water Pollution  Control Act, as amended.

  Be  it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the  United States  of America  in  Congress  assembled,  That
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (86 Stat. 816; 33 U.S.C.
1251 et seq.) is amended—
      (1)  in section 104(u) (2), by striking out "fiscal year 1973"
   and inserting in lieu thereof "fiscal years 1973 and 1974";
      (2)  in section 206 (e), by striking out "$2,000,000,000" and
   inserting in lieu thereof "$2,600,000,000";
      (3)  in section 207, by inserting "206(e)," after "sections";
      (4)  in section 311—
         (A)  by striking out "(b) (2)" wherever it appears in
       paragraphs  (1), (2), and  (3), of  subsection (f),  and in-
       serting in lieu thereof " (b)  (3)";

-------
140          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

         (B) by striking out "Secretary" in the last sentence of
      paragraph  (2)  of subsection  (f), and inserting  in  lieu
      thereof "Administrator"; and
         (C) by striking out " (b) (2)" wherever it appears in sub-
      sections (g) and (i), and inserting in lieu thereof "(b) (3)";
      (5)  in section 315, by redesignating subsection (g)  as  sub-
   section  (h), and by adding  a new subsection (g) to read as
   follows:
  "(g)  In addition  to authority to appoint personnel  subject
to the provisions  of title 5,  United States  Code, governing ap-
pointments  in  the competitive  service, and to pay such  per-
sonnel in accordance with  the provisions of chapter 51 and  sub-
chapter III of chapter 53  of such title relating to  classification
and General  Schedule  pay rates, the Commission shall have au-
thority  to enter into contracts with  private or public  organiza-
tions  who shall furnish the Commission with such administrative
and technical personnel as may be necessary to carry  out the
purpose of this section. Personnel furnished by such  organiza-
tions  under this subsection are  not, and shall not be considered
to be, Federal employees for any purposes, but in the perform-
ance  of their duties shall be guided by the standards which ap-
ply to employees of the legislative branches under  rules 41 and
43 of the Senate  and  House of Representatives, respectively.";
and
       (6) in  section  509(b) (1) (C),  by  striking  out  "treat-
    ment and inserting in  lieu thereof "pretreatment".
  SEC. 2. Notwithstanding the requirements  of subsection (c) of
section  206 of the Federal  Water Pollution Control Act (86 Stat.
838), applications for  assistance under section  206  may  be  filed
with  the Administrator of the Environmental Protection  Agency
until  January 31, 1974.
  SEC.  3. Funds available  for reimbursement under Public  Law
92-399  shall be allocated  in accordance with subsection (d) of
section  206 of the Federal  Water Pollution Control Act (86 Stat.
838), pro rata among all  projects eligible under subsection (a)
of such section 206 for which  applications have been submitted
and approved by the Administrator  pursuant to such  Act.  Not-
withstanding  the  provisions of  subsection (d)  of  such section
206,  (1) the Administrator  is  authorized to  make  interim  pay-
ments to each such project for which an application has been
approved on the  basis of estimates of maximum pro rata en-
titlement of all applicants under section 206(a)  and (2)  for the
purpose of determining allocation of sums available  under Public

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      141

Law 92-399, the unpaid balance of reimbursement due such proj-
ects shall be computed as of January 31, 1974. Upon completion
by the Administrator of his audit and  approval of all projects
for which an application has been  filed  under subsection  (a) of
such section 206, the Administrator shall,  within  the limits of
appropriated  funds,  allocate to each such  qualified project  the
amount remaining, if any, of its  total entitlement.  Amounts
allocated to projects  which are later determined  to be in excess
of entitlement shall be available for reallocation,  until expended,
to other qualified projects under subsection (a)  of such  section
206.  In no event, however, shall any payments exceed the Fed-
eral  share of  the cost of construction incurred  to the date of
the voucher covering such payment plus the  Federal share of
the value of  the materials which  have  been stockpiled  in  the
vicinity of such construction in conformity to plans  and speci-
fications for the project.
1.2q  (1) Senate Committee on Public Works
            S. REP. No. 93-269, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973).

       EXTENSION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT
        PLANT OPERATORS TRAINING PROGRAM
   JUNE 27 (legislative day, JUNE 25), 1973.—Ordered to be printed
  Mr. RANDOLPH (for Mr. CLARK) , from the Committee on Public
                Works, submitted the following

                          REPORT
                    [To accompany S.  1776]

  The  Committee on Public Works,  to which was referred the
bill  (S. 1776)  to amend the  Federal Water  Pollution Control
Act, as amended, having considered the same, reports favorably
thereon with an amendment and  recommends that  the bill as
amended do pass.

                 GENERAL  STATEMENT

  On May  10, 1973,  Senator Dick  Clark with the cosponsorship
of Senator  Howard  Baker introduced a bill (S. 1776) providing
for a 1-year extension of the pilot operator training program for

-------
142         LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

waste-water treatment plants, set  up under section  104 (g) (1)
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
  The  program was introduced  first  by Senator  Muskie  and
Senator Scott of Pennsylvania,  and was  incorporated  into the
1970 Water  Quality Improvement Act  (P.  L. 91-224).  Kept
alive by continuing resolution during 1972, it was then included
in the Federal  Water  Pollution Control Act  Amendments of
1972 (P.L. 92-500). Unlike  all  other research, development or
training  programs  authorized by that act, which  continue at
least through fiscal year 1974, section 104(g) (1) was authorized
only through fiscal year 1973. The purpose of this bill is to con-
tinue the  program  at the same  level of funding through  fiscal
year 1974.
  Approximately  16,000  operators of  wastewater  treatment
plants  have been  trained under the Environmental Protection
Agency pilot operator training  programs and  4,200 have been
enrolled  in  field study courses. The total  cost of  120 grants
involving  trainees from all  50  States  has  been approximately
$3,225,000.
                                                       [p-1]

  This program is the only operator training program operated
solely  by EPA, though  the Agency  administers   four  others
through interagency agreements. Two of those four are scheduled
for termination. Thus, whatever, happens to  the 104 (g) (1) pro-
gram,  the number of people being trained  will be  cut sharply.
  In March of  1972, when EPA  forecasted manpower and train-
ing needs, the greatest need  indicated was for  more trained op-
erators. The number of operators engaged in  wastewater treat-
ment in  1971 was 49,300; the requirements in 1976 were fore-
casted  to  be 92,900—an 88-percent increase. In addition,  many
plants  are being upgraded  with new and more sophisticated equip-
ment,  and their current  operators need additional  training.  It
is likely  that the Federal Water Pollution Control   Act Amend-
ments  of  1972  will  increase these needs. Studies by  EPA, the
General   Accounting Office  and Harbridge  House, Inc.  show
that understating and  understraining of operators  are already
creating  water quality problems as a result of inadequately op-
erated treatment plants.
  The  committee is  concerned that training programs are  being
cut back  just when trained  operators are most needed. There-
fore, the  committee recommends the extension of this valuable
training   program conducted  by the Environmental Protection
Agency. In  addition, the  committee is recommending  a number

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY      143

of technical amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended by the Public Law 92-500. These are corrections
of oversights or incorrect references, and do not alter the sub-
stance of the act or depart from the original intent of the Con-
gress in any way.
                     AGENCY VIEWS

                U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                             Washington, B.C. March 29,1973.
Hon. JENNINGS RANDOLPH,
Chairman, Committee on Public Works, U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
  DEAR MR.  CHAIRMAN: Section 104(g) (1) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments  of 1972 provides that the
Administrator of the Environmental  Protection Agency  shall
finance  pilot  programs of manpower development and training
and retraining of persons for maintenance of treatment works
and related activities. Section 104(g)  (2) authorizes the Adminis-
trator to enter into agreements to develop and maintain an effective
system  for forecasting the supply of,  and demand for various
occupational  categories for pollution prevention,  reduction, and
elimination. A report to Congress on these activities, among others,
is required by December 31,  1973, under section  104(g) (4).
  The  authorization of appropriations in section 104 (u), how-
ever, covers  only fiscal year 1973.  In view of the fact that the
report to Congress is not required  until the end of the calendar
year, we believe  that the figure "1973"  was an inadvertent error
and that funds should be authorized through fiscal year 1974.
                                                      [p.  2]

  Accordingly, we recommend that  this apparent oversight  be
corrected so as to authorize  the funds  for fiscal years 1973 and
1974. A draft of a proposed amendment which would accomplish
this is enclosed.
      Sincerely  yours,
                             WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS,
                                            Administrator.
               COST OF THE LEGISLATION

  Section  252 (a) (1) of  the Legislative  Reorganization Act of
1970 requires publication in this report of the committee's esti-

-------
144          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

mate  of the costs  of  reported  legislation, together with  esti-
mates prepared  by any Federal agency. Enactment  of  the bill
would authorize $7,500,000 for fiscal year  1974  to carry  out
section  104(g)(l)  of the  Federal  Water Pollution Control Act.

                    ROLLCALL VOTES
  Section 133 of the Legislative  Reorganization Act of 1970 and
the rules of the Committee on  Public Works require that any
rollcall votes be announced in this report. During the committee's
consideration of this bill, no rollcall votes were taken. The meas-
ure was on voice vote unanimously ordered  reported.
                                                        [p. 3]

              CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
  In compliance with subsection (4) of rule XXIX of the Stand-
ing Rules of the Senate,  changes in existing law made by the
bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to
be omitted is enclosed  in  black  brackets, new matter is printed
in italic, existing law in which  no change  is proposed is shown
in roman):

    THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL  ACT
    RESEARCH,  INVESTIGATIONS, TRAINING, AND INFORMATION
SEC. 104.
   (u)  There is authorized to be appropriated (1) $100,000,000
per fiscal year for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, for carrying out the provisions
of this section other than subsections  (g) (1)  and (2), (p),
 (r), and  (t) ; (2) not to exceed $7,500,000 for [fiscal year 1973]
fiscal years 1973 and 1974, for carrying out the provisions of sub-
section (g)(l) ; (3) not to exceed $2,500,000 for  fiscal year 1973
for carrying out the provisions of subsection (g) (2); (4)  not to
exceed  $10,000,000 for each  of the  fiscal years ending June 30,
1973, and June 30, 1974, for carrying out the provisions of sub-
section (p);  (5) not  to exceed  $15,000,000 per fiscal year for
the  fiscal years  ending June 30, 1973,  and June  30,  1974, for
carrying  out  the provisions  of subsection  (r);  and (6)  not to
exceed $10,000,000 per  fiscal year  for  the fiscal  years ending

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      145

June 30, 1973  and  June 30, 1974, for carrying out the provi-
sions of subsection  (t).
                       AUTHORIZATION

  SEC. 207.  There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out
this title, other than sections 206 (e), 208 and 209, for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1973, not to exceed $5,000,000,000, for the
fiscal  year ending June 30, 1974, not to exceed $6,000,000,000,
and for the fiscal  year ending  June 30, 1975, not  to  exceed
$7,000,000,000.
           OIL AND  HAZARDOUS  SUBSTANCE  LIABILITY

SEC. 311.
     *******
   (f)(l) 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 Govern-
ment, or (D)
                                                        [p. 5]

an act or omission of a  third party without  regard  to  whether
any such act or omission was or was not negligent, or any com-
bination of the foregoing clauses, such owner  or operator of any
vessel from which oil or a hazardous substance is  discharged in
violation of subsection [(b)(2)] (6) (3)  of  this  section shall,
notwithstanding  any other provision  of law, be  liable to the
United  States Government for  the actual costs  incurred under
subsection  (c)  for the removal  of such  oil or substance by the
United  States Government in  an amount not  to exceed $100 per
gross ton of such vessel or $14,000,000,  whichever is lesser, ex-
cept that where the  United States can show that such discharge
was the result of willful negligence or willful misconduct within
the privity and knowledge  of the owner, such owner  or  operator
shall  be liable to the United States  Government for  the full
amount of  such costs. Such costs shall constitute  a  maritime lien
on such vessel which may be recovered in an action remain 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.

-------
146          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

  (2) Except where  an owner or operator of an onshore facility
can prove that a discharge was caused solely by (A)  an act of
God,  (B) an  act  of war, (C)  negligence  on the part  of  the
United States  Government, or (D) an act or omission  of a third
party without regard to  whether any such  act or omission was
or was  not  negligent,   or any  combination  of the  foregoing
clauses, such owner or operator of any  such facility from which
oil or a  hazardous substance  is discharged in violation of sub-
section  [(b)(2)]  (b) (3) of this section shall  be  liable to  the
United States Government for the actual  costs  incurred under
subsection  (c)  for the removal of such oil  or substance  by  the
United States Government in an amount not to exceed $8,000,-
000,  except that where  the United  States  can show  that such
discharge was the result of  willful  negligence  or willful  mis-
conduct  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. The United States may
bring an action against  the  owner or operator of such facility
in any  court  of competent jurisdiction to recover such  costs.
The   [Secretary]  Administrator is authorized,  by  regulation,
after consultation with the Secretary of Commerce and the Small
Business Administration, to establish reasonable and  equitable
classifications  of those   onshore  facilities  having a  total fixed
storage capacity of  1,000 barrels or less  which he  determines
because of  size, type, and location do not  present a  substantial
risk  of the  discharge of oil or a hazardous substance in violation
of subsection  [(b)(2)]   (b) (3)  of this section, and apply with
respect to  such classifications differing limits of liability which
may be less than the amount contained in this paragraph.
  (3) Except  where  an owner or operator of an offshore facility
can prove  that a discharge  was caused solely by (A)  an act of
God,  (B)  an  act of war,  (C)  negligence  on the part  of  the
United States  Government, or (D) an act or omission  of a third
party without 'regard to whether any such  act  or omission was
or was  not  negligent,   or  any  combination of the  foregoing
clauses, such  owner or operator of any
                                                       [p. 6]

such  facility from which oil or a hazardous substance is  dis-
charged in  violation of subsection [ (b) (2) ] (6) (3) of this section
shall, notwithstanding any  other  provision of law,  be liable to
the  United States Government  for  the actual costs incurred
under subsection  (c) for the removal  of such oil or substance
by the United States Government in an amount not to exceed

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      147

$8,000,000, except that where the United  States can  show that
such discharge was the result  of  willful  negligence  or willful
misconduct within the privity and knowledge of the owner, such
owner  or operator  shall be liable to the United States Govern-
ment for the full amount of such costs. The United States may
bring an action against the owner or operator of such, a facility
in any court  of  competent jurisdiction to recover such costs.
  (g) In any case where an owner or operator of a vessel, of an
onshore facility, or of an offshore  facility, from which oil or a
hazardous  substance  is discharged in  violation   of  subsection
[(b) (2)] (b)  (3) of this section, proves that such discharge of
oil or hazardous substance was  caused solely by an act of omis-
sion 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  in-
curred  under  subsection  (c)  for removal of such oil or sub-
stance by the United States Government, except  where such third
party can prove that such  discharge was  caused  solely by  (A)
an act of God, (B) an act of war, (C) negligence on  the part
of the United  States Government, or (D)  an act or omission of
another party without  regard to whether such act or  omission
was or was not negligent, or any combination  of  the  foregoing
clauses. If such third party was the owner or operator of a ves-
sels  which caused the  discharge of oil or a hazardous  substance
in violation of subsection [(b)(2)] (b) (3)  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 or a  hazardous substance in violation  of sub-
section [(b) (2)] (b) (3) 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 removal
costs. The United States may bring an action against the third
party in any court of  competent jurisdiction to recover such re-
moval  costs.
     #         %        %        :;:        :;:        JH       #
   (i) (1)  In any  case where an owner or operator  of a vessel or

-------
148          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

an onshore facility or an offshore  facility from which oil or a
hazardous substance is discharged in violation of subsection [(b)
(2)] (b) (3)  of this section acts to  remove such oil or substance
in accordance with regulations promulgated pursuant  to  this
section, such  owner or operator shall be entitled too recover  the
reasonable costs  incurred in such
                                                       [p. 7]

removal  upon establishing,  in  a  suit  which may  be brought
against the  United States  Government  in  the United  States
Court of Claims, that  such discharge was caused  solely  by  (A)
an act  of God, (B)  an act of  war,  (C) negligence on the part of
the United States Government, or  (D)  an act of  omission of a
third party without regard to whether such act  or omission was
or was not  negligent, or of  any combination  of  the foregoing
causes.
  (2)  The provisions  of this  subsection shall not apply in  any
case where liability is established  pursuant to  the Outer Con-
tinental 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 funds established pursuant to subsection  (k).
    *        *        t'f        *       :;:        *       *

       ADMINISTRATION PROCEDURE AND JUDICAL REVIEW
SEC. 509.
    *******
  (b)(l) Review of the Administrator's  action (A)  in  promul-
gating any standard  of performance under section 306, (B) in
making any  determination  pursuant to  section 306(b) (1) (C),
(C) in promulgating any effluent standard, prohibition, or [treat-
ment]  pretreatment standard  under section 307,  (D)  in making
any determination as  to a State permit program submitted under
section 402(b),  (E) in approving  or promulgating any effluent
limitation or other limitation under section  301,  302,  or  306,
and (F) in  issuing or denying any permit under section  402,
may be had by any interested  person in the Circuit Court of  Ap-
peals  of the  United States  for the Federal judicial  district in
which  such  person resides or transacts such  business upon  ap-
plication by  such person. Any such application shall be  made
within ninety days from the date of  such determination,  ap-
proval, promulgation, issuance or denial, or after such date only
if such application is based solely on grounds which  arose after
such ninetieth day.

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      149

  (2) Action of the Administrator with respect to which review
could have been obtained under paragraph  (1) of this  subsection
shall  not be subject to judicial review in  any civil or criminal
proceeding for  enforcement.
                                                       [p. 8]
1.2q(2)  House Committee on  Public  Works
         H.R. REP. No. 93-680,  93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973)

      FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION  CONTROL ACT
                       AMENDMENTS
NOVEMBER 29, 1973.—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. 1776]

  The Committee  on Public  Works, to whom  was referred the
bill (S. 1776)  to  amend  the Federal Water Pollution  Control
Act, as amended,  having  considered the same, report favorably
thereon with an amendment and  recommend that the bill  as
amended do pass.
  The amendment strikes out all  after the enacting clause and
inserts  a  substitute text  which  appears  in italic type in  the
reported bill.

                         STATEMENT

  S. 1776, as amended, combines the provisions of S. 1776 and
S.J. Res.  158 as they  passed the  Senate  and adds a  clarifying
legislative  proposal  requested by  the National Commission  on
Water Quality,  established by the  Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act.
  Section  1 of  the bill authorizes  a  one  year extension of  the
pilot operator training program for wastewater treatment plants,
set  up under section 104(g)(l)  of the  Federal Water Pollution
Control Act. The program, initiated in 1970, was  included in the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972  (P.L.

-------
150          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n

92-500). Unlike all other research,  development or training pro-
grams authorized  by that act, which continue at least through
fiscal  year 1974, section 104(g)(l)  was authorized only through
fiscal  year 1973. The purpose of this legislation  is to authorize
the program at the  same level of funding through  fiscal  year
1974.
  There is a continuing and growing need for trained operators
for the increasing number of water treatment plants. The new
and more sophisticated equipment being added to upgrade plants
add to the need for operator training. Accordingly, the Commit-
tee recommends the extension of this valuable training program.
                                                       [p. 1]

  This section also amends Section 206(e) of  the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act by increasing from $2,000,000,000 to  $2,-
600,000,000  the authorization  for  reimbursement  of up to  55
percent of project costs for eligible sewage treatment plants on
which construction  was initiated  between June  30,  1966  and
July 1, 1972.
  Section 206 provides for the reimbursement to those agencies
that constructed waste treatment works  but did  not  receive the
full authorized amount  of Federal contribution.  It was the de-
sire of Congress to redeem the federal pledge to make reimburse-
ment  payments and to provide the  financial assistance necessary
to enable such  agencies  to continue with  their own water pollu-
tion control  program.
  Section 206 provides that publicly owned treatment works on
which construction was started after June 30, 1966,  but before
July 1, 1972, will  be reimbursed for the  difference between the
amount they did receive as federal  financial support and 50 per-
cent of total cost,  provided the project was approved by the ap-
propriate state water pollution control  agency and met the re-
quirements of the Water Pollution Control Act in effect at the
time the project was initiated. If  the project was, in  addition,
constructed  in conformity with  a comprehensive metropolitan
treatment plan, it  would receive an additional 5 percent of  total
cost.
  When the  Federal  Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
were  passed in 1972,  the Environmental  Protection Agency fur-
nished  the   estimate that   approximately $2,000,000,000  was
needed  to carry  out the  reimbursement provisions  of Section
206(a). Since that time the estimate has  been,  refined,  and is
now $2,600,000,000. The increase in the authorization for appro-
priations would provide for full funding of section 206(a).

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      151

  Section 1 also contains a number of technical  amendments to
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.  These  are corrections
of oversights or incorrect references,  and  do not alter the sub-
stance of the Act or depart from the original intent of the Con-
gress.
  Section 2 of S. 1776, as amended, provides that notwithstand-
ing the requirements of section 206 of the Federal Water  Pollu-
tion Control Act, applicants for  reimbursement under that  sec-
tion may be filed with the Administrator  of the Environmental
Protection  Agency until January  31, 1973.  A deadline of October
18,  1973 was originally set in section 206.  However, some  states
and communities have been uncertain as to which  projects are
eligible for reimbursement, resulting in incomplete  compilations
of eligible  projects.  The difficulty has been  compounded by the
fact that regulations concerning  reimbursement  and subsequent
revisions were not promulgated by the Environmental  Protection
Agency until late September of this year. Accordingly, the legis-
lation extends the  deadline in  order to give all concerned parties
adequate time to prepare their applications.
  Section 3 of the bill authorizes the  Administrator of the  En-
vironmental Protection Agency  to  make  interim  payments to
projects for which  an application  has been approved on  the
basis of estimates  of maximum pro rata entitlement of all  appli-
cants under subsections 206(a) and (d). It  has  become evident
that many eligible recipients would be forced to incur expenses
and delays in new projects or  risk failure of projects under con-
struction if payments were made  only after complete review
and determination on all applications.  The
                                                       [p.  2]

large number of applications for  reimbursement will require ex-
tensive  processing by the Environmental Protection Agency be-
fore full payment on each can be made.  Section 3 of the legisla-
tion authorizes preliminary interim reimbursement of funds to
projects which can be easily approved on  the basis of available
documentation pending  final  processing of  all  projects.  This
would include nearly all projects for which there had been  any
Federal financial assistance in the past, from the Environmental
Protection  Agency or other source. This will prevent undue  dis-
ruption in  community plans and  also  facilitate an orderly cash
flow by the United  States Government. It is expected that the
Environmental Protection Agency  will  immediately implement
the  interim payment provisions of this section.

-------
152         LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

                  COST OF THE LEGISLATION

  Rule XIII (7)  of the  Rules  of the  House of Representatives
requires a statement  of the estimated  costs to the United States
which would be  incurred in carrying out S.  1776, as reported,
in Fiscal Year 1974 and each of the following five years.
  The  extension  of  the wastewater  treatment  plant  operator
training program would  authorize $7,500,000 for fiscal year 1974
to continue the program. It  is not possible at this time to pre-
dict  the rate of reimbursement for waste treatment facilities,
the construction  of  which was commenced  between June  30,
1966 and July 1, 1972. Accordingly, the estimate prepared by the
Committee is based  on  the  total amount of increased authori-
zation for the six fiscal year period. That amount is $600,000,-
000.  No additional costs  to the Federal Government are involved
with the clarification  of the National Study Commission's author-
ity to hire consultants as staff.

                            VOTE

  The Committee ordered the bill reported by voice vote.

  CHANGES  IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

  In compliance with clause 3 of Rule XIII of the Rules of the
House  of  Representatives, changes in existing law made by the
bill,  as reported, are shown as follows  (existing law proposed to
be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed
in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed  is shown
in roman):

            FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
     TITLE I—RESEARCH AND RELATED PROGRAMS
     *        *       *        *        *       *        *

    RESEARCH, INVESTIGATIONS,  TRAINING, AND INFORMATION

 SEC. 104. (a)* * *
     *        *       *        *        *       *        *

                                                       [p. 3]

   (u)  There is authorized to be  appropriated  (1)  $100,000,000
 per fiscal year for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and the
 fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, for carrying out the provisions

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      153

of this  section other than  subsections  (g)  (1) and (2), (p),
(r), and (t) ;  (2) not to exceed $7,500,000 for  [fiscal year 1973]
fiscal years 1973 and  1974 for carrying out the provisions of
subsection  (g)(l);  (3) not to  exceed $2,500,000 for fiscal year
1973 for carrying out the provisions of subsection  (g) (2) ; (4)
not to exceed $10,000,000 for each  of  the  fiscal years  ending
June 30, 1973, and June 30,  1974, for  carrying out  the  provi-
sions of subsection  (p); (5) not to exceed $15,000,000 per fiscal
year for the fiscal years ending  June  30, 1973, and June 30,
1974, for carrying out the provisions of  subsection (r); and (6)
not to exceed $10,000,000 per fiscal  year for the fiscal years
ending June 30, 1973, and June 30,  1974, for carrying out the
provisions  of subsection  (t).
       TITLE II—GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
                    TREATMENT WORKS
          REIMBURSEMENT AND ADVANCED CONSTRUCTION

SEC. 206. (a)*  *  *
   (e) There is authorized to be appropriated to  carry  out  sub-
section  (a) of this section  not  to exceed  [$2,000,000,000]  $2,-
600,000,000 and,  to carry out subsection  (b)  of this section, not
to exceed $750,000,000. The authorizations contained in this  sub-
section  shall be  the  sole  source of  funds for reimbursements
authorized by this section.
                        AUTHORIZATION
   SEC. 207. There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out
this title, other than sections 206(e), 208 and 209, for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1973, not to exceed $5,000,000,000, for the
fiscal year ending  June 30, 1974,  not  to exceed  $6,000,000,000,
and for the fiscal  year  ending June  30,  1975,  not to  exceed
$7,000,000,000.

-------
154         LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

      TITLE III—STANDARDS AND ENFORCEMENT

     *        *        sfc        %        #       #        :

            OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE LIABILITY

SEC. 311.  (a)  * * *
  (f)(l) 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 Govern-
ment, 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
                                                       [p. 4]

the foregoing clauses, such owner or operator of  any vessel from
which oil or a hazardous substance is  discharged  in violation
of subsection  [(b)(2)]  (6) (3) of this section  shall,  notwith-
standing any  other provision  of  law,  be  liable to the United
States  Government for the actual costs incurred under subsec-
tion (c)  for the removal of such oil or substance by the United
States  Government in  an amount  not  to exceed  $100 per  gross
ton of  such vessel or  $14,000,000 whichever is lesser, except
that where the United States can  show that such discharge was
the result of willful negligence or willful misconduct within the
privity  and knowledge of the owner,  such owner  or  operator
shall be liable to the United  States  Government  for  the full
amount  of  such  costs.  Such costs shall constitute  a maritime
lien on  such vessel which may  be  recovered in an action in rem
in the district court of the United States for any district within
which  any  vessel  may be found. The United  States may also
bring an action against  the owner or operator of such vessel
in  any  court  of competent jurisdiction to recover such  costs.
   (2) Except where an owner or operator  of an  onshore facility
can prove that a discharge was caused solely by (A)  an act  of
God,  (B) an  act of war,  (C) negligence on the  part of the
United  States Government, or (D) an  act or omission of a third
party without regard to whether  any  such act or omission was
or  was  not negligent,  or any  combination of the  foregoing
clauses,  such owner or operator of any such facility from which
oil  or a hazardous substance  is discharged in  violation of sub-
section  [(b)(2)]  (b) (3)  of this section  shall  be  liable to  the
United  States Government for the actual  costs  incurred  under
subsection (c) for the  removal of such oil or  substance by the

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      155

United States Government in an amount not to exceed $8,000,-
000, except that where the United States can show that such dis-
charge was the result of willful negligence or willful misconduct
within the privity and  knowledge of the owner, such owner or
operator shall  be liable to  the United  States  Government for
the full amount of such costs.  The United States may bring an
action against  the  owner or operator of such  facility  in  any
court of competent jurisdiction to recover such costs. The [Secre-
tary] Administrator is  authorized, by regulation, after consulta-
tion with the Secretary of Commerce and  the  Small Business
Administration, to establish  reasonable  and equitable classifica-
tions  of those onshore facilities having a total fixed storage capa-
city of 1,000  barrels or  less which he determines because of size,
type,  and location do not present a substantial risk of the dis-
charge of oil or a hazardous  substance in violation of subsection
[(b) (2)] (b) (3) of this section, and apply with respect to such
classifications differing  limits of liability which may be less than
the amount contained in this paragraph.
   (3) Except where an owner or operator of an offshore facility
can prove that a discharge was caused solely by  (A) an act of
God,  (B) an act of war, (C) negligence on  the  part of the
United States Government, or (D) an act or omission of a third
party without regard to whether any such act or omission was or
was not negligent, or any combination of the foregoing  clauses,
such owner or operator of any such facility  from which oil or a
hazardous  substance is discharged  in  violation of  subsection
[(b) (2)] (b) (3) of this section shall, notwithstanding any other
provision of  law, be liable to the United States Government for
the actual costs incurred under subsection (c) for the
                                                        [p. 5]

removal of such oil or substance by the United States Government
in an amount not to exceed $8,000,000, except that  where the
United  States can show that such discharge was the result of
willful negligence or willful  misconduct  within the privity and
knowledge of the owner, such  owner  or operator shall be liable
to the United  States Government  for the full amount  of such
costs. The United States may bring an action against the owner
or operator of such a facility in any court of competent jurisdic-
tion to recover such costs.
   (g) In any case where an owner or operator of a vessel, of an
onshore  facility,  or  of  an offshore facility, from  which oil or a
hazardous substance is  discharged  in violation  of  subsection
[(b)  (2)] (b) (3) of this section, proves that such discharge of

-------
156          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n

oil or hazardous substance was caused solely by an act or omis-
sion  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 in-
curred under subsection (c) for removal of such oil or substance
by the United States Government, except where such  third party
can prove that such  discharge was caused solely by  (A) an act
of God,  (B)  an act  of war,  (C) negligence on the part of the
United States Government, or (D) an act or omission of another
party without regard  to whether such act or omission was or
was  not negligent, or any combination of the foregoing clauses.
If such third party was the owner or operator of a vessel which
caused the discharge of oil or a hazardous substance  in violation
of subsection  [(b)(2)]  (6) (3) of this section,  the  liability of
such third party under this subsection shall not exceed $100 per
gross ton of such vessel of $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 or a  hazardous substance in  violation of sub-
section [(b) (2)] (b) (3) of this section was the result of willful
negligence or willful  misconduct within the privity  and knowl-
edge of such third party, such third party shall  be liable to the
United  States Government for the  full amount  of such removal
costs. The United States may bring an action  against the  third
party  in  any court  of competent  jurisdiction  to recover  such
removal costs.
   (i) (1) In any case where an owner or operator of a vessel or
an onshore  facility or an offshore facility from which  oil or a
hazardous substance is discharged in violation of subsection [ (b)
(2)] (b) (3) of this section acts to remove such oil or substance
in accordance with  regulations promulgated pursuant to  this sec-
tion, such owner or operator shall be entitled to recover the rea-
sonable costs incurred in such removal upon establishing,  in a suit
which  may  be brought against the United States  Government
in the  United States Court of Claims, that  such discharge was
caused solely by (A) an act of God, (B) an act of war, (C) negli-
gence on the part of the  United States  Government, or  (D) an

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      157

act or omission of a third party without regard to whether such
act or omission was or was not negligent, or of any combination
of the foregoing causes.
                                                        [p. 6]
   (2) The provisions of this  subsection shall not apply  in  any
case  where liability is established pursuant to the Outer Contin-
ental 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 funds established pursuant to subsection (k).
                 NATIONAL STUDY COMMISSION
SEC. 315. (a) * * *
     *******
   (g)  In addition to authority to appoint personnel subject to the
provisions  of title  5,  United States  Code,  governing appoint-
ments  in the competitive service, and to pay such personnel in
accordance with the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter HI
of chapter 53 of such  title relating to classification and General
Schedule pay rates,  the Commission  shall have authority  to
enter into  contracts with private  or public  organizations who
shall furnish the Commission with such administrative and tech-
nical personnel as may be necessary to carry out the purpose of
this section. Personnel furnished by such organizations  under
this subsection are not, and shall not be considered to be, Federal
employees  for  any purposes, but in  the  performance of their
duties  shall be guided by the standards which apply to employ-
ees of  the legislative branches under rules  41 and 43  of the Sen-
ate and House of Representatives, respectively.
     [(g)]  W  There is authorized to be appropriated, for use in
carrying out this section, not to exceed $15,000,000.
             TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS
     *******
        ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE AND JUDICIAL REVIEW
SEC. 509. (a)  *  *  *
     *******
   (b)(l)  Review of the Administrator's action  (A) in promul-
gating any  standard of performance under  section 306, (B) in

-------
158
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
making  any determination pursuant  to  section  306(b) (1) (C),
(C)  in  promulgating  any  effluent  standard,  prohibition,  or

[treatment]  pretreatment  standard  under  section  307,  (D)  in

making  any determination  as to a  State permit  program  sub-
mitted under section 402(b),  (E) in approving or promulgating

any  effluent limitation or  other  limitation  under  section  301,

302,  or  306, and  (F)  in  issuing or denying any permit  under
section 402,  may  be had  by  any interested  person  in the  Cir-
cuit Court of Appeals of the United States  for the Federal judi-
cial district in which such person resides  or transacts such busi-
ness upon application by such person. Any such application shall
be  made within ninety days from the date of  such determination,
approval,  promulgation, issuance or  denial,  or after  such  date
only if such application is based  solely on  grounds  which arose
after such ninetieth day.
      *          *         *         *         *         *         *

                                                                   [p. 7]

1.2q(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 119(1973):

1.2q(3)(a) June 28:  Considered and passed  Senate, pp. S 12371

EXTENSION  OF  WASTEWATER j
  TREATMENT  PLANT OPERA-
  TORS TRAINING PROGRAM
  The Senate proceeded to consider the
bill  (S. 1776)  to amend  the  Federal
Water  Pollution   Control  Act,  as
amended, which had been reported
from the  Committee on Public Works
with  an amendment on page  1, after
line 8, insert:
  SEC. 2. Paragraphs (1),  (2), and (3) of
subsection (f), and subsections  (g) and (i) of
section 311 of the  Federal Water  Pollution
Control Act, as  amended (86 Stat. 866-868),
are  amended by striking "(b) (2)" wherever it
appears  and inserting in lieu  thereof "(b)
(3)".
  SEC. 3.  The last sentence of paragraph (2)
of subsection (f) of section 311 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control  Act, as amended  (86
Stat. 867), is amended by striking "Secretary"
and inserting in lieu thereof "Administrator".
  SEC. 4. Section 207 of the  Federal Water
Pollution  Control  Act, as amended  (86 Stat.
839), is amended by inserting "206 (e)," after
"sections".
  SEC. 5.  Section 509(b) (1) (C) of the Federal
Water Pollution  Control  Act, as amended  (86
Stat. 892), is amended by striking "treatment"
and inserting in lieu thereof "pretreatment".
  So as to make the bill read:
  Be it enacted  by the Senate and House of
                      Representatives  of  the  United States  of
                      America in Congress assembled, That subsection
                       (u)  of  section  104  of the  Federal  Water
                      Pollution Control Act, as amended (33  U.S.C.
                      1151  et seq.), is  amended  by  striking the
                      phrase "fiscal year 1973" where it appears in
                      paragraph  numbered (2) thereof, and sub-
                      stituting therefor the phrase "fiscal years 1973
                      and 1974".
                        SEC. 2.  Paragraphs (1), (2), and (3)  of
                      subsection (f), and subsections (g) and (i) of
                      section  311  of the  Federal  Water  Pollution
                      Control Act, as amended  (86 Stat. 866-868),
                      are amended by striking  "(b)  (2)" wherever it
                      appears  and  inserting  in lieu thereof  "(b)
                       (3)".
                        SEC. 3. The last sentence of paragraph (2) of
                      subsection (f) of section 311 of  the Federal
                      Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (86
                      Stat.  867), is amended by striking "Secretary"
                      and inserting in lieu thereof  "Administrator".
                        SEC.  4.  Section 207  of the Federal  Water
                      Pollution Control  Act,  as amended (86 Stat.
                      839), is amended by inserting "206(e>," after
                      "sections".
                        SEC. 5. Section 509(b)  (1) (C) of the Federal
                      Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (86
                      Stat. 892), is amended by striking "treatment"
                      and  inserting in lieu thereof  "pretreatment".

                         The amendment was agreed to.

                         The bill was ordered  to be  engros-

                      sed for a third reading, read the third

                      time, and  passed.

                                                [p. S12371]

-------
             WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY
                                      159
L2q(3)(b)  Dec.  3:  Considered and  passed  Senate, pp.  H  10517-
                H 10520
  FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION
  CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS
  Mr.   BLATNIK.  Mr.  Speaker,  I
move to  suspend  the  rules  and pass
the  Senate bill (S. 1776)  to  amend
the  Federal  Water Pollution  Control
Act, as amended.
 The Clerk read as follows:
                   S.  1776
  Be  it enacted by the Senate and  House of
Representatives  of  the   United  States  of
America in  Congress  assembled,  That  the
Federal Water  Pollution Control Act  (86 Stat.
816;  33 U.S.C. 1251   et seq.) is amended—
  (1)  in  section  104(u)(2),  by  striking out
"fiscal year 1973" and inserting in lieu thereof
"fiscal years  1973  and 1974" ;
  (2)   in  section  206 (e),   by striking  out
"$2,000,000,000" and inserting  in lieu  thereof
"$2,600,000,000" ;
  (3)  in  section  207,  by inserting "206(e),"
after "sections" ;
  (4) in section 311—
  (A) by  striking  out "(b)(2)"  wherever  it
appears in paragraphs  (1),  (2), and  (3), of
subsection  (f), and inserting  in lieu  thereof
"(b)(3)";
  (B) by striking out "Secretary" in the last
sentence of paragraph  (2) of subsection  (f),
and  inserting in lieu thereof  "Administrator" ;
and
  (C) by  striking  out  "(b)(2)"  wherever  it
appears  in  subsections (g)  and  (i),  and
inserting in  lieu  thereof  "(b)(3)";
  (5)  in section  315,  by  redesignating  sub-
section  (g) as subsection (h), and  by adding a
new subsection  (g) to read  as  follows:
  " (g)  In addition to authority  to appoint
personnel subject to the provisions of title  5,
United States Code, governing appointments in
the  competitive  service,  and to  pay   such
personnel in  accordance with the provisions of
chapter 51  and subchapter III of chapter 53 of
such title relating to classification and General
Schedule pay rates, the Commission shall  have
authority to  enter into  contracts  with  private
or public organization  who  shall  furnish the
Commission  with  such  administrative  and
technical  personnel as may  be necessary to
carry out the purpose  of this section.  Personnel
furnished  by such organizations  under  this
subsection are not,  and shall  not be considered
to be, Federal employees for any purposes, but
in the  performance of their duties  shall be
guided  by  the  standards   which  apply to
employees  of the  legislative branches  under
rules 41 and 43 of the Senate and  House of
Representatives, respectively." ; and
  (6) in section 509(b) (1) (C), by striking out
"treatment"  and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof
"pretreatment".
  SBC.  2. Notwithstanding the requirements of
subsection  (c)  of  section 206 of the  Federal
Water  Pollution Control Act  (86 Stat. 838),
applications for assistance under section  206
may  be  filed  with   the  Administrator  of
the  Environmental Protection Agency  until
January 31, 1974.
  SBC.  3.  Funds available  for  reimbursement
under Public  Law  92-399 shall be allocated in
accordance with subsection  (d) of section 206
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (86
Stat.  838),  pro   rata  among  all  projects
eligible  under subsection (a)  of  such section
206 for which applications have been submitted
and approved by the Administrator pursuant to
such Act.  Notwithstanding  the provisions of
subsection  (d)  of such  section 206,  (1)  the
Administrator is  authorized  to make  interim
payments  to  each  such project for which  an
application has been approved on the basis of
estimates  of maximum pro  rata entitlement of
all  applicants under section  206 (a) and  (2)
for the purpose of determining  allocation of
sums available  under Public  Law 92^399, the
unpaid  balance  of reimbursement due such
projects shall be computed as of January 31,
1974. Upon completion  by the Administrator of
his audit and  approval of all projects for which
an  application has been filed under subsection
(a)  of such section   206,  the Administrator
shall, within  the limits of appropriated funds,
allocate to  each   such qualified  project  the
amount  remaining,   if  any,  of  its  total
entitlement.  Amounts   allocated  to  projects
which are later determined to be in excess of
entitlement shall be available  for reallocation,
until expended, to other qualified projects under
subsection  (a) of such section 206. In no event,
however, shall any  payments exceed the Federal
share of the  cost  of  construction incurred to
the date of the  voucher covering such payment
plus the  Federal  share  of  the value of the
materials  which have  been stockpiled in the
vicinity of such construction  in conformity to
plans and specifications for  the  project.
   The  SPEAKER.  Is  a  second  de-
manded?
   Mr.    DON   H,   CLAUSEN.  Mr.
Speaker, I demand a second.
   The SPEAKER. Without objection,
a  second will  be  considered  as  or-
dered.
   There was no objection.
   (Mr.   BLATNIK  asked   and  was

-------
160
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
given permission  to  revise  and ex-
tend his  remarks.)
  Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, I rise
in support of  S.  1776,  as  amended.
I commend  the distinguished  chair-
man of  our Water  Resources  Sub-
committee, the gentleman from Texas
 (Mr.  ROBERTS)  for the  outstanding
job he has done in bringing this bill
to the floor. I wish also to extend my
appreciation  to the ranking  minority
member  of  the full committee, the
gentleman from Ohio  (Mr. HARSHA),
and to the ranking minority member
of the Subcommittee  on Water Re-
sources,  the gentleman from Califor-
nia  (Mr.  DON  H.  CLAUSEN), for
their very able assistance and coopera-
tion on this bill.
  This  is an important  and needed
bill.  When Congress  passed  the Fed-
eral  Water  Pollution  Control  Act
Amendments in  1972,  it authorized
reimbursement to  those  States and
communities   which  had  continued
their   treatment   plant  construction
program but did not receive the full
amount  of  Federal  financial  assist-
ance to which they were entitled. The
amount  of  the authorization, which
was based on the best estimate then
available of $2  billion,  has turned
 out to be too low. This legislation in-
 creases it by $600 million, so that all
eligible applicants will be able to get
the reimbursement they  are entitled
to.  The  deadline  for  filing  reim-
bursement applications  is  also  ex-
 tended from October 18 of this year
 to  January  31  of 1974. This  will
 give the States and communities suf-
 ficient time to get their applications
 to  the   Environmental  Protection
 Agency.
   I also wish to point out the value
 of the treatment plant operator train-
 ing program which the legislation ex-
 tends for another year. We must have
 qualified operators if these plants are
 to operate effectively to clean up our
 waters.
   I  now yield  to the  distinguished
                     chairman  of  the  subcommittee,  the
                     gentleman from Texas (Mr. ROBERTS).
                        (Mr.  ROBERTS  asked and  was
                     given permission to revise and extend
                     his remarks.)
                        Mr.  ROBERTS.  I thank our distin-
                     guished chairman for yielding.
                        Mr.  Speaker, on  behalf of the Com-
                     mittee on  Public Works I am pleased
                     to bring to the floor for consideration
                     S.  1776,  as reported  amending  the
                     Federal  Water Pollution Control Act.
                        S. 1776, as amended, combines the
                     provisions of S. 1776  and Senate Joint
                     Resolution  158  as they  passed  the
                     Senate,  and adds  a  clarifying legis-
                     lative  proposal  requested by  the Na-
                     tional Commission  on Water  Quality,
                     established by the Federal Water Pol-
                     lution Control Act.
                        Section  1 of the bill  authorizes a
                     1-year extension of  the pilot opera-
                     tor training program for wastewater
                     treatment plants, set up under section
                     104 (g) (1) of  the  Federal Water Pol-
                     lution Control  Act. The program,  in-
                     itiated in 1970, was  included in the
                      Federal  Water Pollution Control Act
                      Amendments of
                                              [p.  H10517]
                      1972—Public Law  92-500. Unlike  all
                     other research, development, or train-
                      ing programs  authorized by that act,
                      which continue at  least through fiscal
                      year  1974,  section  104(g)(l)  was
                      authorized only through fiscal  year
                      1973.  The purpose of  this legislation
                      is  to  authorize  the  program at the
                      same  level of  funding  through fiscal
                      year 1974.
                        This  section  also  amends section
                      206 (e)  of the Federal Water Pollu-
                      tion Control Act by increasing  from
                      $2 billion  to  $2,600  million  the au-
                      thorization for reimbursement of up
                      to 55  percent of project costs for
                      eligible  sewage  treatment plants on
                      which construction was initiated  be-
                      tween June 30, 1966, and July 1, 1972.
                        Section 206 provides that such pub-
                      licly owned treatment  works will be
                      reimbursed for the difference between

-------
           WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                161
the amount they did receive as Fed-
eral financial  support  and 50 percent
of  total  cost, provided  the  project
was  approved  by  the  appropriate
State water pollution  control agency
and met the requirements of the Wa-
ter Pollution Control Act in effect at
the time the project was  initiated. If
the  project  was,  in  addition, con-
structed in conformity with  a com-
prehensive  metropolitan  treatment
plan,  it would receive an additional
5 percent of total cost.
  When the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act amendments were  passed
in  1972, the best estimate  was that
approximately  $2  billion  was needed
to carry out the reimbursement pro-
visions  of  section  206(a). Since that
time  the  estimate  has been refined,
and is  now  $2,600  million.  The in-
crease in the  authorization will per-
mit full implementation of section 206
(a) and assure that all  eligible ap-
plicants will in time receive the full
amount of  reimbursement  to  which
they are entitled.
  Section 2 of  the legislation extends
the deadline for filing  reimbursement
applications from October  18, 1973,
to January 31, 1974. This  extension is
needed to give States  and communi-
ties adequate time to prepare and file
applications after the promulgation of
the Environmental Protection  Agen-
cy's  guidelines  which   just  came
out this September.
  Section 3 authorizes the Adminis-
trator of the  Environmental Protec-
tion Agency to make interim payments
to projects for which  an application
has been approved  on the basis  of
estimates of maximum pro rata en-
titlement of all applicants under sub-
sections 206 (a)  and  (d).
  The large number  of applications
for  reimbursement will require  ex-
tensive  processing-  by  the  Environ-
mental Protection  Agency before full
payment on each can  be  made. This
section authorizing interim reimburse-
ment  of funds  to projects which can
be  easily approved  on the basis of
available documentation pending final
processing of all projects  will pre-
vent undue disruption in community
plans and also  facilitate an  orderly
cash flow  by the U.S.  Government.
  I am,  as always,  deeply  apprecia-
tive of the splendid leadership of the
chairman of  this committee, the gen-
tleman  from  Minnesota (Mr. BLAT-
NIK), the  gentleman from  Alabama
(Mr.  JONES),  and  the  cooperation
given by the ranking minority mem-
ber of the committee, the  gentleman
from  Ohio  (Mr. HARSHA), and the
ranking  minority  member  of  the
Subcommittee on Water Resources,
the gentleman from California  (Mr.
DON H. CLAUSEN) .
  Mr.  DON  H. CLAUSEN.   Mr.
Speaker, I yield myself such  time as
I may consume.
  (Mr.  DON H. CLAUSEN asked
and was  given  permission  to revise
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr.  DON  H. CLAUSEN.   Mr.
Speaker, I rise in support of  S.  1776
as reported by the Committee on  Pub-
lic  Works. This bill addresses cer-
tain immediate  needs of the water
pollution control program and I  urge
its support.
  I  compliment the  distinguished
chairman of  the Water  Resources
Subcommittee of the  Committee  on
Public  Works, my good friend  RAY
ROBERTS, of Texas, for his leadership
in bringing this  bill  to the floor to-
day as well as for his cogent explana-
tion of the provisions of S. 1776.
  Mr. ROBERTS has  explained  the de-
tails of S. 1776, and I shall  not be
repetitive.  There are, however,  two
provisions in this bill which I  believe
should  be  expanded  upon. As  you
remember,  last year  in the develop-
ment of the 1972 amendments to the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
the  Congress  developed  legislation
providing for reimbursement to those
projects  on which  construction  was
initiated  between June 30, 1966, and

-------
162
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
July  1,  1972,  Reimbursement  pay-
ments  would  be the  difference be-
tween the amount projects did receive
as  Federal  financial  support   and
either 50  or 55 percent of total cost
depending  upon whether  or  not the j
treatment  works  was  constructed in
conformity with an applicable,  com-
prehensive,  metropolitan  treatment
plan.
  At the time we developed the  reim-
bursement  provision  in  the  1972
amendments, the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency had provided an esti-
mate  that the provisions for  reim-
bursement in  the  existing committee
drafts would  require  appropriations
of  over   $1.9  billion.  We,  there-
fore,  provided  an  authorization for
the appropriation of $2 billion for re-
imbursements for the 1966-72 period.
Subsequent tabulations of outstand-
ing reimbursables indicated  that the
reimbursement provisions in  the con-
ference  report  would require an ap-
propriation of  approximately   $2.6
billion. Because the total dollar  needs
were  underestimated,  the authoriza-
tion would only provide 77 percent of
the required  funds.  The additional
$600  million authorized  by  S.  1776
would  allow  full  payment  of  out-
standing reimbursables.
  Furthermore,   the   Environmental
Protection Agency promulgated reg-
ulations for the payments of  reimbur-
ables which were clearly not consistent
with the law. These regulations would
have penalized certain  of our States.
When  we realized the implications,
the committee took immediate  steps
to  rectify the  problem.  After  a
number  of conferences between rep-
resentatives  of  the  Environmental
Protection  Agency  and  committee
members  and  staffs  in  both  bodies
of  the  Congress,  the Environmental
Protection Agency rescinded the  un-
lawful  regulations and promulgated
new regulations  consistent  with  the
law which provide for pro rata distri-
bution of the limited available funds.
                      Now, with S. 1776 and after necessary
                      appropriations by the Congress and
                      budgeting by the Executive,  repay-
                      ment of all outstanding reimbursable
                      could be made at  100  percent.
                        I  would like to call to your atten-
                      tion the provisions in  section 3 which
                      authorized interim reimbursement  of
                      funds to projects  which can be easily
                      approved on  the  basis of available
                      documentation, pending final process-
                      ing  of  all projects.  This provision
                      will allow the Administrator  to im-
                      mediately begin making payments  at
                      a level  approaching 77 percent of the
                      Federal share of the cost of all proj-
                      ects  for  which  there is adequate
                      documentation.
                        An  amendment to  section  2  in-
                      corporated by the Public Works Com-
                      mittee  would extend  the  final  date
                      for  submittal of  applications for re-
                      imbursement  to  January  31,  1974.
                      In  so  doing,  we know  that  there
                      might be a tendency for the Environ-
                      mental Protection Agency to utilize
                      the  provision  in section 3 for interim
                      payments. We expect him immediately
                      to start making  such  interim  pay-
                      ments.  These moneys  are  needed  by
                      the  States to  carry  out the  non-
                      Federal  portion  of  water pollution
                      control construction, and we consider
                      it to be a most important provision in
                      our bill.
                        I  would like  to ask the  gentleman
                      from  Texas  (Mr. ROBERTS)   if  he
                      concurs in the view I have expressed.
                      I yield to him for this question.
                        Mr.  ROBERTS. Mr.  Speaker,  I
                      appreciate  the  gentleman's yielding.
                        I  certainly  concur in his statement.
                      It is  the only  way I know  of that
                     I some  of  these   smaller  cities and
                      States  can operate, or get  the money
                      to operate, to do  the  job required  by
                      the  Federal Water Pollution Control
                      Act.
                        Mr.  DON H. CLAUSEN.  I thank
                      the  gentleman  for his comments. It
                      is important for all  to  understand

-------
           WATER—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                163
that we  expect prompt implementa-
tion of section 3.
  In closing, let me say that I ap-
preciate  the cooperation I  received
from my colleagues on the Committee
on  Public  Works,  from our  staff
and from  Environmental Protection
Agency personnel. I urge you to  vote
for S. 1776.                          j
  Mr.  STEIGER  of Wisconsin,  Mr. |
Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr.  Don H.  CLAUSEN. I yield  to
the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr.  STEIGER of Wisconsin. I ap-
preciate the gentleman's yielding.
   (Mr. STEIGER of Wisconsin asked
and was  given permission  to revise
and extend his remarks and  to in-
clude extraneous matter.)
  Mr.  STEIGER  of Wisconsin. Mr.
Speaker,  I  find myself in a difficult
position  because I  represent one  of
those areas of  the country containing
a   major sewage   treatment project
for which the original EPA reimburse-
ment formula was favorable.
  Unfortunately,  the  bill before use
today  includes  two bads along  with
one good, but  I think the  good out-
weighs the
                         [p. H10518]

bads.  I  am pleased  that  an  effort
is  being  made to  provide  sufficient
funds  to reimburse all eligible  proj-
ects and  that  a clause is included to
allow the interim  payments needed to
avoid further delays.
   My  concern  here is that  we  have
no assurance that the  administration
will be  willing to  provide the  addi-
tional   funds   this  bill  authorizes.
Would the gentleman from Texas, the
able  chairman of  the subcommittee
 (Mr. ROBERTS) give us any idea  as to
where  the  $2.6   billion authorized
stands with respect to the  possibili-
ties for appropriation  and actual ex-
penditure?
   Mr. ROBERTS. In response to the
gentleman's comments,  it  might  be
well to review the background of the
reimbursement provisions of S. 1776.
  In  developing  the Federal  Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972, consideration was given to those
communities which  constructed  sew-
age  treatment  facilities  for  which
they  received  no Federal  assistance
or assistance  at  a level substantially
lower  than that  contemplated  in the
1972  act.  It  was the  belief  of the
Congress  that fairness  dictated that
those  communities   which  invested
their own funds should not be  penali-
zed because of the failure of the Fed-
eral  Government to make available
its promised share. Section 206 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
of 1972  provided for the reimburse-
ment of up to  55 percent of the  project
cost  for  all  publicly  owned  sew-
age  treatment works on  which con-
struction  was initiated  between  June
30,  1966,  and July  1,  1972.   Subsec-
tion (d) of section  206  provides that
in  any year  in  which  available ap-
propriated funds are not equal to the
total  amount  of  reimbursement due
on  such   projects,  each  qualified
project—and    I   stress   qualified
I project—shall be allocated its pro-
portional  share  of  available  funds.
No distinction was drawn between the
types of projects which were quali-
 fied.  Public Law 92-399 appropriated
 $1.9  billion for  such reimbursements
 in fiscal year 1973.
   EPA  published  proposed   regula-
 tions on June 26, 1973,  which  had the
 effect of establishing classes  and al-
 locating  all  the  appropriated funds
 into  only  one class of  qualified proj-
 ect,  creating  a  priority  scheme  for
 the  distribution  of  these funds which
 was  totally inconsistent with Public
 Law 92-500.
   This allocation would result  in 24
 States failing  to receive  any  reim-
 bursement funds and 19 other States
 receiving  substantially less than  the
i equitable  distribution  which  was in-
 tended by that act.

-------
164
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n
  EPA has  rescinded these  regula-
tions  on the  basis of  a review of the
law and has  proposed new regulations
doing  away  with these  classes. The
committee  is satisfied that the new
regulations  are  in  conformity  with
section 206  of  the  Federal  Water
Pollution Control Act.
  As I have previously pointed out,
the purpose  of  S. 1776  is merely to
provide  sufficient   authorizations  to
carry  out  the  purpose of the  section
and  to provide  a means of  making
interim payments.
  Mr. STEIGER of Wisonsin. I must
say that I remain concerned over the
future  availability  of the funds au-
thorized in  this bill. Unfortunately,
because the  EPA has  already made
the change in its regulations this leg-
islation  offers  the  only  real  chance
for full reimbursement, and I  suspect
that  I have  no choice but to vote for
the bill.
  Another part of  the  bill  that wor-
ries me is the extension of the  dead-
line.  I  wonder if the gentleman from
Texas will indicate whether or not it
is their considered  judgment  that the
deadline extension  into  January will
unduly slow down EPA's handling of
applications.
   Mr. EGBERTS. No; it will  not, be-
cause,  as  the  gentleman realizes, we
do have  the  interim  payment  pro-
vision, and  those  ready  can  be paid
immediately. This  is the reason  we
put  it  in  there.   We  hope   we are
 speeding  it up. As I  said  before
some  of them,  particularly the mid-
 dlesized  cities,  are  in  dire   circum-
 stances. We hope this really is going
 to take care of it.
   Mr.  STEIGER   of   Wisconsin.   I
 hope that it  will.
   Mr.  DON   H.   CLAUSEN.  Mr
 Speaker,  will  the  gentleman yield?
   Mr.  STEIGER   of   Wisconsin.   I
 yield to the gentleman  from  Califor-
 nia.
   Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN.  I  thank
 the gentleman for yielding.
                         That is precisely the reason we put
                       ;he interim language in our  legisla-
                       ,ion here today, hopefully to send the
                       signal downtown that we here on the
                       committee and in the Congress expect
                       ;hem to follow it.
                         Mr. STEIGER of Wisconsin.  I ap-
                       preciate  the  gentleman's  comments.
                         Mr.  Speaker, I feel that it might
                       Drove instructive to  examine  the im-
                       3act on  one sewage treatment  proj-
                       ect in my district.
                         The    Neenah-Menasha   Sewerage
                        lommission  has  been  assured for
                       years that full reimbursement will  be
                       provided to cover the costs of a waste-
                       water   treatment  plant   expansion.
                       Now, unless the funds authorized  in
                       this  bill  are actually made available,
                       a large portion of the  promised reim-
                       bursement will be withdrawn.
                         I think that the plight of  Neenah-
                       Menasha and, no doubt, that of many
                       other communities across the  country,
                       can  best  be  understood by reading a
                       letter addressed to  me by the sewer-
                       age  commission's manager. This  let-
                       ter,  along with the related comments
                       I  have already directed  to  the dis-
                       tinguished  chairman  of  the  Public
                       Works  Committee, Mr. BLATNIK,  fol-
                       low:
                         NEENAH-MENASHA SEWERAGE COMMISSION,
                                  Menajsha, Wis., October  IS, 1973.
                       Representative WILLIAM STEIGEK,
                       Long^v0rth Office Building,
                       Washington, D.C.
                         DEAR REPRESENTATIVE  STEIGEU: I  have  just
                       been advised  of  a  proposed  joint  Senate-
                       House  resolution  declaring recently  adopted
                       Environmental Protection  Agency  reimburse-
                       ment regulations void and ordering prepara-
                       tions of  new  regulations. As  I understand,
                       Senator Jennings  Randolph (D-W.  Va.)  and
                       38 Co-sponsors are advocating adoption of  this
                       resolution,  which will seriously cripple  the past
                       four years of work by the Neenah-Menasha
                       Sewerage  Commission  to  get  an  expansion
                       project of  our wastewater treatment plant
                       underway.
                         The  guidelines under  attack  relate to the
                       PL86-440  and PL92-399 reimbursement  pro-
                       visions and particularly the priority  system for
                       disbursement of the appropriated $1.9 billion.
                       Officials of the Cities of  Neenah and Menasha,
                       and the Neenah-Menasha Sewerage Commission

-------
             WATER—STATUTES  AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                     165
have been  assured for years that  we would
receive federal grants  of 55% on our project,
and we have proceeded with bonding, industrial
contract  negotiations,  and  project  planning
on  that  basis.  The   recently  adopted  EPA
regulations  assured  us of getting  that  5 5%
since  our project and those of the  Cities  of
Green  Bay  and Manito\voc  were  placed  in
priority A,  which is the highest priority.
  Suggested  revisions  in  Senator  Randolph's
proposal  will  result in a substantially reduced
reimbursement to Wisconsin  cities,  qualifying
under PL92-399 and 84-660 and in the case  of
Neenah-Menasha could result  in approximately
$3 million reduction in federal reimbursements.
This is based on the proposal to proportion the
appropriated funds by using  a  formula which
would multiply the  55%  federal  grant  by  a
fraction,  the  numerator  of  which  is  the
appropriated  funds   ($1.9 billion)   and  the
denominator of which  is  the total applications
($2.4). If our project bids total  close to our
estimated cost of $27  million, then, our local
share to be bonded for  and paid directly by our
local citizens will increase from $5.4 million  to
$8.4 millions.
  Your strongest efforts to defeat the proposed
resolution are  appreciated.
    Sincerely,
  NEENAH-MENASHA SEWERAGE COMMISSION,
           ROBERT W. BUES, P.E., Manager.
  P.S.—An  alternative solution  might be  to
increase appropriations to equal the applica-
tions.
         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
       Washington, D.C., November 18, 1973.
Hon. JOHN A. BLATNIK,
Chair-man, Committee on Public Works, Ray-
    burn House Office  Building,  Washington,
    D.C.
  DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : I was disappointed to
learn that the pending resolutions to establish
a  formula   for   distributing  reimbursement
grants  for  sewage  treatment  facilities  con-
struction will be considered without the benefit
of hearings.
  Nevertheless, I thank you  for the opportunity
to submit my views. I am enclosing a copy of a
letter I received from Robert Bues, Manager of
the  Neenah-Menasha  Sewerage Commission. He
gives a clear explanation of the plight of those
municipal systems which will suffer from the
revised distribution  formula.
  Two  points deserve special attention.  First,
the  letter conveys  the sense of betrayal felt by
city officials who  had  been  assured for  years
that their early  approval  for  reimbursement
meant  a  priority position for available funds.
Because they  believed  these assurances,  cities
across the nation will now be forced to  absorb
unexpected costs often  as large as several mil-
lion dollars.
  Second, the postscript offers  the alternative
solution of  increased appropriations to  allow
full  reimbursement  to  all  applicants.  The
authorization  included  within  the   pending
resolutions takes the first step in this direction.
Although I find some  encouragement in this
aspect  of the proposal, it will  be  rendered
meaningless unless those who vote to  approve
this legislation keep the need for these funds in
mind when the time  comes to make the actual
appropriation.
  Again, thank  you for giving me the oppor-
tunity to bring these comments to the  attention
of the Subcommittee.
  With kind regards,
    Sincerely  yours,
                    WILLIAM A. STEIGER,
                      Member of Congress.
   Mr.  MATSUNAGA. Mr.  Speaker,
I rise in support of  S. 1776, the Fed-
eral  water pollution  control  amend-
ment.
                            [p. H10519]
   As  a  sponsor  of  identical  legisla-
tion,  I  heartily  congratulate   Chair-
man  BLATNIK  of  the House   Public
Works  Committee,  Chairman  RAN-
DOLPH  of the Senate  committee, their
respective  committee  members,   and
the numerous cosponsors of this  leg-
islation for their  tireless  efforts to-
ward  enacting this  important meas-
ure.  I   commend the  membership of
both   committees,   additionally,   for
their earlier success in persuading the
Environmental  Protection  Agency to
revise their regulations governing the
allocation   of  grants  to  the   States
under section 206  of the Federal  Wa-
ter Pollution Control  Act. That  reg-
ulation  would  have  totally  deprived
24 States of any  Federal funds under
section  206.  Fourteen  other   States
would have received substantially  less
than  their  entitlement.  These  States
owe their current allocation to the ef-
forts of these able committees.
   The job, however, has not been com-
pleted,  and it  is for  this  reason we
must act on this bill today. Under the
existing law, the  States will  receive
only 80 percent or  less of the Federal
share  promised  them by  Congress.
Last  year,  replying on EPA studies,
we underestimated the amount needed
to fund  reimbursement grants under
section  206. We authorized $2  million

-------
166
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
to cover the promised  Federal share
of 50  percent of the  cost  of water
treatment  facilities  constructed  by
the States between mid-1966 and mid-
1972.  This  authorization  fell  more
than  20 percent short of the actual
amount needed and  promised  to the
several  States,  all  of  which  an-
swered the  call to clean up the Na-
tion's  waterways  and shorelines.  S.
1776  will finally fulfill  and  Federal
pledge  by authorizing an additional
$600 million,  the amount estimated to
fund fully section 206 projects.
   Further,  the bill will  permit State
water pollution control administrators
to submit applications for funds  un-
til January  31, 1974.  The  previous
deadline of October 15 was  unrealis-
tic given the  confusion created by the
amorphous    EPA   regulations  that
governed   application   requirements
and  grant  allocations.  S.  1776 will
make  available the  additional  time
State   administrators   are  pleading
for all over the country.
   The third  essential  element of the
bill  will authorize  the  Director  of
 EPA  to make interim  grants to those
 States which will have qualified parti-
                      cular projects before the  new  dead-
                      line.
                         Mr. Speaker, there is no valid argu-
                      ment that can be  raised against this
                      bill. There are two simple  objectives
                      sought by this bill. One is to  fulfill
                      a  solemn Federal pledge  made  to
                      the States  to match  State dollars
                      spent  to  combat water pollution. The
                      other  is  to  reassert Congress  com-
                      mitment  to  the  Nation  that we will
                      do our part, if  not lead the way, to
                      restoring  the purity of our  water-
                      ways  and  shorelines for  the health
                      and enjoyment of this  generation of
                      Americans and all future ones.
                         Mr.  Speaker, I  urge approval  of
                      this vital legislation.
                         The  SPEAKER. The question is on
                      the motion  offered by the  gentleman
                      from  Minnesota  (Mr. BLATNIK) that
                      the House suspend the rules and pass
                      the Senate  bill  S.  1776, as amended.
                         The question was taken; and (two-
                      thirds  having voted in favor thereof)
                       the rules  were  suspended and the
                       Senate bill  as amended was  passed.
                         A motion to reconsider was laid on
                       the table.
                                                [p. H10520]
    1.2q(3)(c) Dec. 14: Senate  agreed to House amendments,
                            pp. S 22973—22974
  AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL WA-
  TER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
   Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask
 the Chair to lay before the Senate  a
 message from the House  of Repre-
 sentatives on S. 1776.
   The PRESIDING  OFFICER (Mr.
 NUNN)   laid  before  the  Senate  the
 amendment of  the  House of Repre-
 sentatives  to  the bill  (S. 1776),  to
 amend  the  Federal  Water Pollution
 Control Act, as amended,  which  was
 to strike out  all after the  enacting
 clause, and insert:
   That the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
  (86 Stat. 816;  33  U.S.C.  1251 et seq.)   is
 amended—
                         (1)  in section  104(u)(2), by striking out
                       "fiscal year 1973" and inserting in lieu thereof
                       "fiscal years 1973 and 1974" ;
                         (2)  in  section 206 (e), by  striking out
                       "$2,000,000,000" and inserting in lieu thereof
                       "$2,600,000,000" ;
                         (3)  in section  207, by  inserting "206(e>,"
                       after "sections" ;
                         (4)  in section 311—
                         (A) by striking out "(b)(2)" wherever  it
                       appears in  paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), of
                       subsection  (f), and inserting in lieu thereof
                       "(b) (3)";
                         (B) hy striking out "Secretary" in the last
                       sentence of paragraph (2) of subsection (f),
                       and inserting in lieu thereof "Administrator" ;
                       and
                         (C) by striking out "(b)(2)" wherever  it
                       appears  in subsections   (g)  and  (i), and
                       inserting in lieu  thereof  "(b)(3)";
                         (5)  in section  315, by redesignation subsec-

-------
             WATER—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                    167
 tion (K) as subsection (h),  and by adding a
 new subsection (g)  to  read  as  follows:
  "(g)  In addition  to  authority to appoint
 personnel subject  to the provisions of title 5,
 United  States Code,  governing  appointments
 in  the  competitive service,  and  to  pay  such
 personnel in accordance with the  provisions of
 chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of
 such title relating to classification and General
 Schedule pay  rates, the Commission shall  have
 authority to enter into contracts  with private
 or  public organizations who shall furnish the
 Commission  with  such  administrative  and
 technical personnel as may  be   necessary to
 carry out the purpose  of this section. Personnel
 furnished  by such organizations  under  this
 subsection are not, and shall not be considered
 to be, Federal employees for any purposes, but
 in  the   performance of their  duties shall be
 guided   by  the  standards  which  apply to
 employees  of the legislative  branches under
 rules 41 and  43 of the Senate and  House of
 Representatives, respectively,";  and
  (6) in section 509(b) (1) (C), by striking out
 "treatment"  and  inserting  in   ]ieu thereof
 "pretreatment".
  SEC.  2. Notwithstanding the  requirements of
 subsection  (c) of section 206 of the Federal
 Water  Pollution Control Act  (86 Stat.  338),
 applications for assistance under  section  206
 may be filed  with   the  Administrator of
 the Environmental Protection  Agency  until
 January 31, 1974.
  SEC.  3. Funds  available for reimbursement
 under Public Law 92-399 shall be allocated in
 accordance with subsection  (d)  of section  206
 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act  (36
 Stat. 838), pro rata among all projects eligible
 under subsection  (a)  of such  section 206  for
 which  applications  have been submitted  and
 approved by  the  Administrator   pursuant to
 such Act.  Notwithstanding the  provisions of
 subsection  (d) of such section  206, (1)  the
 Administrator is  authorized  to make interim
 payments to each  such project for which an
 application has been approved on the basis of
 estimates of maximum pro rata entitlement of
 all  applicants under section 206 (a)  and  (2)
 for  the  purpose of determining  allocation of
 sums available under  Public Law  92-399, the
 unpaid   balance of reimbursement  due  such
 projects shall  be  computed as  of  January 31,
 1974. Upon completion by the Administrator of
his  audit  and approval of all   projects for
which  an  application has been  filed  under
subsection   (a)   of   such  section   206,  the
Administrator  shall,   within   the  limits  of
 appropriated  funds,  allocate  to  each  such
 qualified project the amount remaining, if  any,
of its total entitlement. Amounts allocated to
 projects which are later determined  to be in
excess  of  entitlement  shall  be  available  for
reallocation, until expended,  to other Qualified
 projects under subsection (a)  of  such section
 206. In no event, however, shall any payments
 exceed  the  Federal  share  of  the  cost  of
 construction incurred to the date of the voucher
 covering such payment  plus the Federal share
 of the value of  the materials which have been
 stockpiled in the vicinity  of such construction
 in conformity  to plans and specifications for
 the project.
   Mr.  MUSKIE.  Mr. President,  on
 May   10,  1973,  Senator  CLARK  in-
 troduced  S.  1776 to  amend the  Fed-
 eral  Water Pollution  Control Act, as
 amended, to authorize a 1-year exten-
 sion   of the  pilot  operator training
 program  for waste water  treatment
 plants  under section  104 (g)  (1)  of
 Public  Law 92-500. The act has au-
 thorized funds for  this program only
 through fiscal  year  1973.   On  June
 18, the Senate passed  S. 1776.  Section
 1  of  the bill before  us  incorporates
                             [p.822973]
nal  provisions of  S. 1776 as passed
by the Senate.
   Also incorporated in  this bill is the
language of  Senate Joint Resolution
158, as passed by the Senate on  Octo-
ber  11,  1973. This  resolution  would
have amended section 206 of the Fed-
eral  Water  Pollution   Control   Act,
which  provides  for reimbursement to
those  agencies that initiated construc-
tion  on  waste  treatment  plants  be-
tween June 30, 1966, and July 1, 1972,
but  did   not  receive   the maximum
authorized Federal grant. Reimburse-
ment  would  be  for the  difference be-
tween  the amount of  Federal  funds
received,  if  any, and  50  percent  of
total cost, or  55 percent if the project
was constructed  in  conformity with a
comprehensive metropolitan plan.
   Senate  Joint  Resolution 158  would
have raised the  authorization for re-
imbursement   for  the  1966  to  1972
period from $2  billion  to $2.6 billion
as a result of revised EPA estimates.
The House-passed  version of S. 1776
incorporates this provision.
   Because of  the delay in promulga-
tion of final regulations and confusion
among   States   and   local   govern-
ments about eligibility under  this pro-

-------
168
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
gram, the Senate resolution extended
the deadline for  filing  applications
for reimbursement from October 18,
1973,  to  December  31,  1973.  The
House-passed version moves that ex-
tension to January 31, 1974.
  The Senate resolution provided for
preliminary disbursement of funds to
projects  which  could be quickly ap-
proved  for  reimbursement  on  the
basis   of  available  documentation,
without waiting for  final  processing
of all  projects.  These advance  pay-
ments  would  prevent disruption  in
community  plans  and  facilitate  an
orderly cash flow in the U.S. Govern-
ment. The  House-passed version re-
tains this provision.
  The  House, in its consideration of
this legislation,  added new language
amending section 315 of the Federal
Water  Pollution Control   Act.  That
section created the National Commis-
sion  on Water Quality, composed of
five Members of  the Senate, five Mem-
bers of the House, and five presiden-
tially appointed members,  to review
and independently evaluate for  Con-
gress  the economic, social  and  envi-
ronmental  implications  of  the regu-
latory   aspects  of   that  act.  The
Commission report must be submitted
to the Congress  no later than October
18, 1975.
  The five Senate  Members were des-
ignated  on January 29,  1973; the
House  Members  on February 5, 1973;
and the public members on March  15,
1973.   At   the  Commission's initial
meeting  on May 15, Governor Rocke-
feller  was  elected  Chairman   and
Congressman JONES and myself were
elected Vice Chairmen.
   From  the initial meeting until the
present,  the Commission, in  response
to the conference committee charge
that  the   study  must  be   funded,
staffed, and initiated with  expedition,
has  been   searching  for  competent
staff to expedite the necessary studies.
A concerted effort was  made by all
members  of   the   Commission   to
                     identify  candidates for the top staff
                     positions. Part  of those  efforts cul-
                     minated  in  a determination that  Lt.
                     Gen.  Frederick  J.  Clarke,  retired,
                     former  Chief of  the  Corps  of En-
                     gineers,  was the  most qualified per-
                     son presently available for the posi-
                     tion of Executive Director. Because of
                     the 2-year  life of  the Commission,
                     General  Clarke  was reluctant to  ac-
                     cept employment without proper per-
                     manent  arrangements.  His  services
                     were then made available to the Com-
                     mission  under  terms  of  a contract
                     with   the   engineering   firm   of
                     Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton.
                        The committee  is pleased that  the
                     National Commission on Water Qual-
                     ity  was  able  to  obtain  General
                     Clarke's services.  He  has dealt with
                     this committee  many  times on many
                     issues and  his  record is  exemplary.
                     He has a long and distinguished rec-
                     ord  in  solving  complex water prob-
                     lems and brings this experitise to the
                     vitally  important  work of the Com-
                     mission. He is—by any  standards—
                     the  best available  person  for this
                     job. The General Accounting  Office,
                     however, advised that  the contractual
                     arrangement  presents legal  difficul-
                     ties because  it  results   in  a  non-
                     Federal employee  supervising Federal
                     employees.  The  GAO then  advised
                     Governor Rockefeller—the Chairman
                     of the National  Commission on Water
                     Quality—that an  amendment  to  sec-
                     tion 315 would alleviate  this prob-
                     lem. The legislative change was  rec-
                      ommended  to  the   Committee   on
                      Public Works by the Chairman of the
                      Commission.
                        Our  intention  is that  the  exemp-
                      tion provided in this  legislation is to
                      be used exclusively for  the  services
                      of General Clarke as Executive  Di-
                      rector  of  that  Commission.  General
                      Clarke will do  no work  for  his en-
                      gineering  firm  for compensation.  He
                      will receive no compensation from the
                      engineering firm other than that stip-
                      ulated  in   the  contract  between  the

-------
           WATER—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                               169
National Commission on Water Qual-
ity   and  Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-
Stratton.  Finally, that firm will do
no  work  for  the National Commis-
sion on Water Quality other than as
provided under the current contract.
  S. 1776, as  amended, also includes
several  technical  amendments to  cor-
rect oversights and incorrect  refer-
ences and are not substantive in na-
ture.
  Mr.  BENTSEN. Mr.  President, I
believe  the  compromise  reached  by
the  committee  was the most equitable
solution to a very complex and diffi-
cult problem.  I  had  originally  pro-
posed,  and  the  committee accepted,
an  allocation  formula based 50  per-
cent on population and 50  percent on
table 1 of  the "needs study"  EPA
submitted to the  Congress in October.
However,  a  review of the impact of
this adjustment  in the  formula  re-
vealed that  several  States would be
severely  affected by  the proposed
change. The formula finally approved,
which  contains a 25-percent alloca-
tion based on  population and 75  per-
cent on table 1, is a temporary meas-
ure, designed  to  correct some of the
imbalances in  the straight EPA needs
allocation, in  the form  it was  sub-
mitted to the Congress.
  I  should  stress that I do not op-
pose a needs  formula as  the  basis
for allocating  funds  for wastewater
treatment   facilities;  however,  the
needs test conducted by the EPA was
incomplete and created distortions in
the  allocations of  funds  among the
States.
  I  was particularly  concerned  that
the needs  study did not place a proper
emphasis  on  the need for advanced
waste   treatment.  My  own  State,
Texas, has  required secondary treat-
ment for some 40 years,  because  it
is a water-poor  State. Some of our
rivers  are composed  in  the summer-
time of a high percentage of return
flows, or  effluents. With  ever-increas-
ing  population   growth,   secondary
treatment is no  longer  sufficient in
all  cases, and  my State must  now
turn to advanced waste treatment to
keep our  rivers in acceptable  condi-
tion.
  The  EPA needs study excluded the
cost of advanced waste treatment in
determining  a   State's  need  unless
such treatment  was  required  by le-
gally binding Federal, State,  or lo-
cal  actions taken prior to the conduct
of the  survey. In actual practice, this
required a State permit reflecting ad-
vanced  treatment, a  court  order, or
an EPA-approved water  quality man-
agement plan.  At  the  time  of the
survey, only a  small percentage of
State   permits   required   advanced
waste   treatment,  and  no   EPA-
approved  water quality  management
plans existed.
  I  strongly support committee  ac-
tions requiring EPA to produce more
acceptable criteria for  determining
actual   State  needs.  This  bill  only
changes  the  formula  for 1 year; in
the  intervening year,  we should have
more adequate  data  upon  which to
base our judgments.
  I  realize  that the  formula  gives
my  State approximately  $30  million
less than  the originally approved 50-
50  split between population and the
EPA  recommendation;  however, in
view of the dislocations  that  would
occur in other States  from correcting
entirely  the  obviously  unfair  Texas
situation, I  support this compromise
solution.
  Mr.   MUSKIE. Mr.  President,  I
move that the  Senate concur  in the
House  amendment.
  The  PRESIDING  OFFICER. The
question is  on  agreeing  to the mo-
tion to concur  in the House  amend-
ment.  Without objection, the  motion
is agreed to.
  Mr.  MUSKIE. Mr. President, I sug-
gest the absence of a quorum.
  The  PRESIDING  OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.

-------
170
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
  The  second  assistant  legislative
clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, 1
ask unanimous consent that the order
                   for the quorum call be rescinded.
                     The VICE  PRESIDENT.  With-
                   out objection, it is so ordered.
                                         [p. S22974]
    1.2r FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
    AMENDMENTS, January 2,1974, P.L. 93-243,87 Stat. 1069.

                            An  Act
To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to establish the ratio for
  allocation  of treatment works construction grant  funds,  to insure that
  grants may be given for other than operable  units, and to  clarify the
  requirements for development of priorities.

  Be it enacted by  the Senate and House  of  Representatives  of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,  That (a)
subsection  (a) of section  205 of the Federal Water  Pollution
Control Act is  amended by inserting immediately after the third
sentence thereof the following new sentence: "For the fiscal year
ending  June 30,  1975, such ratio shall  be determined one-half
on the basis of table I of  House Public Works Committee Print
Numbered  93-28  and  one-half on the  basis of table II of such
print, except that no  State shall receive an allotment  less than
that which it received for  the fiscal year ending June  30, 1972,
as set forth in table III of such  print.".
   (b) The last sentence of subsection  (a)  of section 205  of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act is amended by striking out
"June 30, 1974," and  inserting in lieu thereof "June 30,  1975,".
  SEC. 2. Section 203 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
is amended by adding at the end thereof the  following new sub-
section:
  "(d)  Nothing in  this Act shall be construed to require, or  to
authorize the Administrator to  require, that  grants under this
Act for construction of treatment works be made only for projects
which are  operable units usable for sewage  collection,  trans-
portation, storage, waste treatment, or for  similar purposes with-
out additional construction.".
   SEC.  3.  Section  511 of  the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act is amended by  adding at the end  thereof the following new
subsection:
   "(d)  Notwithstanding this Act or any other provision  of law,
the  Administrator  (1)  shall not require  any State to consider
in the development of the  ranking in  order of priority of needs

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      171

for the construction of treatment works  (as  denned in title  II
of this Act), any water pollution  control agreement which  may
have been entered into between the United States and any other
nation, and (2) shall  not  consider any  such agreement  in the
approval of any such priority ranking.".
  SEC. 4. Subsection  (b)  of section 516  of  the  Federal  Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended (86 Stat. 895), is  amended
by inserting "(1)" after "(b)"; by striking "(1)", "(2)",  "(3)",
and "(4)"  and inserting in lieu thereof  "(A)",  "(B)",  "(C)",
and "(D)", respectively; and by adding the following- new para-
graph:
  "(2) Notwithstanding the second sentence  of  paragraph (1)
of this subsection, the Administrator shall make a preliminary
detailed estimate called for by subparagraph  (B)  of such para-
graph and  shall submit such preliminary detailed  estimate to the
Congress no later than September 3,  1974.  The Administrator
shall require each State to prepare an estimate of cost  for  such
State, and  shall utilize the survey form EPA-1, O.M.B.  No.  158-
R0017, prepared for the 1973 detailed estimate, except that  such
estimate shall include  all costs of compliance with section 201 (g)
(2) (A) of  this Act and water quality standards established  pur-
suant to section 303 of this Act, and all costs  of treatment works
as denned  in section 212(2), including  all eligible  costs of  con-
structing sewage collection systems and correcting excessive in-
filtration or inflow  and all eligible costs of correcting combined
storm  and sanitary sewer problems and treating  storm water
flows. The  survey form shall be distributed by the Administra-
tor to each State no later than January 31, 1974.".
  Approved January 2, 1974.

-------
172         LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

    1.2r(l)  SENATE COMMITTEE  ON  PUBLIC WORKS

            S. REP. No. 93-630, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973).

        WASTE TREATMENT FUND ALLOCATIONS
              DECEMBER 13,1973.—Ordered to be printed
       Mr. MUSKIE, from the Committee on Public Works,
                   submitted the following

                         REPORT

                        together with

                   ADDITIONAL VIEWS
                     [To accompany S. 2812]

  The Committee on Public Works, reports an original bill (S.
2812) to authorize a formula for the allocation of funds author-
ized for fiscal year  1975 for sewage treatment  construction
grants, and for other purposes, and recommends that the bill do
pass.

                   PURPOSE OF LEGISLATION
  This bill amended the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
as amended,  to provide a formula for the allocation of sewage
treatment facility construction grant funds authorized  for fiscal
year 1975. The bill requires the Environmental Protection Agency
to conduct a new survey of the needs  for publicly owned treat-
ment works before fiscal year 1976 construction grant funds are
allocated. And, one provision  of  the bill  clarifies  the  intent of
Congress in the 1972 amendment to the Federal Water  Pollution
Control Act (P.L. 92-500) to specifically approve the practice of
phased funding of large waste treatment works.

                     GENERAL  STATEMENT

  The Committee  on Public Works has considered various al-
ternatives to the authorization of grant allocations for  1975 and
subsequent fiscal years for  waste water treatment facilities in
accordance with section 205 (a)  of the 1972 Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act Amendments (P.L. 92-500). That section re-

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      173

quires that (1)  such allocations be made only  in  accordance
with revised estimates of the cost of con-
                                                        [p.l]
structing  all needed  publicy  owned treatment works develop-
ment under section 516(b) of that  Act,  and (2) the Congress
approve such revised cost estimates by a subsequently  enacted
law.
  Pursuant to  section 516 (b)  requirements, the  Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency prepared a survey in
1973 to ascertain the  cost estimates  for needed treatment works
among the various States.  The information received from  the
survey provided  the  basis for  the Environmental  Protection
Agency's  "needs  survey"  report which the Administrator sub-
mitted to Congress in October  1973.  (A final edition with re-
vised tables was submitted in November 1973.)
  On October  31  and November 1, 1973, the  Committee held
hearings on the "needs survey". Testimony  was  received from
State,  local and  Federal  officials. Much  of  the  testimony was
directed  to the thoroughness of the  survey  and the accuracy
and  reliability  of the cost  estimates  contained therein.  Subse-
quently, the Committee held several executive sessions to consider
legislation  establishing a formula for allocation  based on  the
revised cost estimate.
                           HISTORY
  Prior to passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control  Act
Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500), Congress based the alloca-
tion of sewage treatment facility construction grant funds to
the States on various formulae.
  The Water Pollution  Control  Act  of 1948  (P.L. 80-845),  ap-
propriated to  the Federal Security  Agency  an annual  sum of
$1,000,000  each year for five years for prevention  and control of
water pollution caused by industrial  wastes. Section 8 (a) of that
Act required that these sums:
       Be alloted equitably  and paid to the  States  for  ex-
    penditure by or under the direction of their  respective
    State  water  pollution agencies  * *  * for  expenditure
    by them,  for the conduct  of investigations, research,
    surveys, and studies related to the prevention and con-
    trol  of water pollution caused by  industrial  wastes.
  In  1956,  Congress  changed  the manner of grant allocation
when it amended the Water Pollution Control Act  (P.L. 84-660).
Section 6 of that Act provided for  payments  of 30 percent of

-------
174          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

the cost of construction of "*  * * necessary treatment works to
prevent the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated sew-
age or waste  into any waters." Section  6(c) made the following
provisions for allocation:
      The sums  appropriated pursuant to subsection (d)
    for any fiscal year shall be allotted by the Surgeon Gen-
    eral from time to  time * * * 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.
                                                       [p. 2]
  In  1965, Congress  again changed the method of  allocating
grant money to the States when it amended the Federal Water
Pollution Control  Act (P.L. 89-234). Section  8(c)  provided:
       All sums in excess of $100,000,000 appropriated pur-
    suant to subsection (d) for each  fiscal year beginning
    on or after July 1, 1965,  shall be allotted by the Secre-
    tary from time to time, in accordance with regulations,
    in the ratio that the population of each State bears  to
    the population of all States.
  This formula remained in use until passage of the 1972 Amend-
ments (P.L. 92-500) to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
That  Act replaced the  prior law's formula  based  on population
with  one that uses the acutal  waste  treatment needs of  each
State. Section 205(a) provided:
       Such sums  shall be allotted among the States by the
    Administrator in  accordance with regulations promul-
    gated  by him, in  the ratio that the estimated cost  of
    constructing  all needed publicly  owned treatment works
    in each State bears to the estimated cost of construction
    of all  needed publicly owned  treatment works in  all  of
    the States.
  Section 205 (a)  reflected the House  amendment to the  Senate
bill. This section  as it  passed the Senate, had provided that al-
location for  sewage treatment construction  grants be made on
the basis of population.  Concerning the utility of a needs formula,
the House  Report on  H.R. 11896  (Report No.  92-911) stated in
section 205:

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      175

       [The]  needs formula is  a sound  basis  for  alloting
    funds since our experience to date clearly demonstrates
    that there is no necessary correlation between the finan-
    cial  assistance needed for waste treatment works in  a
    given State and its population.
  In that same report, the House Committee on Public Works
noted that:
       [A]t the present time [March 1972] there is no satis-
    factory estimate  of  the  total  funds required by the
    States for the construction of publicly owned treatment
    works. (Date added.)
  For  the fiscal years  1973 and  1974, the new law provided that
the ratios used in section 205 were to be based on  the estimate
of needs prepared by  the Environmental Protection Agency in
December, 1971. For those allotments to  be made for fiscal year
1975 and subsequent years, the  law requires that they be made
according to a revised  cost estimate prepared by the Administra-
tor of the Environmental Protection agency.
  The 1972 Act, therefore, became the first water pollution con-
trol legislation that connects  inventories "needs" for treatment
facilities and the allotment of construction grant funds.

        THE "NEEDS" APPROACH AND ALLOCATION LEVELS
  The new law authorized $5 billion and $6 billion respectively
for fiscal years 1973  and 1974, only $2 billion  for  fiscal year
1973 and $3
                                                        [p. 3]
billion for fiscal year  1974 were actually allocated to the  States
in accordance with the needs formula approved  in the  law. (The
Administrator, on the direction of the President, refused to al-
locate  the  full  amount, and the legality  of the  impoundment or
failure to fully allocate is being challenged in the Federal courts.)
   For several States, the transition from population to needs as a
basis for allocation was not a favorable one. Under the new law's
authorization  of  $5 billion,  the States  were to receive greater
allocations for fiscal year 1973 than for fiscal year 1972. Unfortu-
nately, the total amounts allocated for fiscal year 1973 remained
at the 1972 level ($2 billion). Thus, several States  received sub-
stantially fewer dollars under the new needs allocation formula
than under the 1972 population allocation formula. These reduced
allocations were attributable to major reductions in several  States'
percentage share of the total funds available for allocation.

-------
176          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

  For example, Texas dropped from 5.327 percent of the total
under a population formula to 2.771 under the  1973  needs for-
mula, a difference  of 2.556 percent of the total.  North Carolina,
Alabama, and Georgia similarly suffered by incurring reductions
of 1.533, 1.332 and 1.247 percent respectively. New Jersey on the
other hand, enjoyed an increase of 4.290 of the total  amount
allocated under  this  formula. Michigan  gained 3.761  percent
and Mayland increased 2.369 percent.
  These allocation changes produced  many inequitable effects for
those States which received  substantially reduced allocations.
Among  these, the  most significant was reduced  funding and an
associated  setback  of water  pollution  control  and  abatement
programs. Equally important was the impact  of reduced funding
on program momentum.
  Some of the weaknesses of the development of the  needs allo-
cation for fiscal years 1973 and 1974, as well as the inequitable
results produced  by the allocations, were recognized  when the
1972  Act  was  enacted.  To overcome these problems, section
516 (b) (2)  of the Act required the Administrator  of the En-
vironmental  Protection Agency  with the  cooperation  of the
States, to prepare a detailed  biennial estimate  of the total na-
tional cost of construction  of  all  needed publicly owned  treat-
ment works, as well as a  similar estimate of the costs of con-
struction of  such  facilities in  each  State. In enacting  sections
205 and 516, the Congress had intended to obtain more accurate
estimates  of all of the States' costs for development of  waste
treatment facilities.

              LIMITATIONS OP THE  EPA SURVEY
  The Administrator of the Environmental  Protection Agency,
in October, 1973, submitted to the Congress revised cost estimates
based on the 1973 survey among the States.  Revised  tables in  a
final report were submitted in  November. The Agency, however,
was explicit in  identifying several  major shortcomings in the
manner in which  the survey was  conducted, the restrictions on
data requested, the reliability of  data  requested, and the reli-
ability of  data submitted. These limitations were  confirmed  in
the hearings conducted by the Subcommittee on Air  and Water
Pollution.
                                                        [p. 4]

   In contradiction to statements by the  Environmental Protec-
tion Agency that treatment needs beyond secondary treatment
cannot yet be adequately defined to estimate  cost, no  fewer than

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      177

17 States have stated that they  had sufficient knowledge to pro-
duce accurate data on their treatment needs beyond  secondary
treatment.  More importantly, section 201 (g) (2)  of the Act re-
quires  that all facilities to be constructed with fiscal  year  1975
funds (those which would be allotted on the basis of this survey)
shall provide for the best practicable treatment technology.
  Third, the Environmental Protection  Agency required that all
"costs  were to be estimated in the survey for facilities which
would be designed to serve no more than  the 1990 population."
  Fourth, the Environmental Protection Agency, by  taking no
less than five months to develop the survey, limited the time for
States  to respond to this survey to six  weeks. The States which
have commented on this time limitation have reported that the
time allowed  was  insufficient to develop adequate estimates of
cost. These States  have stated that they need at least two addi-
tional months to collect and report data sufficient to develop an
estimate of costs.  These  States have  stated  that  they  need at
least two additional months to collect  and report data sufficient
to develop  an  estimate of their entire needs for waste water
treatment.
  The survey conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency
utilized six categories for reporting costs:
       (1) Improvement of treatment plants to achieve secondary
    treatment.
       (2)  Improvement of treatment  plants  to  achieve treat-
    ment more stringent than secondary levels limited in cases
    where  binding  court  action  or Environmental  Protection
    Agency-approved water quality standards requirement.
       (3)  Rehabilitation of sewers to correct infiltration  and
    inflow.
       (4)  (a) Eligible new interceptors, force mains, and pump-
    ing stations.
       (b) Eligible new collectors.
       (5) Connection of overflows from combined sewers.
  The  Environmental Protection Agency  in its  "needs survey"
recommended that  only those costs  identified in categories 1,  2
and  4 (a)  serve as the basis  for  an allocation formula.  The
Agency recommended not  using categories 3, 4(b) and (5) for
the following reasons:
     (1) Category 3: Infiltration/Inflow
       The  Environmental  Protection  Agency  noted that  few
    cities had completed evaluation studies required in  the  sur-
    vey to support cost estimates for  facilities in this category.

-------
178          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

    Moreover, cities could show costs for rehabilitating sewers
    only if  made in accordance  with Federal guidelines and  if
    the evaluation studies indicated  that it cost less than con-
    struction, operation  and maintenance of  that portion  of
    facilities necessary to transport  and treat the extra flow
    of wastewater resulting from infiltration and inflow.
  Several States, however, have objected to these Federal guide-
lines,  and have  protested  the Agency's failure to  accept  their
estimates, claiming that their estimates  were  substantially ac-
curate and justifiable.
                                                        [p.  5]

    (2) Category 4(b): Eligible new collectors
       Pursuant to the requirements  of  the  1972  Act and the
    survey  guidelines, costs  were to be reported only for com-
    munities in existence at  time of  enactment of the  1972 law,
    and only for violations due to raw discharges or seepages  to
    waterways or the like. EPA's review of the survey question-
    naires revealed that many States reported costs for sewering
    a large proportion of their current population now  using
    septic tanks, and for providing sewers for  increased popula-
    tion which would inhabit new communities. Because of this,
    EPA concluded that  a substantial proportion of these costs
    are beyond the scope of the survey.
  Despite the Environmental Protection Agency's conclusions,  no
fewer than  12 States have projects for collection sewers on their
priority list for fiscal  year  1975 which  would  receive a sub-
stantial share of their anticipated allocations.  If allocations for
1975  are reduced as they were  in 1974 and  1973, eight of those
States would still have collection sewer projects on their priority
list.
     (3) Category 5: Combined sewer overflows
       Costs reported in this category for  facilities  to reduce
    pollution from combined sewer overflows also reflected only
    a portion of  the total expenditures  which could have been
    justified nationally under the survey guidelines  if more cities
    had completed  the  required studies. EPA estimates, from
    the new studies available to date, that costs for facilities to
     reduce by 50-80% of the major pollutant concentrations in
    combined sewer overflows throughout the country would cost
    from $40 to $80 billion—and would roughly double the  re-
    ported costs for all six categories.
   No fewer than 10 States  have reported that they would have

-------
         WATER—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY      179

projects for correction  of stormwater overflows from combined
sewers on their priority list for fiscal year 1975 involving a sub-
stantial share of their allocation.

                    COMMITTEE VIEWS
  The Committee, recognizing the shortcomings of the  1973 needs
survey, is in agreement  with the Environmental Protection Agen-
cy in identifying  categories  1, 2 and 4(a) as having the more
accurate estimates of their respective needs than the other three
categories.  The  Committee,  however, noted two other factors.
First, by adopting only  categories 1, 2 and 4(a), consideration of
cost estimates for those  items covered by categories 3, 4(b) and 5
will be excluded. Second, the survey restrictions  outlined above
have prevented an accurate reflection in all categories  of the cost
estimates of all needed publicly-owned treatment works.
  Additionally, an allocation formula based  solely on categories
1, 2 and 4 (a) would produce  inequities  similar to those under
the 1973-74 allocation.  For  example, under the  Environmental
Protection  Agency recommended formula, Texas would  receive
only $127.8 million  of  the  $7 billion authorization.  Under the
1973-74 formula,  the State would have received  $193.9 million,
and under  a population basis, Texas  would have received $391.6
million.
  To overcome these deficiencies in the cost estimates, prevent in-
sufficient and inequitable allocation to several States, and provide
a more uniform  transition to the needs approach, the  Committee
makes two recommendations in this legislation.
  First, the Committee recommends that grants for wastewater
treatment facilities for  fiscal year  1975 be allocated on the fol-
lowing basis:  75  percent of  the total funds  to be allotted shall
be  allocated among  the States  according to the cost estimates
established in Table I  of the "needs survey", i.e., categories  1,
2 and 4(a); the remaining 25 percent of the total funds to be
alloted shall be allocated among the States in  the ratio that the
1972 population  of each State bears to the population of all the
States.
  This results in allotment  among  the States in the ratio indic-
ated in the  following table.
                                                        [p. 7]

-------
180
LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
State
                                                    Allocation of
                                                 authorized funds
                                         Percentage      (millions)
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  	
Guam  -  	
 Puerto Rico 	
 Virgin Islands 	
 American Samoa   	
 Pacific  Island  Territory
                                             1.064
                                              .358
                                              .550
                                              .705
                                             12.320
                                              .927
                                             1.262
                                              .487
                                              .198
                                             4.190
                                             2,183
                                             1.013
                                              .248
                                             5.856
                                             1,757
                                             1.221
                                              .962
                                             1.588
                                              .966
                                              .664
                                             1,696
                                             2,275
                                             4.115
                                             1.582
                                              .733
                                             2.191
                                              .208
                                              .475
                                              .491
                                              .800
                                             6.362
                                              .265
                                             10.872
                                             2.182
                                              .138
                                             5.113
                                              1.324
                                               .856
                                             4.656
                                               .453
                                              1.506
                                               .164
                                             1.457
                                             2.748
                                               .488
                                               .295
                                              2,648
                                              1,524
                                               .887
                                              1.550
                                               .104
                                               .053
                                              1.157
                                               .075
                                               .018
                                               .024
$74.480
 25.060
 38.472
 49.371
862.428
 64,897
 88.361
 34.118
 13.832
293.286
152,782
 70.938
 17,367
409.913
123,011
 85.435
 67.319
111.145
 67.648
 46.508
118,748
159,243
288,078
110.754
 51.282
153.342
 14.553
 33.271
 34.384
 55.972
445.347
 18.557
761.005
152.740
  9.639
357.931
 92.701
 59.906
325.913
 31.703
 105.448
 11.480
101.997
191.989
 34.188
 20.622
 185,367
 106,666
 62.083
 108.528
  7252
  3.696
 81.018
  5.278
  1.274
  1.673
    Second, the bill reported by the Committee directs the Environ-
 mental Protection Agency to reassess on an accelerated basis the
 cost estimates of construction of all needed  publicly owned treat-
 ment works, The  results  of  this expanded  needs survey will be
 utilized for allocating the fiscal year 1976 grant funds.
    Except for the  restrictive guidelines and instructions  which
 accompanied it,  the existing survey form  used in the 1973 needs
 survey should be adequate for reporting data in the new survey.
 This form,  with new instructions reflecting the  expanded  scope
 of the new survey, enactment and, if practicable,  State responses

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY     181

should be returned no later than May 1, 1974. The Committee
expects the States  to  quantify, analyze and  organize  available
data rather than  simply submit  locally  prepared cost figures.
Should the States need technical assistance to
                                                       [p. 8]

develop a single Statewide estimate, the Committee expects the
Environmental Protection Agency to detail the necessary staff.
Finally, the Committee would expect the Agency to transmit the
State submission with the final report as  required by section
516(b).
  This reassessment should ensure that new cost estimates from
the States more accurately reflect the total needs which States
will  incur under the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments than did  the 1973  "needs survey". It should be en-
cumbered by a minimum number of restrictions as to what costs
may be reported and what criteria those costs should meet to
be included in the survey.
  This reassessment should provide the State with sufficient time
to collect  data and make necessary studies to support their cost
estimates. The reassessment should be submitted to the Congress
no later than June 30, 1974.
  The Committee remains firmly committed  to the concept of al-
locating sewage treatment facility construction grant funds on
the basis  of the needs for such facilities. It is the intention of
the Committee to use an estimate of need for such facilities as
the sole basis  for allocation as  soon as a comprehensive reliable
needs survey is available. That  is the purpose of requiring the
early resurvey.
  Early  transmittal of the reassessment to  the  Congress will
permit ample opportunity for  enactment of  any necessary au-
thorization  and adoption of a new allocation formula based on
need for fiscal year 1976. The Committee notes that funds au-
thorized in the 1972 Act were directed primarily  at the backlog
of needed treatment works, construction of  which is to be  com-
pleted  by mid-1977  or 1978.  The  Congress has  not addressed
funding of facilities not required by the Act, nor has the Congress
articulated  any policy concerning the extent to  which Federal
grant funds should be used to  construct  facilities solely or pri-
marily to service "new growth". The Committee directs the En-
vironmental Protection Agency to evaluate known  needs in terms
of "new growth" versus "backlog", reporting the  Agency's  find-
ing by June 30,1974.

-------
182          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

                      PHASED  FUNDING

  Section 3 of the bill will rectify a major error by  the  En-
vironmental Protection Agency  in its legal interpretation  of the
intent  of P.L. 92-500 (the  Federal  Water Pollution  Control
Act  Amendments of  1972). Section  203  of  that  legislation
granted to the States  the flexibility to  split individual sewage
treatment works into separately  funded component parts or proj-
ects.
  Such a procedure was  intended to  augment  State flexibility,
allowing each State to achieve  the goal of clean water  as  ef-
fectively and efficiently as possible.
    In its explanation of the intent of Section 203, the Conference
Report (Sen. Report 92-1236) stated:
       When funding  the construction of  waste  treatment
    plants, the Administrator, upon the request of a State,
    could encourage the  use of a phased  approach to  the
    construction of treatment works, and the funding thereof,
    on a State's priority list. Such a phased program, which
    the Committee notes has
                                                        [p. 9]
    been  developed and approved in the State of Delaware
    has  enabled the State to accelerate  the construction of
    sewage treatment facilities, and thus accelerate the at-
    tainment of clean water.
  Many  States—including  Delaware  and  Tennessee—have  re-
quested such flexibility  as  a tool in implementing their total
pollution control program.
  While  there are practical  differences in the "phased-funding"
approach that may  be used by the various States,  each  would
allow a State to use its annual  allocation of grant funds among
as many projects on its priority list as it wishes, on the basis of
what can be  accomplished in a given year,  rather than to  tie up
all  its funds  in  a few large projects at  the top  of a State's
priority list.
  The Committee believes that many States can  achieve far more
progress toward clean  water when a number of treatment  works
projects  are  funded  serially over several  years than if the State
fully funds a few projects each year.
  Basically, the Environmental  Protection  Agency has  placed a
restrictive interpretation of section 203 of P.L. 92-500  which
permits funding in three steps.  Within the third (construction)
step, that Agency's interpretation permits  funding of "complete
and operable treatment  works".  It is the latter interpretation

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY     183

which  the  Committee finds overly  restrictive in not allowing
complete operable works to be broken down further into construc-
tion segments,  or furthermore,  in  not permitting the financial
phasing of such works over more than one fiscal year. Therefore,
such States as  Tennessee and  Delaware, contrary to  the  ex-
press intent of  the 1972 Amendments to the Act and the legisla-
tive history of those  amendments,  are  not able to  carry out
proposed programs to begin construction  of much needed treat-
ment works.
  To rectify the Agency's misinterpretation  of  the  law,  this
bill incorporates the substance of S. 1594.
  For  example, a State could  seek approval  in fiscal  year 1975
of a 75 percent grant toward the first $1,000,000 of  a project
eventually  to cost $3,000,000, then  seek approval  for  additional
grants toward the project  in successive years.  Or a State could
seek approval for one year of a primary treatment phase of a
plant,  followed  up  the following year by the secondary treat-
ment phase. The choice shall be that of  the State or the com-
munity. And in pursuing  this approach, the Committee intends
the Environmental Protection Agency to minimize to the greatest
extent  possible  any  paper work or increased administrative costs
for subsequent  grants  toward a  project, once it has received its
initial phased grant.
  The  Environmental  Protection Agency has sought  to justify
its  interpretation by arguing that phased funding would create
"a pool or  equitable claims similar to the reimbursement claims
created under Section 8 of the old Act, but quite clearly no longer
permissible under P.L.  92-500."
  This new language—as  was  true  in  P.L.  92-500—does not
establish a  list of reimbursable claims against the Federal govern-
ment.  Any  State or  community wishing  to  go  forward  on a
"phased-funding"  approach must  recognize  that approval of
such a program does not
                                                      [p- 10]
guarantee that a project receiving phased-funding will eventually
receive full funding.
  Should Federal law  fail  to authorize sufficient funds to com-
plete work for  all sewage treatment works approved for phased
funding, the State and cities shall have no claim toward an ulti-
mate 75 percent  grant toward  the full cost of the project. In
fact, the Committee would expect a commitment from the local
or State grant recipient to complete construction of  Federally
funded project  whether or not  future Federal funds  are made
available.

-------
184          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

                  COST OF  THE LEGISLATION

  Section 252(a) (1) of the Legislative Reorganization Act  of
1970 requires publication in this report of the committee's esti-
mate of the costs of reported legislation, together with estimates
prepared by any Federal agency. There is no expenditure of funds
authorized by this legislation. Although no estimate of costs has
been prepared  by the Environmental Protection  Agency,  it is
reasonable to expect an increase in  administrative costs  due to
the acceleration of the next needs  survey  from February 10,
1975, to June 30,1974.
                      ROLLCALL  VOTES
  The Committee ordered reported legislation containing the two
areas covered by this bill by  two separate rollcall votes, conducted
on December 5, 1973. Pursuant to section 133 of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1970 and the Rules of the Committee  on
Public Works, these votes are announced here.
  Senator  Bentsen moved the  adoption of legislation directing
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to
allocate funds authorized for fiscal year 1975 for sewage treat-
ment facility construction grants among the States 50 per cent on
the basis of population and  50  per cent on the basis of the for-
mula  for allocation recommended by the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, and to conduct a further complete  survey  of the
need for such treatment facilities before  fiscal year 1976 funds
are allocated. The motion carried,  8-3, with Senators Bentsen,
Burdick, Domenici, Gravel, McClure, Montoya, Muskie, and Ran-
dolph voting  in the affirmative  and Senators  Biden, Buckley, and
Stafford voting in the negative.
  Senator  Biden proposed legislation containing the substance of
S. 1594, clarifying the intent of the Congress in P.L. 92-500 and
specifically approving phased  Federal funding of sewage treat-
ment facilities. This proposal was adopted, 11-0, with Senators
Baker, Bentsen, Biden, Buckley, Burdick,  Gravel, McClure,  Mon-
toya,  Muskie Randolph, and Stafford  voting in the affirmative.
  Subsequently, on December  12,  1973, Senator Burdick moved
that the Committee reconsider  in part its  action of December 5
on  sewage treatment fund  allocation  and adopt  instead a for-
mula allocating fiscal year 1975 funds 75 per cent on the basis of
the formula  for allocation  recommended  by the Environmental
Protection Agency and 25 per cent on the basis of population, and
to report the original bill in this form. The motion carried  by
voice vote.
                                                       [p. 11]

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY      185

      ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR  BENTSEN

  I believe the compromise reached by the Committee  was the
most equitable solution to a very complex and difficult problem. I
had originally proposed, and the Committee accepted, an alloca-
tion formula based  50%  on population and 50% on Table 1 of
the "needs study" E.P.A. submitted to the Congress in  October.
However, review of the impact of this adjustment in the formula
revealed that several states would be severely affected by the pro-
posed change. The  formula finally  approved,  which contains a
25% allocation based on population and 75% on Table 1, is a
temporary measure, designed to correct some  of the imbalances
in the straight E.P.A. "needs" allocation, in the form it was
submitted to the Congress.
  I should stress that I do  not  oppose a "needs" formula as the
basis  for allocating funds  for  wastewater treatment facilities;
however, the "needs test" conducted by the E.P.A. was incom-
plete and created distortions in the allocations of funds among
the states.
  I was particularly concerned that the needs study did not place
a proper  emphasis  on the  need for advanced waste  treatment.
My own state, Texas, has required secondary treatment for some
40 years, because it is a water-poor state. Some of our rivers are
composed in the  summertime  of a high percentage of return
flows, or effluents. With ever increasing population growth,  sec-
ondary treatment is no longer sufficient in all cases, and my state
must now turn to advanced waste treatment to  keep our rivers
in acceptable condition.
  The E.P.A. needs study  excluded the cost of  advanced waste
treatment in determining a state's  needs  unless  such treatment
was required by legally binding  federal,  state,  or local actions
taken prior to the conduct of the survey. In actual practice,  this
required  a state permit reflecting advanced treatment, a court
order, or an E.P.A.-approved  water quality management plan.
At the time of the survey, only a small percentage of state permits
required   advanced  waste  treatment,  and no  E.P.A.-approved
water quality management plans existed.
   I strongly  support the  Committee's action in requiring E.P.A.
to produce more acceptable criteria for determining actual state
needs. This measure is not  a retreat from the  "needs" approach;
it only changes the formula for one year. In  the  intervening
year,  we  should have more adequate data upon which  to base
our judgments.
  I realize that the formula gives  my state approximately $35

-------
186          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

million less than the originally-approved 50-50 split between pop-
ulation and the E.P.A. recommendation; however, in view of the
dislocations  that  would occur in other states  from  correcting
entirely the obviously unfair Texas situation, I support this com-
promise solution.
                                             LLOYD  BENTSEN.
                                                      [p. 13]

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR JAMES A. McCLURE

  Although  I agree with the allocation formula for fiscal year
1975 funds  which the Senate Committee  on Public Works has
adopted for waste treatment plant construction, and the reaffir-
mation of the requirement  for phased  funding, I believe that it
is unwise for us  to  mandate that EPA  conduct a new needs
survey by June 1974, prior to the complete review of  the needs
survey process which the Committee intends to make early in the
next session.
  A sound needs survey should indeed be the best basis for alloca-
ting funds among the States. However, limitations imposed on the
States and localities as to what they could report, the brief period
in which they had to  prepare their  submission and the limited
experience of some in assessing their needs all contributed to a
survey which even EPA admitted was faulty and which did not
reflect fully the needs of some States. The formula the Committee
has adopted, which requires EPA to allocate the authorized funds
25% on the basis of population and 75% on the basis of needs as
recommended by  EPA  (based on the total cost of required sec-
ondary  treatment works;  higher  requirements to meet water
quality  standards  and new  interceptor sewers, force mains and
pumping stations) maintains primary reliance  on needs but les-
sens the harshness with which any of formulas based solely on
needs would treat certain States.
  The phased funding approach,  which  Senator Howard  H.
Baker, Jr.  (Tenn.) proposed in S. 1594 and which the Committee
unanimously adopted,  will  require EPA to fund as projects any
physical or  financial  phases or segments  of  waste  treatment
works. This will permit a large construction project to  be started
without preventing construction of  other  needed projects on a
State's priority list.
  I voted for these provisions in the expectation that, based on
the Committee's review of the entire needs survey process early
next session, we  could assure  that, for  1976 and subsequent
years, the formula be based on surveys which reflect much more

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY      187

accurately the respective needs of the States and thus  are more
equitable to all of the States.  As it is, the Committee bill calls
for EPA to begin a new survey within 30 days and to complete
it  by June 30.  This  survey should be better than the last  one,
because the bill we have reported provides guidance to EPA based
on the hearings we have held, the States will have more time
to  respond, and all parties concerned will have the benefit of what
was learned during the last survey. However, I question whether
the survey—and thus the resulting allocation for FY 1976—will
be significantly better than those which we  now have  before us
if  the Committee has not held the additional  hearings we have
proposed. Rather than require EPA, the States and the munici-
palities to devote considerable effort and expense to another needs
                                                      [p. 15]

survey, so soon after the previous one and without the promise
of a markedly better result, I would prefer that we provide an
allocation for FY 1976 now on the admittedly  imperfect basis
we are using for FY 1975 and let EPA  and the States conduct
the next survey in the second half of calendar 1974 when  they
will  have the benefit  of further Committee hearings and recom-
mendations. I fear that our present course  of action will bring
us to a  situation a  year from now in  which we will have no
better basis for a valid formula than we do now.
                                         JAMES A. MCCLURE.
                                                      [p. 16]

                 CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
   In compliance with subsection (4) of rule  XXIX of the Stand-
ing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill,
as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be
omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in
italic,  existing law in which  no change  is proposed  is shown
in roman):

        THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
        PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ESTIMATES, AND PAYMENTS

   SEC. 203. (a)  Each applicant for a grant shall submit to the
Administrator for  his approval, plans, specifications, and esti-
mates  for  each  proposed  project for the construction of treat-
ment works for which a grant is applied for under section 201 (g)

-------
188          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

(1) from funds allotted to the State under section 205 and which
otherwise meets the requirements of this Act. The Administrator
shall act upon  such plans, specifications, and  estimates as soon
as practicable after the same have been submitted,  and his  ap-
proval of any such plans,  specifications, and  estimates shall be
deemed a contractual obligation of the United States for  the
payment of its proportional contribution to  such  project.  The
Administrator  shall  approve as a project each physical or fi-
nancial phase of  a treatment works which otherwise meets  the
requirements of this Act.
   (b)  The  Administrator shall, from time to time as the work
progresses, make payments to the  recipient of a grant for costs
of construction incurred on a project. These  payments shall at,
no  time exceed the  Federal share of the cost of  construction
incurred to the date of the voucher covering such payment plus
the Federal share of the  value of the materials which have been
stockpiled in the vicinity of such  construction in  conformity to
plans and specifications for the project.
   (c)  After  completion  of  a project and approval  of  the  final
voucher by the Administrator, he shall pay out of the appropriate
sums the unpaid balance  of the Federal share payable on account
of such project.
     *******

                         ALLOTMENT
   SEC. 205.  (a)(l) Sums authorized to be appropriated pursuant
to section 207 for each fiscal year beginning after June 30, 1972,
shall be allotted by the Administrator not later than the January
1st immediately preceding the beginning of the fiscal  year for
which authorized, except that the  allotment for fiscal year  1973
shall be made not later than 30  days  after the date of enact-
ment of the Federal Water
                                                       [p. 17]
Pollution Control Act Amendments  of 1972. Such sums  shall
be allotted  among the States by the Administrator in accordance
with regulations  promulgated by him, in the ratio that the esti-
mated cost of constructing all  needed publicly owned treatment
works in each State bears to the estimated cost of construction of
all needed  publicly owned  treatment  works in all of the States.
For the fiscal  years ending June  30, 1973, and  June 30, 1974,
such ratio shall be determined on the basis of table  III of House
Public  Works Committee Print No. 92-50. Allotments for fiscal
years which begin after the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, shall
be made only in accordance with a  revised  cost  estimate made

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                       189
and submitted to Congress in accordance with section 516 (b) of
this  Act and  only  after such revised cost estimate shall have
been approved by law specifically enacted hereafter.
  (2) Sums  authorized to be appropriated  for the fiscal year
ending June  30, 1975,  shall be  allotted  by the Administrator
among the States in the following ratio:
                      Percentage
State:
    Alabama	   1.064
    Alaska  	    .358
    Arizona  	    .550
    Arkansas 	    .705
    California  	  12.320
    Colorado	    .927
    Connecticut 	   1.262
    Delaware 	    487
    District of Columbia    .198
    Florida	   4.190
    Georgia  	   2.183
    Hawaii	   1.013
    Idaho  	    .248
    Illinois  	   5.856
    Indiana  	   1.757
    Iowa 	   1.221
    Kansas 	    .962
    Kentucky 	   1.588
    Louisiana	    .966
    Maine	    .664
    Maryland 	   1.696
    Massachusetts	   2.275
    Michigan 	   4.115
    Minnesota  	   1.582
    Mississippi  	    .733
    Missouri	   2.191
    Montana  	    .208
    Nebraska 	    .475
                  Percentage
Nevada	    .491
New Hampshire	    .800
New Jersey	  6.362
New Mexico 	    .265
New York	10.872
North  Carolina	  2.182
North  Dakota	    .138
Ohio	  5.118
Oklahoma	  1.824
Oregon 	    .850
Pennsylvania	  4.656
Rhode  Island	    .453
South  Carolina	  1.506
South Dakota	    .164
Tennessee	  1.457
Texas  	  2.748
Utah	    .488
Vermont	    .295
Virginia	  2.648
Washington	  1.524
West Virginia	    .887
Wisconsin  	  1.550
Wyoming 	    .104
Guam  	    .053
Puerto Rico	  1.157
Virgin Island	.    .075
American Samoa  __    .018
Pacific island terri-
  tory 	    .024
   (b) (1)  Any sums  allotted  to  a State under  subsection  (a)
shall be available for obligation under section 203  on and after
the date of such allotment. Such  sums shall continue  available
for obligation in such State for a period of one year after the
close of the fiscal year
                                                       [p. 18]

-------
190          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

for which such  sums are authorized.  Any amounts  so  allotted
which are not obligated by the end of such one-year period shall
be immediately  reallotted by  the  Administrator,  in  accordance
with regulations promulgated  by him,  generally on the basis of
the ratio used in making the  last allotment of sums under this
section. Such reallotted  sums shall be added to  the last allot-
ments made  to the States. Any sum made available to  a State
by reallotment under  this subsection shall  be in addition to any
funds otherwise  allotted to such  State for grants under this title
during any fiscal year.
  (2) Any sums which  have  been obligated under section 203
and which are released by the payment of the final voucher for
the project shall be immediately credited to the  State to which
such sums were last allotted. Such released sums  shall be added
to the  amounts last allotted to such State and shall be immedi-
ately available for  obligation in the same manner and to the same
extent as such last allotment.
     *******
                     REPORTS  TO CONGRESS

  SEC. 516.  (a)  Within  ninety days following  the convening of
each session  of Congress, the  Administrator shall submit to the
Congress  a report, in addition to any other report required  by
this Act, on  measures taken toward implementing the objective
of this Act, including, but not limited to,  (1)  the progress  and
problems  associated with developing comprehensive plans under
section 102 of this Act, area-wide  plans under section 208 of this
Act, basin plans under  section 209 of  this Act, and plans under
section 303(e) of this Act;  (2)  a  summary of actions taken and
results achieved in the field of water pollution control research,
experiments, studies,  and related  matters  by the Administrator
and other Federal agencies and by other persons and agencies
under  Federal grants or contracts; (3) the progress and prob-
lems associated with  the development of effluent limitations and
recommended control techniques;  (4) the status of State pro-
grams, including a detailed summary of  the progress obtained
as compared to that planned under State program plans for  de-
velopment and enforcement of water  quality requirements;  (5)
the  identification  and  status of  enforcement  actions  pending
or completed under such Act during  the  preceeding year;   (6)
the status of State,  interstate,  and local  pollution control pro-
grams established pursuant to, and assisted by, this Act;  (7)
a summary  of the results  of the survey required to be taken
under section 210  of this Act; (8) his activities including recom-

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      191

mendations under  sections 109 through 111 of this Act; and (9)
all reports and recommendations made by the  Water  Pollution
Control Advisory Board.
  (b)(l)  The Administrator, in  cooperation  with the States,
including  water  pollution control agencies and other water pol-
lution  control planning  agencies,  shall make [(!)]  (A)  a de-
tailed estimate of  the cost of carrying out the provisions of this
Act; [(2)]  (B) a detailed estimate,  biennially revised, of the
cost  of construction of all  needed  publicly owned  treatment
works  in all of the States and of the cost of construction of all
needed publicly  owned treatment works in each  of the States;
[(3)]  (C) a comprehensive study of the economic im-
                                                       [p. 19]
pact on affected units of government  of the cost of installation
of treatment facilities; and [(4)]  (D) a comprehensive analysis
of the  national requirements for and the  cost of treating muni-
cipal, industrial, and other effluent to attain the water quality
objectives as  established by this  Act  or  applicable State  law.
The  Administrator shall submit such detailed estimate and such
comprehensive study of such cost to the Congress no  later than
February  10 of  each odd-numbered year. Whenever the Admin-
istrator, pursuant to this  subsection,  requests  and receives an
estimate of cost from a State,  he  shall furnish copies of such
estimate together with such detailed estimate to Congress.
  (2)  Notwithstanding the second sentence of paragraph (1)
of this subsection, the Administrator  shall make a detailed es-
timate called  for  by subparagraph (B) of swch paragraph and
shall submit such detailed estimate  to the  Congress no later than
June 30,  19?'4.  The Administrator shall  require each State to
prepare an estimate of cost for st&h State, and shall  utilize the
survey form EPA-1, O.M.B.  No.  158-R0017,  prepared for the
1973 detailed estimate, except that such  estimate shall include
all costs of compliance with section 201(g)(2)(A) of  this Act
or water  quality standards established pursuant to section 303
of this Act, and  all costs of treatment works as defined in section
212(2), including  all eligible costs of constructing sewage collec-
tion  systems and  correcting  excessive infiltration or inflow and
all eligible costs  of correcting combined storm and sanitary sewer
problems and  treating storm water floivs.  The survey form shall
be distributed by  the Administrator to each State no  later than
January 31, 1974.
                                                       [p. 20]

-------
192         LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

          1.2r(2)  House Committee on Public Works
           HR. REP. No. 93-735, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973).

     AMENDING THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION
                      CONTROL ACT
DECEMBER 14, 1973.—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. 11928]

  The  Committee on Public Works,  to  whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 11928) to amend the Federal  Water Pollution Control
Act to  establish the ratio for allocation  of treatment works con-
struction grant funds,  to  insure  that grants may be given for
other than operable units, and to clarify the requirements for
development  of  priorities,  having considered the same, report
favorably thereon with  an  amendment and recommend that the
bill as  amended do pass.
  The  amendment is as  follows:
  On page 2, strike out line 21 and all that follows down through
line 5 on page 3 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
       "(d)  Notwithstanding this Act or any other provision of
    law, the Administrator (1) shall not require any State to
    consider in the development of the ranking in  order of
    priority of needs for the construction of treatment works (as
    defined  in title II of this Act), any water pollution control
    agreement which may have been entered into between the
    United States and any other nation, and (2)  shall not con-
    sider any  such agreeement  in  the approval of any  such
    priority ranking.".

                    GENERAL  STATEMENT

  Section 516(b)(2) of  the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
requires the Environmental Protection Agency to submit to Con-
gress biennally a  detailed  estimate of  the cost of construction

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY      193

of all needed publicly owned treatment works in all of the  States
and in  each of the States. The Environmental Protection Agency
recently  submitted  their assessment  of needs—"Cost of Con-
struction  of  Publicly-Owned Wastewater  Treatment Works,"
November 1973. Section 1 of H.R. 11928
                                                       [p. 1]
amends section 205 (a)  of the Federal  Water Pollution Control
Act  to set forth a formula for  allotment of treatment  works
construction grant funds during  the fiscal  years June 30,  1975,
and June 30,  1976,  based upon the  "needs" report submitted by
the Environmental Protection Agency.
  The Environmental Protection Agency "needs" report included
a tabulation of the  following eligible needs as set forth in table
I of the House Public Works Committee Print No. 93-28:
       (a) Provide  treatment works to  achieve secondary treat-
    ment,
       (6) Achieve  treatment "more stringent" than secondary
    treatment as required by water  quality  standards,
       (c) Inspect and rehabilitate  sewers  to correct infiltration
    and  inflow,
       (d) Construct eligible new collector systems,
       (e) Construct interceptor sewers, force mains and  pump-
    ing stations, and
       (/) Reduce combined sewer overflows.
  The  Environmental  Protection Agency has, however,  recom-
mended that  only the costs  for the following needs which are
set forth in table II of the committee print be  used as a basis
for allotment:
       (a) Provide  treatment works to  achieve secondary treat-
    ment,
       (6) Achieve  treatment "more stringent" than secondary
    treatment as required by Water Quality standards, and
       (c) Construct interceptor sewers, force mains and  pump-
    ing stations.
  The  committee reviewed many  possible allotment  formulas.
On the one hand, the  clear intent  of Congress  as expressed in
the Federal Water  Pollution Control Act was that projects for
infiltration and  inflow, collector  systems, and the reduction of
combined sewer overflows  be eligible for grants.  On  the  other
hand, the Environmental Protection Agency testified that there
were  inaccuracies in  the  determination of  the needs for  in-
filtration and inflow, collector sewers and reduction of overflows
from combined sewers.

-------
194          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

  It would  be unfortunate and  unfair to turn back  from  the
mandate of the act that all  categories of authorized needs be
considered in the development of an  allotment formula.  How-
ever, to give full weight for allotment to those categories  of the
needs evaluation which  are subject to possible inaccuracies as
pointed out  by the  Environmental Protection Agency would also
be unfair. Thus, the bill as reported recognizes all needs  while
at the same time reducing the  impact of the possible inaccuracies.
  H.R. 11928 provides a method  for determining the basic allot-
ment  for fiscal  years 1975 and 1976,  50 percent  upon the total
assessment of needs  (table I  of  committee print 93-28)  and 50
percent upon the Environmental  Protection Agency's recommen-
dation (table II of committee  print 93-28).
  The utilization of needs as  a basis for  allotment of construc-
tion  grant funds as required by the  Federal  Water Pollution
Control Act for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973,  and there-
after  has resulted in a reduction of the water  pollution control
effort in certain States in the fiscal years  ending June 30, 1973,
and June 30, 1974,  because the President did not allot  all  of the
available grant  funds. Section 1  of H.R. 11928 rectifies this re-
duction in effort by providing that

                                                        [p. 2]

the actual allotments to the individual States  for the fiscal  years
ending June 30, 1975, and June 30, 1976, shall in no case be less
than the allotment received in the fiscal  year  ending June 30,
1972.
  Table  III  of Committee Print  93-28 sets  forth  the  actual al-
lotments to the individual States  of the $2  billion allotted for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1972.  No State shall receive an allot-
ment less than that set forth in table III.
  The appendix to  this report  sets  forth the  method for cal-
culation of the allotments to the individual States.
  The Federal Water Pollution Control Act  contains  provisions
similar to those in  title 23 of  the United States Code  pertaining
to the granting of  funds for  the construction of highway proj-
ects. Public Law 92-500 authorizes the Administrator to fund
construction  segments of a given overall  treatment works con-
struction project. This intent was embodied in section  212(1)
which  sets forth the definition of the  term  "construction" and
section 212(2) which sets forth the definition of the term "treat-
ment  works."  It was intended  that physical subparts  of any
treatment works construction  program could be  funded by in-

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      195

dependent grants. It was not intended that grants be only for
operable units.
  The  Environmental Protection Agency, in the implementation
of the  act, required in  its regulations with  exceptions for only
a minimum  number of  circumstances, that each grant shall be
for an  "operable  unit." Section 2 of H.R. 11928 which amends
section 203 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is intended
to overrule the  Environmental Protection Agency's  erroneous in-
terpretation of  the law. It is and always has been the clear in-
tent of Congress that the  Environmental  Protection  Agency
must make grants for projects which are otherwise eligible  and
not just those which are for "operable units."
  Section  3 of H.R. 11928 is intended to  rectify a problem  which
was brought to  the committee's attention  during  our  recent
hearings on the Environmental  Protection Agency's "needs" re-
port. Certain States which border the Great Lakes and Canada
and the States bordering Mexico have  been pressured by the
Environmental  Protection Agency to give precedence  in the de-
velopment of the ranking, in order  of priority, of needs  within
that State for  construction of  those waste  treatment works re-
quired  to meet international  agreements of the  United  States
with other nations. It was not  and is not intended that such in-
ternational agreements  be a basis for the Administrator  to re-
quire States in  the development of their ranking of needed  works
in order of  priority to  consider  these international agreements.
  As introduced, section 3 of H.R.  11928 would have precluded
either  the States  or the Environmental Protection  Agency from
considering such  international agreements in the development of
their  ranking  priority.  Section  3  was  amended  by the  com-
mittee  to provide that  the Administrator shall not require  any
State to consider international  agreements  when  they develop
their ranking in  order  of priority of needs for the construction
of  treatment works. Further,  section 3 provides  that the  Ad-
ministrator  shall not consider any  such agreements in the ap-
proval  of priority rankings submitted by the State. This means
that if the  States  decide that it would be  in their interest to

                                                        [p. 3]

consider international water pollution control agreements  in the
development of the  ranking in order of priority of needs they
may, but  the Administrator  is clearly precluded from requiring
that international agreements be considered. However, if a State
considers an international agreement in  developing its priorities,

-------
196          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

the Administrator is authorized to approve such priority ranking
if it is in accordance with the requirements of the law.

                          APPENDIX
  The following  is the method for calculation of allotments  to
the several States in accordance with the provisions of section 1
of H.R. 11928.
  1. Determine  the allotment  of 50 percent  of  the total  sum
being allotted to the individual  States  in  accordance with the
ratio  of each State's needs to the total national needs as  set
forth in table I of Committee on Public Works Print No. 93-28.
  2. Determine the allotment of the remaining 50 percent in ac-
cordance with the ratio of each State's needs to  the  national
needs as set forth in table II of House Public  Works Committee
Print No. 93-28.
  3. Determine the sum of the  two determinations for each State
calculated in steps 1 and 2.
  4. Compare the sums for each State determined in step 3 with
that State's allotment for  fiscal year 1972  as  set forth in table
III of House Public Works Committee Print No. 93-28.
  5. If the allotment as set forth in such table III for any  State
is more  than that amount determined in step 3, the allotment
to that State shall be that set forth in such table III.
  6. Subtract the sum of allotments for those States for which
allotments would be as set forth in such table  III from the total
sum being allotted to the individual States.
  7. The remainder as  determined by step  6  shall then be dis-
tributed 50 percent in the  ratio of needs as determined by table
I, not including needs for those States for which allotments were
made under step 5 in accordance with table III, and 50  percent
in the ratio  of  needs as determined by table II, not including
needs for those States  for which  allotments  were made under
step 5 in accordance with table III.
  8. If the allotments as determined in accordance  with step 7
for any State is less than its  allotments set forth  in table III,
the allotment for such State shall be that set  forth in table III.
If this occurs, iterations, as  necessary, of steps 6  through 8
shall be made to determine each State's allotment.
Whenever all allotments as determined  in accordance with step
7 are equal to or greater than  the allotments given in such table
III, the determination is completed.

                 COST TO  THE UNITED  STATES
  Rule XIII (7) of the Rules of the House of  Representatives

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      197

requires a statement of the estimated costs to the United  States
which would be incurred in carrying out H.R. 11928, as reported,
in fiscal year 1974 and each of the following 5 years. Enactment
of this  legislation will  not result  in any additional  cost  to the
United States.
                                                       [p. 4]

                            VOTE
  The committee ordered the bill reported by voice vote.
  CHANGES  IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
  In compliance with clause 3 of  rule XIII of the Rules  of the
House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the
bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to
be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in
italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in
roman):

      FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
     *******

       TITLE II—GRANTS  FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
                   TREATMENT WORKS
        PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ESTIMATES, AND PAYMENTS

  SEC. 203.  (a)  Each applicant for a grant shall submit to the
Administrator for his approval, plans, specifications,  and esti-
mates for each proposed project for the construction of treatment
works for which a grant is applied for under section 201(g)(l)
from funds  allotted to  the State under section 205 and which
otherwise meets the requirements of this Act. The Administrator
shall act upon such plans,  specifications, and estimates as soon
as practicable after the same have been submitted, and his ap-
proval  of any such plans, specifications, and estimates shall be
deemed a contractual obligation of  the United States for the
payment of its proportional contribution to such project.
  (b) The Administrator shall, from time  to time as  the work
progresses, make payments to the recipient of a grant for costs of
construction incurred  on a  project.  These  payments shall  at no
time exceed  the Federal share of the cost of construction in-
curred to the date of the voucher covering  such payment plus
the Federal  share of the value of the materials  which have been

-------
198          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

stockpiled in the vicinity of  such construction in conformity to
plans and specifications for the project.
   (c) After  completion  of a project and  approval of the final
voucher by  the Administrator,  he shall pay out of the appro-
priate sums the unpaid balance  of the Federal share payable on
account of such project.
   (d) Nothing in this  Act shall be construed to require, or to
authorize  the Administrator  to  require, that grants under  this
Act for construction of treatment works be  made only for proj-
ects ^vhich are operable units usable for sewage collection, trans-
portation, storage, waste treatment, or for similar purposes with-
out additional construction.
                                                        [p. 5]
                          ALLOTMENT
   SEC. 205. (a) Sums authorized to be appropriated pursuant to
section  207 for each fiscal year  beginning after June 30,  1972,
shall be allotted by the Administrator not later than the January
1st immediately preceding the beginning  of the fiscal year  for
which authorized, except that the allotment for fiscal year 1973
shall be made not later than  30 days after the date of enactment
of the  Federal Water  Pollution Control  Act  Amendments of
1972. Such sums  shall be allotted among-  the States by the Ad-
ministrator in accordance with regulations promulgated by him,
in the ratio that the estimated  cost  of constructing all needed
publicly owned treatment works in each  State bears to the es-
timated cost of construction of all needed  publicly  owned  treat-
ment works in all of the States. For the fiscal years ending June
30, 1973, and  June 30,  1974, such ratio shall be determined on
the  basis of table III of House  Public Works Committee  Print
No. 92-50.  For the fiscal years ending June 30, 1975, and June
30,  1976, such ratio shall be determined one-half  of the  basis
of Table  I  of  House Public Works Committee Print No.  93-28
and one-half on- the basis of Table  II of such print, except that
no State  shall receive an allotment  less  than that which  it re-
ceived for  the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, as set forth in
Table III of such print.  Allotments for fiscal years which  begin
after the fiscal year ending  June 30,  [1974] 1976,  shall be made
only in accordance with a revised cost estimate made and sub-
mitted  to Congress in  accordance  with  section 516 (b)  of this
Act and  only  after such revised cost estimate  shall have been
approved by law specifically  enacted hereafter.

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      199

     *        *       *        *       *        *        *

             TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS
     *******

                  OTHER AFFECTED AUTHORITY
  SEC. 511.  (a) This Act shall not be construed as (1) limiting
the authority or functions of any officer or agency of the United
States  under any other law or regulation  not inconsistent with
this Act;  (2) affecting or impairing1 the authority of the Secre-
tary of the Army (A)  to maintain navigation or (B) under the
Act of March 3, 1899, (30 Stat.  1112); except that any permit
issued  under section 404  of this Act shall be conclusive as to the
effect on water quality of any discharge resulting from  any ac-
tivity subject to section 10 of  the Act of March 3, 1899, or (3)
affecting or  impairing the provisions of  any treaty of the United
States.
  (b)  Discharges of pollutants into the  navigable waters subject
to the  Rivers and Harbors Act of 1910  (36 Stat. 593; 33 U.S.C.
421) and the  Supervisory  Harbors Act of 1888  (25  Stat. 209;
33 U.S.C. 441—451b) shall be regulated  pursuant to this Act, and
not subject  to such Act  of 1910 and the Act of  1888 except as
to effect on  navigation and anchorage.
                                                       [p. 6]
  (c)(l) Except  for the provision of  Federal  financial  assist-
ance for the purpose of assisting the  construction of publicly
owned  treatment works as authorized by section  201 of this Act,
and the issuance of a permit under section 402 of this Act for the
discharge of any pollutant by a new source as defined in section
306 of this Act, no action of the Administration taken pursuant
to this Act shall be deemed a  major Federal  action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment within the mean-
ing of  the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (83 Stat.
852) ;  and
  (2)  Nothing in the National  Environmental  Policy  Act of
1969 (83 Stat. 852) shall be deemed to—
       (A) authorize any Federal agency  authorized to license
    or permit the conduct of  any activity which may result in
    the discharge of a pollutant into  the navigable waters to
    review  any  effluent  limitation or other  requirement estab-
    lished pursuant to this Act or the adequacy  of any certifica-
    tion under section 401 of this Act;  or
       (B) authorize any such  agency to impose, as a condition
    precedent to  the issuance  of any license or permit,  any ef-

-------
200
              LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
     fluent limitation other than any such limitation established
     pursuant to this Act.
   (d) Notwithstanding this  Act or any other provision of law,
the Administrator (1)  shall not require any State to consider in
the development of the ranking in order of priority of needs  for
the  construction of treatment  works (as defined in  title II of
this Act), any water pollution control agreement which may have
been entered  into  between the  United States and any other  na-
tion, and (2) shall not consider any such agreement  in the  ap-
proval of any such priority ranking.
                                                               [p. 7]
         1.2r(3)(a) Dec. 14: Considered and passed Senate,
                         pp. S22970-S22973.
   WASTE FUND TREATMENT
      FUND ALLOCATIONS
  Mr. MANSFIELD.  Mr.  President,
I ask  unanimous  consent  that  the
pending business be  laid aside  tem-
porarily and that the  Senate turn to
the consideration  of  Calendar  No.
604,  S.  2812;  but before  the  Chair
rules, I  wish to  say that this is one
of the bills  which, in response  to  a
question raised by the distinguished
acting Republican leader yesterday, I
stated we  would try  to bring up to-
day.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Sen-
ators will please be  seated so that
the Senator can be heard.
  The bill will be stated by title.
  The  legislative clerk read as  fol-
lows :
  A bill (S. 2812) to authorize a formular for
the  allocation  of funds authorized for  fiscal
year  1975 for  treatment construction  grants,
and for other  purposes.
  The Senate proceeded  to consider
the bill.
  Mr.  MUSKIE.  Mr. President,  I
ask  unanimous  consent that during
consideration of and voting on H.R.
11372 and S. 2812 the following staff
members of  the  Committee on Public
Works  be  granted the privilege  of
access to the floor:
                                     Mr. Barry Meyer, John W. Yago,
                                   Philip   T.   Cummings,   Ron  Katz,
                                   Bailey Guard, Kathy Cudlipp, Harold
                                   Brayman, Rick Herod, Leon G. Bill-
                                   ings, Sally W. Walker, James Readle,
                                   and Jacqueline Schafer.
                                     The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
                                   out objection, it is so ordered.
                                     Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, one
                                   of the  innovative  and  controversial
                                   features of the 1972 clean water law
                                   was  the provision for  determining
                                   distribution   of  construction  grant
                                   funds among the States.
                                     Prior to 1972, water pollution con-
                                   struction  funds  were   distributed
                                   among  the  States  on the  basis  of
                                   population. Under  the new law, allo-
                                   cation of funds was to be based on
                                   needs.  Construction grant funds for
                                   1973  and 1974  were distributed  on
                                   the basis of  a  "needs" survey which
                                   EPA had submitted to  the  Congress
                                   in early 1972. Next  year's funds—
                                   fiscal year 1975—were to be allocated
                                   on January  1, 1974, on the basis of a
                                   new "needs" survey which was con-
                                   ducted  by the Environmental Protec-
                                   tion Agency and  submitted to Con-
                                   gress in October of this year.
                                     The committee, after  holding hear-
                                   ings and reviewing the "needs" sur-
                                   vey, recognized  two major  problems

-------
           WATER—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                201
with the recommended formula. First,
as   the  Environmental  Protection
Agency recognized in their report to
Congress, the  survey of  the States
had  major limitations, including the
survey methodology and the types of
costs which States could expect.
  Second, the recommended formula,
if adopted as  the  basis  for  alloca-
tion, would limit the amount of grants
to several States  substantially below
their estimated  needs—needs  which
EPA omitted in their survey.
  While the  committee  believes that
the  "needs"  approach is  preferable,
the  limitations  of  the  current sur-
vey  required  consideration  of other
factors  in developing an allocation
formula that  would:  First, estimate
needs not covered by the "needs" sur-
vey; and second, reduce  the  inequi-
ties  to  several States created by the
transition to allocation based entirely
on needs. The legislation reported by
the  committee meets these  criteria.
  Mr.  President,  section  205 (a)  of
the  Federal  Water  Pollution  Con-
trol  Act directs the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency
to allocate 1975 grants  for  construc-
tion of wastewater treatment  facili-
ties  among the States. Section 207 of
that act has  authorized  $7 billion for
fiscal year 1975.
  The    Environmental    Protection
Agency, pursuant to section  516, in
its  "needs" survey recommended that
Congress base its allocation of 1975
grant funds to the States in the same
ratio that their  costs in  three cate-
gories  bear to the total costs of these
categories to  all  the  States.  The
costs covered in these categories  in-
cluded: First providing the facilities
to meet secondary treatment required
by  the  1972  act;  second, providing
facilities  for  meeting  State  or local
requirements   more  stringent  than
secondary treatment; and third, pro-
viding eligible new  interceptors, force
mains, and pumping stations.
  The  bill  reported  today  requires
the Administrator to allocate the au-
thorized  funds on  a ratio developed
on the following basis: 75 percent of
the total funds  according to  the  En-
vironmental Protection Agency's  rec-
ommended  formula  described in  the
1973  "needs"  survey;  25 percent in
the ratio that the population of each
State bears to the  population  of all
the States.
  The   committee,    however,   has
agreed to limit the use of this alloca-
tion formula to fiscal year 1975.
  Because  of  the limitations  on  the
survey, the legislation  requires  the
Administrator  of the Environmental
Protection  Agency  to  make  another
"needs" survey  in  1974,  which is to
be initiated within  30 days,  utilizing
the forms  approved last year. This
survey is to provide Congress
                          [p. S22970]

with  new  data  no  later than June
30, 1974, and  is to serve  as the basis
for allocating grant funds for 1976.
Unlike the 1973 survey, the  new  sur-
vey  shall   include  all   costs  which
States expect  to incur to  comply with
the 1972 act.
  The committee expects the Admin-
istrator to insist that the States  sub-
mit  a complete  form for the  entire
State rather than multiple forms for
communities in  the State.  And  the
committee  expects the  States to  sub-
mit   estimates   of   needs   for   all
"treatment  works"  as defined in  sec-
tion 212(2)   (A) and (B)   and  the
estimate of costs for best practicable
waste treatment  technology defined in
section  201 and required by section
301.
  On a related matter, the committee
bill  addresses  the  issue   of  "phased
funding"  of needed treatment works.
  Section  3  rectifies  the  Environ-
mental Protection Agency's  misinter-
pretation of section 203 of the Water
Pollution Control Act. Under its pres-
ent regulations, that Agency  restricts
complete operable works  from receiv-

-------
202
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
ing  funding for  separate  construc-
tion  segments.  Furthermore,   that
Agency's misinterpretation of section
203  prohibits  financial  phasing  of
construction works over more than 1
fiscal year.
  This section  imposes no additional
costs to the Federal Government nor
would commitment to  one phase of a
project  constitute  an  obligation on
the part of the Federal  Government
to fund the remainder of the project.
Conversely, the committee would ex-
pect EPA to  obtain  a  commitment
from any community  or  State utiliz-
ing  phased funding,  to complete the
project  even if future Federal  fund-
ing is not assured.
  Mr. President, this  legislation rep-
resents  a compromise—a compromise
which reflects the needs for  an  equit-
able  distribution   of  available  con-
struction  grant funds and  the  limi-
tations  of  the  EPA  needs survey.  I
think it is  fair and  equitable  to all
States.  It  represents  the best  judg-
ment and unanimous recommendation
of  the  Committee  on Public Works.
  I  urge the Senate  to pass the bill.
  Mr.   BUCKLEY.   Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
  Mr.  MUSKIE. Yes, I  yield to the
Senator from New York.
  Mr.  BUCKLEY. Mr.  President,  I
would like to  begin by thanking the
Senator from  Maine  for his full and
active cooperation and work in re-
solving the difficulties that were met
in applying the needs formula.
  Mr.  President,  I  agree  with the
distinguished   Senator  from  Maine
 (Mr. MUSKIE) that  S.  2812  repre-
sents a workable compromise consid-
ering the committee's declared  intent
to use State needs  as the basis for  al-
locating waste treatment funds, the
admitted  shortcomings of the EPA's
recent  needs   survey,  and  the fact
that many States were  unable,  on
short notice, to adequately  document
their needs.
  I supported  the adoption of a needs
                      based  formula  in  Public  Law 92-
                      500, the 1972 amendments to the Fed-
                      eral  Water  Pollution Control Act.  I
                      had hoped that  EPA, in cooperation
                      with the States,  would have been able
                      to identify with  precision  the  ex-
                      pected cost of  construction  for  all
                      municipal  treatment  works  on   a
                      State-by-State  basis.  Our hearings
                      this fall, however, pointed out a num-
                      ber of shortcomings  on the part  of
                      EPA  and  the  States.  EPA,  largely
                      as a result of the OMB forms clear-
                      ance process consumed more than  5
                      months of the time  available for com-
                      pletion of the survey, leaving only 6
                      weeks  for the  States  and cities  to
                      complete and forward  the forms  to
                      Washington.   Some   States   with-
                      out staffing and funding  adequate to
                      the task, failed  to  fully identify  eli-
                      gible   needs;  other  States  merely
                      bundled  up  the numerous  munici-
                      pal forms and  sent them to  EPA
                      without even preparing a State total.
                      These  difficulties are  typical of  the
                      results of instituting a new Federal-
                      State process.
                        In view of these difficulties the com-
                      mittee adopted in S.  2812 a two-part
                      formula  for  allocation of funds;  25
                      percent  based on the  ratio of each
                      State's population  to  the population
                      of all the States and 75 percent based
                      on EPA's suggested formula.  EPA in
                      its report to the Congress, based  on
                      section 516 of the act, suggested that
                      we  base the  allocation of fiscal  1975
                      grant  funds  on  the ratio of a States
                      needs in three categories to the total
                      costs  in these  categories  for   all
                      States. These three categories which
                      EPA believed were most  fully docu-
                      mented include,  first, the cost of sec-
                      ondary treatment as a uniform base
                      line for  municipalities under the act;
                      second, the need to  meet requirements
                      more stringent  than  secondary  treat-
                      ment in some areas; and third, the
                      j need   for  new  interceptor  sewers,
                      I force  mains  and  pumping stations.
                      | We should make clear that, as EPA

-------
            WATER—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY
                                    203
testified, to base all or part of the  al-
location formula  on these three cate-
gories  does  not  prejudice  the  fund-
ing of other types of treatment works
which  are  eligible under  the  act—
for  example,   collector   sewers  and
combined storm sewers. One very ben-
eficial aspect of this bill is the provi-
sion  sponsored  by   Senator  BAKER
which   reaffirms  the  intention   ex-
pressed  in the act  that  EPA shall
fund as  a  project any  financial  or
physical phase of  construction which
is otherwise eligible. This rectifies an
error in legal  interpretation by EPA,
provides needed  flexibility  for States
and municipalities to begin construc-
tion  of as many needed projects as
possible,  and  prevents the  situation
in which approval of a large project
will  prevent   other  projects   on  a
States    priority   list   from   being
funded.
   Mr.  President,  I  would like, if  I
may, to be  parochial for a  moment.
During the  hearing of the committee
on the issue of an allocation  formula,
a very fine statement  was presented
to us by  Mr.  Dwight Metzler,  deputy
commissioner  of  the New York State
Department of  Environmental  Con-
servation.
   The  following  is  his  summary of
the  position  of  New  York  State on
the  application  of the needs  survey
to  the  allocation  of the fiscal  year
1975 authorization for title  II con-
struction grants:
   (a) The authorization of seven billion dollars
in Section 207 of  the Act should be allocated in
its entirely.
   (b) The allocations  should be based on the
unadjusted total  estimates  of the  States as
determined by the  1973  Needs Survey.
   (c) If it appears that inequities result from
allocations made in accordance with (b) above,
adjustments can be made in  the allocations for
fiscal year  1976,  by  implementing  Section
206(f)  of  the  Act which  permits advanced
construction funding.
   (d) Congress should make it clear that the
program of  Federal  construction grant assist-
ance  will  continue  beyond  June  30,  1975.
Authorizations for subsequent  years should be
seven billion dollars  per year or  greater.
  (e)  Congress should reiterate  its  intent for
funding  of projects on a phased approach to
the  construction of treatment works as  urged
on  Page 111  of  the  Conference Report  No.
92-1465.  Although this procedure was approved
for  the  District of Columbia's "Blue Plains"
project,  it has been denied  elsewhere,
  (f)  Allocation is only  a part of the picture.
Definite  steps  should be  taken  so allocated
funding  authority  is  obligated  by  prompt
approval of  projects.
  There  may be some feeling that New York
supports the  allocation  on the  basis  of  the
total  costs  of 65.604  billion  dollars  rather
than the EPA proposed figure of 36.6 billion
dollars because it  gets the larger share that
•way.  It  is the converse that is true.
  New York's  needs are large,  and it should
have a large allocation. New York is the only
State in  the Union that has both a Great Lakes
and an  ocean  coastline. In the  Great Lakes,
New  York  has  the responsibility for  the
implementation of the Nixon-Trudeau agree-
ment  on boundary waters. This is exercised
through   New York's  membership  on  the
International Joint Commission—United States
and Canada.
  New York is a  member of seven  interstate
pollution control  compacts, viz:
  The New England Interstate Water Pollution
Control Compact.
  The Ohio  River Valley  Water  Sanitation
Compact.
  The Tri-State Compact and Interstate Sani-
tation Commission.
  The Delaware  River  Basin  Compact.
  The Great  Lakes  Basin  Compact.
  The Champlain  Basin Compact.
  The Susquehanna River Basin Compact.
  In all  of  these compacts, New York is the
upstream member and we  will  not discharge
polluted  water to our downstream neighbors.
  The ocean  shore of  New  York  provides
recreation facilities for the greatest concentra-
tion of population anywhere in the country and
handles  more shipping and  receives   more
passengers in its  port than almost anywhere
else in the world.
  Lastly, New York  is one of  those several
states that have advanced farthest in planning
for abatement of pollution. We are seeking only
our due.

   I  supported  this position  during
the discussion of the appropriate for-
mula in the Public  Works  Committee
and  I  continue  to endorse it.  I  have
the assurance  of my colleagues on the
committee that the  adoption  of a for-
mula based in part on population in
no way  signals  a  retreat from  our
commitment to a  "needs" approach.

-------
204
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
Clearly, we must know the full costs
of meeting  the high  water  quality
standards mandated by the  Federal
Water Pollution Control Act and we
can learn this only by ascertaining
actual needs, State by State.
  I am hopeful that  another  provi-
sion of the bill, which calls for EPA
and the States to  begin a new needs
survey within 30 days and to complete
it by June 30, 1974, will mean that a
year  from now, we will be able to
return to  our  first choice—an alloca-
tion  formula  based  solely on needs
which  will distribute  funds  for  fis-
cal  year 1976  in  a manner that is
equitable to all the  States.
                         [p. S22971]

  I compliment the  chairman of  the
committee, Mr. RANDOLPH; the chair-
man   of   the  subcommittee,   Mr.
MUSKIE;  the  ranking minority mem-
ber of  the  committee,  Mr.  BAKER;
and  the  other Senators  who  parti-
cipated  in  this decision for dealing
with  this  very knotty problem in
their  typically thorough  and  fair
manner.
  Mr.  JAVITS. Mr. President,  will
the Senator yield?
  Mr. BUCKLEY. I yield.
  Mr.  JAVITS. I wish to  associate
myself with the remarks of my col-
league from  New York. I  think he
has put  the  situation  exactly right,
and I  wish  to express my apprecia-
tion to him  for contending for prin-
ciples  and policies  with respect to
this legislation which would be equit-
able to the  Nation  and equitable to
our State.
  We of New  York have  constantly
taken  the position that water is a
national resource  and  have shown it
in many  policies  we  have  adopted.
The Senator has referred to the policy
of the State. We would certainly hope
that  States which are  not  riparian
States would take the same position
that the needs standard is the basis
for the country.
                        We  realize that political  problems
                     occasionally arise which may make it
                     necessary  to  do less  than  the  opti-
                     mum, but  I think the decision of the
                     Senator from  Maine  (Mr.  MUSKIE)
                     and the Senator from West Virginia
                      (Mr. RANDOLPH) to put it on  a 1-
                     year basis in  respect  of  so vital  a
                     matter as the  national  resource of
                     the  water table is  a very  desirable
                     and wise one.
                        One other thing which is  very im-
                     portant to me: Often we  almost see
                     an attitude of being contrary simply
                     because  it is  the  major  industrial
                     States  that  are involved. Yet,  they
                     are  the most productive in  terms of
                     population to  service the Nation in
                     war or peace, in terms of goods pro-
                     duced, and facilities providing a tax
                     income raised  for the benefit of all
                     of us.
                        All  too  often  there  is a  tendency
                     here to look at the chart and deter-
                     mine the  number of  States that do
                     best in the  chart and they prevail,
                     whatever may be  the  total national
                     interest.
                        Mr.  President, it is therefore re-
                     freshing- to me—and I have been here
                     a  long  time—when   statesmanship
                     rears its  noble  head and some effort
                     is made to rearrange these aid pro-
                     grams  in  the  basic  need of  the
                     country.
                        Mr.  President,  I  would have  been
                     deeply  disappointed if the committee
                     had gone to  the 50-percent figure
                     which  was  originally  discussed.  I
                     think  it  is encouraging  that it has
                     gone to the 75-percent figure.
                        We  in New  York have  been just
                     as vigorous in  spending  money for
                     others when it will do us no good but
                     will do the Nation good, as we  have
                     done  in   irrigation  matters, dams,
                     flood control,  to take some  of the
                     more bread-and-butter aspects of the
                     matter here.
                        We   have  a  natural  resource—
                     water.  And  when  a  conservation
                     measure is made to apply the test to

-------
           WATER—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                205
that,  it  is  very  refreshing  to  my
mind  and to the country as a whole.
  Mr.  BUCKLEY. Mr.  President,  I
thank my distinguished colleague  for
pointing  out the  equities involved in
the measure.
  Mr. MUSKIE. Mr.  President, I  ex-
press  my  appreciation  to the  two
Senators from  New York and to  the
Senator  from  West   Virginia  (Mr.
RANDOLPH),  the  chairman  of   the
committee,  and to  all  members   of
the committee.
  As  has been customary and tradi-
tional  in the  committee,  the issues
are discussed rather  fully  and with
a rather full attendance. Votes tend
to cross party lines.
  It is  encouraging that once again
a  matter has  come  from  the com-
mittee in this  fashion. Although  we
did not  all  agree, we will made an
effort to  adhere  to this  formula. It
was worked  out in  that spirit.
  I am most grateful for the contin-
uing cooperation of the Senator from
New  York  (Mr.  BUCKLEY)  in urg-
ing approval of the bill.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I wish
to state my strong  support  for S.
2812.  This  bill incorporates  two  es-
sential elements to the  operation of
our  future  water pollution  control
grant program.
  First,  the bill  establishes an allo-
cation formula for the  distribution
of fiscal  year  1975  sewage  grants.
While  there was  substantial  discus-
sion in committee  over what would be
the most equitable formula, I believe
we reached a compromise that is fair.
The formula is grounded in the dem-
onstrated needs for pollution control
funds. I  anticipate that  a new needs
study,  mandated  by this bill, should
enable the Congress to support fully
the needs concept next year.
  The bill  also contains  a  restate-
ment  of  the intent of the Congress
on "phased  funding" of projects,  as
expressed in  the  conference  report
on Public Law 92-500. In that docu-
ment, the Congress said that the En-
vironmental    Protection    Agency
should allow any  State that so wishes
to apply and receive grants for por-
tions of treatment facilities.
  EPA, unfortunately,  did not  allow
such an approach. That decision ham-
pered the ability of many State water
pollution  control  agencies to  develop
the most  effective and logical control
program.  Often  funding of a  large
project prevented the  start  of  con-
struction  of other needed projects on
a State's priority  list.
  To rectify this  EPA error,  I intro-
duced  S. 1594 earlier this year. I am
pleased that  the  committee bill  con-
tains the  language of S.  1594 in sec-
tion 3.
  While   the  committee   report  ex-
plains   the  phased  funding  intent
quite  clearly,  I would  just add this
word   of  explanation:   This  section
will give  to the States  the right and
ability  to seek  approval—and  for
EPA to grant  such  approval—for 75
percent grants toward a portion of a
treatment works, whether  that  por-
tion is selected  in a financial or physi-
cal basis. A  community  might,  for
example,  seek  initially  a grant  for
one-fifth of the total cost of construc-
tion of a plant. It might seek funds
for the  primary  phase  of a treat-
ment  plant, or it might  seek funds
for the first 1,000 feet of an inter-
ceptor  sewer. In future  years, the ap-
plicant would come  back for  further
grants to finish each project.
  EPA must not  discriminate against
such   applications.   Rather,   EPA
should view them as an opportunity
for flexibility  to  get more projects
on  line  more  quickly  and thus  to
achieve our  national goal of  clean
water more expeditiously.
  I wish  to pay  my respects, as al-
ways,  to  the  chairman  of the full
committee, Mr. RANDOLPH;  the chair-
man of the Subcommittee on Air and
Water Pollution,  Mr.  MUSKIE;  and
the ranking minority member of the

-------
206
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT 11
subcommittee, Mr. BUCKLEY, for their
leadership  in reaching the  compro-
mise on this legislation.
  Further, I  would  like to express
my thanks  to the junior Senator from
Delaware (Mr. BIDEN) for his strong
support for  the  phased-funding lan-
guage. I  know that phased-funding
is an issue that has as great interest
for the people of Delaware as it does
for Tennessee. And I commend him
on  his leadership on this point.
   WASTE TREATMENT CONSTRUCTION
   SHOULD  PROCEED—EQUITY NEEDED
  Mr. RANDOLPH.  Mr. President,
when the Committee on Public Works
began to consider the question of how
to allocate waste treatment construc-
tion grant funds for the 1975 fiscal
year, we knew that it would be diffi-
cult to develop an  equitable formula
fair  to  the  large  majority of  the
States, and  impossible to find an al-
location  formula which pleased every
one.
   When  the  Congress   enacted  the
Federal  Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, Public Law 92-
500, we  expected that a formula for
allocation  in  accordance  with  the
need in  each  of the  States for con-
struction  of  publicly owned sewage
treatment works would flow naturally
from the "needs" survey the Environ-
 mental  Protection  Agency was re-
 quired to  conduct  under section 516
  (b) (2).  After the publication of that
 survey in  October of this year, how-
 ever,  it  became apparent  that the
 limitations  of  that survey requirec
 action by the Congress to produce a
 measure of  equity in the distribution
 of  sewage  treatment funds.  Those
 limitations are detailed in  the  report
  of the committee on S. 2812.
   The committee  approached  its de-
  liberations on the  fund  allocation  in
 an  extremely statesman-like manner.
  Though cognizant of the  effect on
  their own States, the members of the
  committee were not bound in their
  consideration  or in their  final posi-
                     tion by the narrow parochial view of
                     what would be best for  the States
                      ;hey  represented.  I believe that  as a
                     result of the work of the committee a
                      !ormula for allocation has  been de-
                     veloped  which  is fair. It  improves
                      the  position  of those States which
                     would have been most severely inhib-
                     ited  in their water  pollution abate-
                     ment programs by  the formula  rec-
                     ommended by the  Environmenlal Pro-
                     tection  Agency, and  it maintains the
                     commitment of the  Congress to  allo-
                     cate  waste treatment  funds  on the
                     basis of need for such facilities.
                        The committee  remains firm in its
                     desire to allocate funds for  the  con-
                      struction of  waste   treatment works
                      solely on the basis  of the need.  The
                      limitations of the 1973 needs survey
                      prevented that desire from being re-
                      alized with respect to fiscal year  1975
                      funds.
                        In order to return to that approach
                      at the earliest possible moment in the
                      allocation of fiscal   year  1976 waste
                      treatment  funds, the  bill would re-
                      quire the
                                               [p. S22972]

                      Environmental Protection Agency to
                      conduct another needs survey assess-
                      ing  the complete needs for  all  types
                      of treatment works  mandated by the
                      act  and to  submit that  survey by
                      June 30,  1974.  The  report of  the
                      committee  provides  a clear  direction
                      to   the   Environmental   Protection
                      Agency as to the expanded basis of
                      this resurvey requiring the reporting
                      of data on all eligible treatment works
                      including the  provision  of  the  best
                      practicable  treatment technology  as
                      required for fiscal  year  1975 grants
                      under  section 201 (g) (2)  of the  act.
                         Mr.  President. I  urge  the passage
                      of this bill.
                         The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
                      bill  is open  to amendment. If  there
                      be no amendment to be proposed, the
                      question is on the  engrossment  and
                      third reading of the bill.

-------
             WATER—STATUTES  AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                       207
   The  bill   was  ordered  to  be  en-
grossed  for  a third reading and was
read the third time.
   The PRESIDING  OFFICER. The
bill having  been read the third time,
the question is,  Shall the bill  pass?
   The bill  (S. 2812)  was  passed,  as
follows:
  Be  it • enacted by the  Senate  and House
of  Representatives   oj  the  United  States  of
America in  Congress assembled,
  SECTION 1. Section (a) of section 205 of  the
Federal  Water  Pollution  Control   Act   as
amended  (86  Stat.  837), is amended  by  in-
serting "(1)" after  "(a)" and  by adding  the
following new  paragraph:
  "(2)  Sums   authorized  to be  appropriated
for the fiscal year ending June  30, 1975, shall
be  allotted  by the  Administrator among  the
States in the following  ratio:
      State                        Percentage
"Alabama   	  	  . _ _    1.064
Alaska __	  	  „    .358
Arizona  	    .550
Arkansas		    .705
California   _ _   	   12.320
Colorado  	    .927
Connecticut     	  .   _ _ _     1.262
Delaware	  	  .  ..   .       .487
District of  Columbia 	   .  -     .198
Florida	 	      4.190
Georgia   .-_..__  	  __   	    2.183
Hawaii	  	    	      1.013
Idaho  ..   .   	 .      	     .248
Illinois	   	     5.856
Indiana     	  	  ___    1.757
Iowa	    _. 	  	    1.221
Kansas	  	    .962
Kentucky    	    	      1.588
Louisiana    -	, 	   -   - -   	     .996
Maine __   	        	     .644
Maryland    		- - -   ...   ..      1.696
Massachusetts   - - -  	    2.275
Michigan    -_  	 	  	  	    4.115
Minnesota   --   	  -.  	   -    1.582
Mississippi  _   	 	    ___    .733
Missouri  ... 	 	    2.191
Montana ..  _   	  	    .208
Nebraska    ..   .. _ 	   ..   .     .475
Nevada  _ _  _ 	    -  _ _   _ _ _     .491
New  Hampshire - -   _ _  -   .   _ _ _     .800
New  Jersey   	   - -     _ _.  .     6.362
New  Mexico _ _  	  _ _   	    .265
New  York  	  	     _ _ _   _ _   10.872
North Carolina	  ..    __   __  _    2.182
North Dakota  . 	  	      .138
Ohio  . 	  ...   -  _   ...  ..    5.113
Oklahoma   -   - - -  	  	   - -    1.324
Oregon - _   -  	
Pennsylvania 	
Rhode Island -  	
South Carolina     	
South Dakota	
Tennessee	  - -  	  -
Texas   . ..  ..   	
Utah . -  	   - -  - -
Vermont - 	
Virginia    - 	
Washington  	
West Virginia	
Wisconsin 	
Wyoming  		
Guam 	
Puerto Rico  	
Virgin Islands  	
American Samoa  	
Pacific Island Territory
 .856
4.656
 .453
1.506
 .164
1.457
2.748
 .488
 .295
2.648
1.524
 .887
1.550
 .104
 .053
1.157
 .075
 .018
 .024"
  SEC. 2. Subsection  (b)  of section 516 of  the
Federal  Water   Pollution  Control   Act,   as
amended (86  Stat. 895), is amended  by  in-
serting "(1)"  after "(b)"; by striking  "(D",
"(2)", "(3)", and "(4)"  and inserting  in lieu
thereof "(A)", "(B)", and "(C)", and "(D)",
respectively; and by adding the following new
paragraph:
  "(2)  Notwithstanding  the second  sentence
of paragraph  (1) of this subsection, the Ad-
ministrator  shall  make   a  detailed  estimate
called for by subparagraph  (B)  of such para-
graph  and  shall  submit such  detailed esti-
mate  to the  Congress no  later  than  June
30,  1974.  The   Administrator  shall  require
each State to  prepare  an  estimate of cost  for
such State, and  shall  utilize the survey form
EPA-1, O.M.B.  No. 158-R0017, prepared  for
the 1973 detailed  estimate,  except that such
estimate  shall  include  all  costs of compliance
with  section   201(g)(2)(A) of  this  Act   or
water  quality  standards   established pursuant
to section 303 of this Act,  and  all  costs  of
treatment works  as denned  in section  212(2),
including  all  eligible  costs of  constructing
sewage  collection systems and  correcting  ex-
cessive infiltration  or  inflow  and all  eligible
costs  of  correcting combined storm and sani-
tary sewer problems and treating storm  water
flows.   The survey  form  shall be  distributed
by  the Administrator  to  each  State  no later
than January 31,  1974."
  SEC.  3. Subsection  (a)  of section 203 of  the
Federal  Water   Pollution  Control  Act,   as
amended (86  Stat. 935),  is amended to add
at  the  end thereof the  following  sentence:
"The Administrator shall approve as a project
each physical  or financial phase  of  a  treat-
ment  works  which  otherwise  meets  the  re-
quirements  of  this  Act."
                               [p. S22973]

-------
208
LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
1.2r(3)(b)  Dec  18:  Considered  and passed  House  amended  in
              lieu of H.R.  11928,  pp.  H 11628-H  11633
    AMENDING THE FEDERAL
        WATER POLLUTION
           CONTROL ACT
  Mr.  ROBERTS.   Mr.  Speaker,  I
move to  suspend  the rules and pass
the bill  (H.R. 11928) to  amend  the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
to establish  the  ratio for allocation
of   treatment  works  construction
grant funds,  to   insure  that  grants
may  be  given for  other  than  oper-
able units, and to clarify the require-
ments for development of priorities,
as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:
               H.R. 11928
  Be  it  enacted by  the  Senate and  House
of Representatives  of the United  States of
America in  Congress assembled. That  (a)
subsection  (a)  of section 205 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act is amended by
inserting  immediately after  the  third  sen-
tence  thereof the  following  new  sentence:
"For  the fiscal years ending June 80, 1975,
and June  30, 1976,  such  ratio shall  be de-
termined one-half on the basis  of table  I of
House Public  Works  Committee Print Num-
bered  93-28  and one-half on  the  basis of
table  II  of such print,  except that  no State
shall receive an allotment less than that which
is received  for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1972, as set forth in table III of such print."
  (b) The last sentence  of subsection  (a) of
section 205 of the  Federal Water  Pollution
Control Act is amended  by striking out "June
30, 1974,"  and inserting in lieu  thereof "June
30, 1976.".
  SEC. 2.  Section 203 of the Federal  Water
Pollution Control Act  is  amended by adding at
the end thereof  the following new subsection:
  "(d) Nothing in this Act shall be construed
to require, or to authorize the  Administrator
to require,  that grants under this Act for con-
struction of treatment works be  made only for
projects  which are operable units usable for
sewage  collection,   transportation,  storage,
waste treatment, or for similar purposes with-
out additional construction.".
  SEC. 3.  Section 511 of the  Federal  Water
Pollution  Control Act is  amended by  adding
at the end thereof  the following new  sub-
section :
  "(d) Notwithstanding this Act or any other
provision of law, the Administrator  (1)  shall
not  require  any State  to consider  in the
development of the ranking in order of priority
                        of  needs  for the construction  of  treatment
                        works  (as defined in title II of this Act), any
                        water  pollution control agreement which may
                        have  been  entered  into  between the United
                        States  and any other nation, and (2)  shall not
                        consider any such agreement in the approval of
                        any such priority ranking.".
                          The  SPEAKER.  Is  a  second  de-
                        manded?
                          Mr. HARSHA. Mr.  Speaker,  I de-
                        mand a second.
                          The SPEAKER. Without objection,
                        a  second  will  be  considered  as  or-
                        dered.
                          There was no objection.
                          Mr. ROBERTS. Mr.  Speaker, sec-
                        tion  516 (b) (2) of the  Federal Water
                        Pollution  Control  Act  requires  the
                        Environmental Protection Agency to
                        submit  to Congress  biennially a de-
                        tailed estimate of the cost of construc-
                        tion   of  all  needed   publicly owned
                        treatment works in all of the States
                        and  in each  of  the  States.  The En-
                        vironmental  Protection   Agency  re-
                        cently submitted their assessment of
                        needs—"Cost of Construction of Pub-
                        licly-Owned   Wastewater  Treatment
                        Works," revised  November 1973. Sec-
                        tion  1  of  H.R. 11928 amends section
                        205 (a)  of the Federal Water Pollu-
                        tion  Control  Act to  set forth a for-
                        mula  for  allotment  of treatment
                        works construction grant funds  dur-
                        ing the fiscal years June 30, 1975, and
                        June  30, 1976, based upon the  needs
                        report submitted by  the Environmen-
                        tal Protection Agency.
                          The    Environmental   Protection
                        Agency needs  report included  a  tabu-
                        lation of the following eligible  needs
                        as set forth in  table I of the House
                        Public  Works  Committee Print  No.
                        93-28:
                          (a)  Provide treatment works  to  achieve
                        secondary treatment,
                          (b)  Achieve  treatment  "more   stringent"
                        than   secondary  treatment  as recniired  by
                        water quality standards,
                          (c)  Inspect  and  rehabilitate sewers to cor-
                        rect infiltration and inflow.

-------
            WATER—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY
                                 209
   (d) Construct eligible new collector systems,
   (e) Construct interceptor sewers, force mains
 and pumping stations, and
   (f) Reduce combined sewer overflows.
   The    Environmental   Protection
 Agency  has, however,  recommended
 that only the costs of providing treat-
 ment  works to  achieve  secondary
 treatment,   of  achieving  treatment
 "more   stringent"   than  secondary
 treatment as required by water qual-
 ity  standards,  and  of  constructing
 eligible new  interceptor sewers, force
 mains and pumping stations be used
 as a basis for allotment.
   The committee reviewed many pos-
 sible allotment  formulas. On the one
 hand,  the clear intent  of  Congress
 as expressed in the Federal Water
 Pollution Control  Act was  that proj-
 ects for  infiltration  and inflow,  col-
 lector  systems,  and  the  reduction of
 combined sewer overflows be  eligible
 for  grants.  On the  other  hand,  the
 Environmental Protection Agency tes-
 tified that there were inaccuracies in
 the  determination  of the  needs  for
 infiltration and  inflow, collector sew-
 ers and  reduction  of overflows from
 combined sewers.
   It would  be  unfortunate and  un-
 fair to turn back from the mandate
 of the act that all  categories of  au-
 thorized needs  be  considered  in  the
 development  of an allotment formula.
 However, to  give  full weight  for al-
 lotment  to   those  categories  of  the
 needs  evaluation,  which are subject
 to  possible  inaccuracies as  pointed
 out by the Environmental Protection
 Agency would  also  be unfair.  Thus,
 the  bill  as  reported recognizes  all
 needs while  at the same time reduc-'
 ing the impact  of  the possible inac-
 curacies,                            j
  H.R.  11928 provides a method  for)
determining the basic allotment for fis-
 cal  years  1975 and 1976,  50  per-
 cent upon the  total assessment  of
 needs—table  I  of  committee  print
 93-28—and 50  percent upon the En-
vironmental  Protection Agency's rec-
 ommendation—table II of committee
 print 93-28.
   The utilization of needs as a basis
 for allotment of  construction  grant
 funds as
                          [p. H11628]
 required by the Federal Water Pollu-
 tion  Control Act for  the fiscal year
 ending June 30, 1973, and thereafter
 has  resulted in  a reduction of  the
 water pollution control effort in cer-
 tain  States  in the fiscal years ending
 June  30,  1973,  and  June  30,  1974,
 because the President did  not allot
 all of the available grant funds. Sec-
 tion 1 of H.R. 11928 rectifies this re-
 duction  in  effort  by  providing that
 the actual allotments to the indivi-
 dual  States for the fiscal years end-
 ing June 30, 1975, and June  30, 1976,
! shall in no  case be less than the al-
 lotment received  in  the  fiscal  year
 ending June 30,  1972—table III  of
 committee print 93-28. This  provides
 an interim  solution  for  those States
 which were severely  affected by  the
 changeover from  population  to needs
 in  fiscal year 1973. This  will permit
 these  States to  continue their pro-
 gram at a reasonable level until they
 are able to more  accurately assess
 their true needs.
   Section  2 of  H.R.  11928 amends
 section 203 of the Federal Water Pol-
 lution Control Act  so  as  to  overrule
 an erroneous interpretation  of that
 section by  the Environmental  Pro-
 tection Agency.  The  Environmental
 Protection Agency has limited grants
 for portions of  treatment works  to
 "operate  units."  This  was  not  the
 intent of the Congress and  section 2
 clarifies what was  intended.
   Section 3 of H.R. 11928 is  intended
 to  rectify  a  problem  which  was
 brought  to the committee's  attention
 during our  recent  hearings on  the
 Environmental  Protection  Agency's
 needs  report.  Certain  States which
 border the  Great  Lakes and Canada
 and the States bordering Mexico have
 been pressured by the  Environmental

-------
210
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
Protection Agency to give prece-
dence in the development of the rank-
ing, in order of priority, of needs
within that State for construction of
those waste treatment works required
to meet international agreements of
the United Sates with other nations.
It was not and is not intended that
such international agreements be a
basis for the Administrator to re-
quire States in the development of
their ranking of needed works in
order of priority to consider these
international agreements. If it is the
desire of the administration to have
the international agreements imple-
mented as a priority item, we would
suggest that they submit appropri-
ate legislation authorizing the con-
struction and providing a source of
appropriations for the necessary
works.
In concluding, I would point out
that the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act of 1972 mandated the
allocation of $7 billion in fiscal year
1975. However, in view of the fact
that the administration has released
only $5 billion of the $11 billion
authorized for fiscal year 1973-74,
I would caution all of my colleagues
that the release of the $7 billion in
1975 is not assured.
I would ask permission to include
in the Record at this point a table
which would show the allotments to
each State based upon H.R. 11928.
This table indicates the amounts each
State will receive, should $3, $4, or
$7 billion be allotted.
ALLOTMENTS OF FEDERAL SEWAGE TREATMENT
PLANT GRANT FUNDS, BY STATE, FOR FISCAL 1975
[in millions]
$3 billion $4 billion $7 billion
allotment allotment allotment
Alabama * $33.9 ] $33.8 $55.9
Alaska 10.9 15.0 26.5
Arizona 1 17.7 1 17.7 28.6
Arkansas 1 19.4 24.0 42.6
California - 338.5 457.8 813.8
Colorado . 22.5 31.1 55.2
Connecticut 	 50.7 69.7 123.6
Delaware ..- . 15.8 21.7 39.1
ist. of Columbia .. 27.9 38.2 67.8
Florida 120.0 164.4 292.7
Georgia 	 55.6 70.0 135.5
Hawaii 	 30.0 41.2 73.4
daho J 7.8 7.9 14.0
Ilinois 183.9 252.4 449.2
ndiana 	 150.0 69.7 113.2
owa . ., 28.7 39.3 69.9
Kansas 29.2 40.1 71.3
Kentucky ... 47.6 65.2 116.0
Louisiana _.- >35.6 '35.6 51.0
Maine 	 . 19.1 26.2 46.8
Maryland - - .. 39.6 54.3 96.4
Massachusetts 	 65.7 90.3 160.7
Michigan 	 137.6 108.8 336.0
Minnesota .. 46.8 64.6 114.6
Mississippi _- >22.3 '22.3 37.7
Missouri 54.3 74.5 132.7
Montana * 7.5 »7.5 9.3
Nebraska -. 15.3 21.0 37.0
Nevada 18.7 18.7 33.5
New Hampshire ... 25.6 35.2 62.2
New Jersey - 185.8 254.7 453.2
New Mexico 	 '10.7 J10.7 13.3
New York 357.5 490.6 873.2
North Carolina .... 51.5 70.4 125.7
North Dakota 	 »6.9 *6.9 '6.9
Ohio .. -__ .. 141.0 198.2 344.4
Oklahoma 	 34.1 46.8 83.8
Oregon 	 24.8 34.1 80.8
Pennsylvania 162.5 222.5 396.1
Rhode Island 	 15.3 21.0 37.0
South Carolina 	 40.4 55.8 90.9
South Dakota 	 J7.3 *7.3 '7.3
Tennessee ... . 38.2 48.3 85.9
Texas » 106.9 * 106.9 116.0
Utah 12.2 16.5 29.3
Vermont 	 8.5 12.0 21.0
Virginia .. .. 71.9 98.5 175.3
Washington 47.1 64.8 115.3
West Virginia .... 27.4 37.8 67.1
Wisconsin 	 . 42.6 52.4 92.9
Wyoming 14.0 '4.0 5.6
Guam *2.2 *2.2 3.5
Puerto Rico _ 29.8 40.8 72.7
Virgin Islands 	 2.3 3.0 5.6
American Samoa .. .5 .7 .7
Pacific Island
Territories . .3 .7 .7
Wake Island

1 Based on 1972 allocation.
Note: The 3 columns indicate the amount each
State would receive depending on how much the
administration ultimately allocates.
Mr. JAMES V. ST ANTON. Mr.
Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROBERTS. I will be pleased
to yield to the gentleman from Ohio,
a member of the committee.
Mr. JAMES V. STANTON. Mr.

-------
           WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                211
Speaker, I am concerned  about sec-
tion 3 of H.R. 11928 and its  imple-
mentation  relating1  to the  carrying
out of our international agreements.
Recently,   the   Governments    of
the United States and Canada agreed
to  undertake  actions  which  would
eventually restore the quality of our
international waters,  specifically the
Great Lakes. I would  ask the gentle-
man from Texas, is it not correct that
section 3 of H.R. 11928 was  amended
by  the  committee so  as to  preserve
the authority of  the  State  to grant
a priority to waste treatment works
which  would  implement  the  agree-
ment with Canada?
  Mr.   ROBERTS.  The  gentleman
from  Ohio is  quite  correct.  The ori-
ginal provision in   H.R.  11928 may
well be  described as a classic case  of
overkill.  The  committee  was  con-
fronted  with  a situation  where the
Environmental  Protection  Agency
has been pressuring the Great Lakes
States to put their top priorities  in
those projects which  might imple-
ment  the agreement.  In many  cases
a State  was willing to go along with
certain  of the  projects but  also rec-
ognized   problems  which existed   in
other parts of its   State which also
needed to be corrrected with similar
high priorities. However, in  drafting
the original bill to correct  this situa-
tion, the language of section  3 went a
little  too far—it precluded  a  State
from  considering  such international
agreements  in the development   of
their  ranking priority. This  was not
intended. What was intended  was that
the Environmental Protection Agency
could not insist that a State  must de-
termine  its ranking of priority  on
this basis.  The  amended  section  3
permits  a  State if  it decides that
it  would be  in its  interest to con-
sider  international  water   pollution
control  agreements  it  may do so.  If
it does not want to  do it, it  does not
have to.
  Mr.  BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
  Mr,  ROBERTS.  Mr.  Speaker,  I
yield  to  the  distinguished  chairman
of the committee.
  Mr.  BLATNIK.  Mr.  Speaker,  I
want to join my colleague and friend
from  Cleveland, Ohio, in  his  ques-
tion. I  appreciate the responses  be-
ing made by the  very able and  re-
spected chairman  of the subcommit-
tee   on   water    resources   (Mr.
ROBERTS).
  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like to add
further that the committee was  not
unmindful  of the obligation of  the
Federal  Government  in its  agree-
ment  with Canada—with its friends
from the north—to  improve the sta-
tus of all of the  five Great  Lakes
and of the  St.  Lawrence  River. In
some areas, a great deal  ought to be
done, to  improve  the  quality of  the
water,  in other  areas  we must main-
tain the existing high quality  of  the
water.
  But, to arbitrarily  tell the  people
in a given sovereign  state, "You must
give first priority to the Great Lakes
basin regardless of  the needs of  the
remaining areas in the various States.
I am very  much  familiar  with  the
waters of the Great  Lakes and of  the
St.  Lawrence River, but I would like
the record  to  show  that  our  com-
mittee  authorized  $11  billion for  the
program of giving grants  for waste
treatment  works  to  municipalities
who cannot carry this  enormous mul-
tibillion dollar  program  alone.  For
the  Federal  Government  it   is  a
proper objective to assure that fund-
ing of  projects  are justified; but  the
Federal Government has no justifi-
cation whatsoever  for  allocating only
$5  billion for 1973  and  1974  when
this Congress authorized $11  billion
for that period.
  Therefore,  we are going  to  pound
a  few doors downtown  at the  so-
called  OMB—it  is getting  to  sound
like  a  mysterious  organization  in

-------
212
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n
some  subbasement—at the  Office of
Management and
                        [p. H11629]

Budget  to remind  them  that when
the Federal Government makes com-
mitments, it must  fulfill  them  and
not try  to shove its responsibility on
to the individual States.
  Mr.  ROBERTS.  Mr.   Speaker,  I
wish to  thank my distinguished chair-
man, who is also the chairman of the
Conference of Great Lakes Congress-
men.
  Mr.  JAMES V.  STANTON.  Mr.
Speaker, if  the gentleman will yield
further, if a State such as my State
of Ohio  decides that it believes the
implementation of  the  international
agreement is of vital  importance and
gives  a priority to treatment works
in the Cleveland  area based  on  this
reason,  does  section  3  require  the
Environmental Protection  Agency to
reject this ranking of priority?
  Mr.   ROBERTS.  Absolutely  not.
The Administrator of  the Environ-
mental  Protection Agency is  author-
ized to approve such priority ranking
if it  is  in  accordance  with  the  re-
quirements of the Federal Water Pol-
lution  Control Act.  However,  what
the Administrator  could   not do  is
force  the State to consider the inter-
national agreements.
  Mr. JAMES V.  STANTON. If un-
der H.R.  11928 the  State is  not re-
quired  to  consider the  implementa-
tion of the international  agreement,
how then does the committee expect
that the international agreement will
ever be implemented?
   Mr.  ROBERTS. As I noted in my
original statement, the  committee,  in
my opinion, would  certainly give fa-
vorable  consideration to  a  proposal
for legislation authorizing the  con-
struction and providing  a source  of
appropriations  for  the  necessary
treatment works.
   This  is not unlike other  interna-
tional  agreements which  our  country
                      has  entered  into and  where  either
                      the  President or the State Depart-
                      ment has sought and obtained special
                      legislation to carry out the require-
                      ments of international agreements.
                       Mr. JAMES V. STANTON. Based
                      on the answers of the gentleman from
                      Texas, particularly his assurance that
                      a State  may, if  it chooses, take into
                      consideration  international   agree-
                      ments in determining ranking of pri-
                      orities  and  his  stated  opinion  that
                      the  committee would look  favorably
                      upon a  legislative  proposal  imple-
                      menting the  international agreement
                      which  would  provide  a  source  of
                      funding,  I will  support  H.R.  11928.
                      I wish  to make my position as clear
                      as possible that I  believe we cannot
                      delay any longer in cleaning up the
                      Great Lakes. This problem which we
                      have discussed of the Environmental
                      Protection Agency's requiring a State
                      to consider  international agreements
                      in ranking of priorities would  prob-
                      ably never have arisen if the admin-
                      istration had funded the  water  pollu-
                      tion  control  program  at the  levels
                      recommended by the  Committee  on
                      Public Works of which I am a  mem-
                      ber  and  authorized by the  Congress
                      in the  Federal  Water Pollution Con-
                      trol Act Amendments of 1972.
                       Mr.  ROBERTS.  Mr.  Speaker,  I
                      thank  the   distinguished  gentleman,
                      I  appreciate his  efforts  in  the com-
                      mittee.
                        Mr. VANIK. Mr.  Speaker, I  want
                      to state to the gentleman in the well
                      that I   certainly appreciate  the re-
                      sponses that he made to the questions
                      that were submitted by my colleague
                      from Ohio.
                        I  would say, Mr.  Speaker, that  it
                      is  about time  that the  EPA paid
                      some attention to the Great Lakes and
                      encouraged  the States  to take  neces-
                      sary steps to save our lakes. I believe
                      that when the  President goes to Ot-
                      tawa and makes a  pledge to the Ca-
                      nadian  people  that  our Government
                      will  spend $2 billion to clean up the

-------
           WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY
                                213
lakes, the  States  should certainly co-
operate in fulfilling that pledge.
   If  the  gentleman  will  permit, I
would like to ask one question.
   Under the difference between  the
Senate formula and the gentleman's
formula, it appears  that there is more
provided under the Senate formula,
and I would  like  to hear some com-
ment concerning that aspect.
   Mr.  Speaker,   I  rise  to question
H.R.  11928, the Water Pollution Act
amendments designed to  clarify  the
ranking or  order  of priority for  con-
struction of new water pollution  con-
trol treatment works.
   I am concerned  that the House allo-
cation formula does not appear to be
as good for many States as the Sen-
ate formula,  and,  second,  that the
bill  downplays  the  importance  of
cleaning- up the Great Lakes.
   If  at  least  $2  billion is provided
for waste  treatment construction in
fiscal year 1975—it is  my hope that
at  least that  amount  is  provided—
then my own large, industrial State
of Ohio, for  example, will do  better
under  the  Senate allocation formula
than under the House formula we are
approving  today.  Assuming an  ap-
propriation of $2 billion under the
House formula,  Ohio would  receive
about  $98.3 million while under the
Senate formula,  my calculations  in-
dicate  that the State would  be eli-
gible for about $102.3 million. Thanks
to a  hold-harmless  clause  which  in-
sures that  no  State  will get  less than
it received in fiscal year  1972, Ohio
would  receive $101.6 million—about
$700  million  less  than it would  re-
ceive under the Senate formula.
  Equally important, I am very con-
cerned  about section 3  of the  bill
which provides that:
  Notwithstanding this Act or any other pro-
vision of law, the Administrator (1) shall not
require  any State to consider in the develop-
ment of the  ranking  in order of  priority of
needs  for  the  construction  of treatment
works  . .  . any water pollution  control
agreement which may have been entered into
 between  the  United States and any other
 nation. . . .
   It can be pointed  out that this pro-
 vision is—from  a  strictly practical
 point of view—relatively meaningless.
 There is  no  other  provision  of  law
 requiring    that    EPA    or   the
 States make a special effort to live up
 to our  commitment  with  Canada to
 clean up  the Great Lakes. The com-
 mittee justifies this provision by say-
 ing that "certain States which border
 the  Great  Lakes  and Canada  and
 the  States  bordering  Mexico  have
 been  pressured  by  the Environmen-
 tal Protection Agency to  give  prece-
 dence in the development of the rank-
 ing, in order of priority,  of  needs
 within that State for construction of
 those waste treatment works required
 to meet  international  agreements of
 the United States and other nations."
   My comment  would be  that it is
 about time  that  EPA  paid some at-
 tention  to the Great Lakes and en-
 couraged the States to make the neces-
 sary effort  to save our lakes.  I be-
 lieve  that when  the President trav-
 els to Ottawa and makes a pledge to
 the Canadian people that our Gov-
 ernment  will  spend  $2 billion  by the
end of  1975  to  clean  up  the  Great
 Lakes, then the EPA and the States
should  cooperate in  fulfilling  that
pledge.
  The language in this bill, however,
will discourage the  emphasis to pro-
vide special funding for  the  Great
Lakes. It will be  a setback of  our
cleanup efforts on the lakes,
  I believe  that we  are beginning to
make  improvements  on the qualities
of the lakes. But a  great, great deal
more needs  to be done. I believe that
the language on  international agree-
ments—which is  not included  in  the
Senate bill—should be deleted so that
the "psychological"  emphasis for  a
full-scale  cleanup of the  lakes  can
continue.
   (Mr. VANIK asked and was given

-------
214
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
permission to revise  and extend his
remarks.)
  (Mr.  BLATNIK  asked  and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
  Mr. BLATNIK. Mr.  Speaker, this
legislation represents an outstanding
effort on the part of the Public Works
Committee in working out a fair solu-
tion to the problem of allocating Fed-
eral  grant  funds  for  waste  treat-
ment works.
  The   Environmental   Protection
Agency  proposed  two  tables  for
allocation of the grant funds to the
States.  One was  based  on all of the
needs of the States, including rehabil-
itation  of  sewer systems  to  correct
infiltration problems,  the construction
of new  collector  sewers, and  the re-
duction of combined  sewer  overflows.
The  other table  was based on only
part  of  the  needs—secondary  and
more  advanced treatment works and
new  interceptor sewers. The commit-
tee  heard  testimony  from  several
States,  some of which  would receive
more  funds  under one table and some
of which would  receive more under
the other  table.  In  addition,  some
States  found that under the needs
concept they would receive less than
they had previously when funds were
allocated on the  basis  of population.
The  primary reason  for this appears
to be that these  States have  not yet
accurately identified  their true needs
for wastewater  treatment  facilities.
  The committee is  very much com-
mitted  to the allocation of funds on
the basis of need. After much consid-
eration, we determined that the most
equitable solution would be  to allo-
cate the funds  for the next  2 fiscal
years on the basis of  50 percent  of
each  of the two tables, with no State
receiving less  than  its allocation  of
1972. While some States may receive
a little less  under  the committee's
solution,   all   States   will   benefit
greatly in the long run.
  Mr. HARSHA. Mr.  Speaker, there
                     is some urgency  about this legisla-
                     tion,  because the bill must be passed
                     before the 31st of December of this
                     year. Under the law, the administra-
                     tion must  allocate the money to the
                     various States before
                                              [p. H11630]

                     January 1, 1974.  So  I rise  in sup-
                     port of the legislation.
                        I offer my compliments  to the gen-
                     tleman from Texas  for his clear ex-
                     planation of H.R. 11928.
                        The members and the staff of the
                     Committee on  Public Works had to
                     work very hard to develop a  formula
                     for  allocation  of  treatment  works
                     construction grant funds  for the fis-
                     cal years  ending  June  30, 1975  and
                     June  30, 1976. As  Mr. ROBERTS ex-
                     plained, there  are many  and varied
                     possible formulas  which  could  be
                     used   for  allotment of  construction
                     grant funds.
                        I  can say to you today  that our
                     committee  looked  at 9  or 10 differ-
                     ent  formulas  with  3  objectives  in
                     mind. Those  objectives were to ar-
                     rive at a formula: first, which clearly
                     was   based   upon   needs;  second,
                     which  recognized  the  need  not  to
                     cause significant  decreases  in effort
                     in the individual  States, and  third,
                     which  resulted in  a  formula  which
                     was most fair to the States.
                        Our committee  brought the  1972
                     amendments to the  Federal Water
                      Pollution  Control  Act  to this floor
                      over  a year and a  half ago. The re-
                      sulting  Public  Law 92-500 which is
                      now  being  implemented  is  complex
                      and  difficult.  We  provided that the
                      costs  for construction of eligible new
                      collector sewer systems,  the cost to
                      inspect  and rehabilitate  sewers are
                      to correct infiltration and inflow, and
                      the  cost to reduce combined  sewer
                      overflows  are  eligible  for  grants.
                      There was  no misunderstanding on
                      anyone's part. Such costs are eligible
                      for  grants.  Therefore, the Environ-
                      mental  Protection  Agency  included

-------
           WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                               215
in its  development of  costs for the
recently  completed needs  study the
costs for infiltration, collector sewers,
an costs for infiltration, collector sew-
ers,  and  combined  sewers.  Because
these  costs are eligible for  grants,
the Committee on Public Works was
adamant in that they should be rec-
ognized in the development of a for-
mula   for  the  allocation   of grant
funds. However,  we  also  recognize
that  the  Environmental  Protection
Agency testified before  our committee
that there  was some  inaccuracy  in
the development of these costs. There-
fore,  in  the formula that  we devel-
oped, we reduced  the emphasis given
to these  three  items.  Fifty  percent
of  the allocation formula is based
upon  a  full assessment of costs in-
cluding these  three items and 50 per-
cent is based upon a  partial tabula-
tion of  costs excluding these items.
  I might note that even though our
formula  has  reduced  the emphasis
on these three items for purposes  of
allocation, we in no way will  condone
the Environmental Protection Agen-
cy's using this action  on our part  as
a basis for minimizing grants for in-
filtration,  collector sewers, and com-
bined sewers.  These are clear require-
ments in Public Law 92-500, and we
fully expect the Environmental  Pro-
tection Agency to vigorously pursue
construction programs  in these three
areas.
  Mr. Speaker, I and  a  number  of
the other  members of  the  committee
were  contacted by  our State water
pollution control  agencies  about  the
inequities  that were   imposed upon
certain  of our States  which border
the  Great Lakes  and  Mexico. The
United States of  America has quite
properly  entered  into  treaties  with
Mexico and Canada for the control of
water pollution of our boundary wa-
ters.   These  treaties  are  important
both to the United States of America
and to our neighbors. These  treaties,
however, set strict time tables for ac-
tions for cleanup of the United States
parts of  the  boundary  waters.  In
order  to  accomplish  the  required
cleanup, the Environmental Protection
Agency  has  been emphasizing  the
international  agreements in the En-
vironmental  Protection Agency's  re-
view and approval of the priority  list
for  treatment  works  construction
established pursuant to the law by the
individual States.
  Mr.  Speaker, this  has  meant that
States such as my own State of Ohio
which  are located on our boundary
with Canada or Mexico are being re-
quired  by  the  Environmental Pro-
tection Agency to  put a large portion
of  their  treatment  works construc-
tion grant funds into border areas to
assist in  the  fulfilling of our treaty
obligations with our neighbors.
  I admit we should  fulfill our treaty
obligations. However, I refuse to con-
cede in so doing that we should  de-
prive those parts of our border States
which  are removed from our bound-
ary waters of their fair share of  the
treatment  works  construction  grant
funds allotted to their States. I sub-
mit that if we are to meet our treaty
obligations we should not do it at  the
expense of the people  who live  in
border  States but who  are  removed
from  the  drainage   basins  of  our
boundary waters.
  I  urge  the President  to  consider
immediately submitting to  the Con-
gress a proposal  for new legislation
which would  provide a second source
of  funds to meet our treaty obliga-
tions.  I am suggesting this because
I think it to be only fair for treaty
obligations of the United States of
America  which inure to  the benefit
of  all the  States,  to  be funded separ-
ately and  apart  from  a  particular
State's share. To do otherwise is to
place  an  unfair  burden on border
States.
   Mr.  Speaker, section  2   of H.R.
11928, which  pertains to the funding
of individual  projects contains a most

-------
216
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
important provision. It must be prop-
erly  implemented. I urge the General
Counsel of  the  Environmental  Pro-
tection Agency to sit down with the
General Counsel of the Federal High-
way  Administration to  ascertain the
procedures  utilized  by the  Federal
Highway Administration in the high-
way  grant program. We adopted lan-
guage  of  the Federal Highway Ad-
ministration when we set out the de-
tails for the water  pollution control
construction grant program.
  We did not then  and still do not
now  intend  that grants only be for
"operable  units." The  interpretation
by   the   Environmental   Protection
Agency of  the  language  of Public
Law 92-500  was erroneous.  We  had
made it clear to the Environmental
Protection Agency  that their inter-
pretation  was  erroneous  and  they
chose to ignore  our intent. Section 2
of H.R.  11928  will make sure that
the Environmental Protection Agency
will  not ignore any longer the intent
of the Congress.
  In section 2,  we do  not intend  to
mean that  States  may break down
projects purely  upon financial phases
alone. We expect that there shall  be
a reasonable relationship between the
definition  of subprojects and engineer-
ing  reason. Further, we  expect that
there shall  be a reasonable  relation-
ship between  the  total  number  of
projects or subprojects  funded in any
fiscal year  and the expected avail-
ability  of construction  grant funds
in future years.  I must emphasize
that we are in no way shape or form
establishing  a new program for  re-
imbursement.    Any   construction
agency which receives  a  grant  for
less  than  the full  amount  required
to construct the whole  project should
understand  clearly  that  we  are  not
creating  a  contractual obligation  of
the  United States  to fund  the Fed-
eral share of the balance of the total
project.
   Our committee has heard that  the
                     Environmental   Protection   Agency
                     !ias  regularly  delayed  the  awarding
                     of  grants to agencies for  the  con-
                     struction of  treatment  works.   We
                     hear  regularly that each  month finds
                     a new requirement imposed  upon the
                     construction  agencies which further
                     delays their  receiving of grants.  Let
                     me now say, and say it clearly,  that
                     this committee  does  not  expect  that
                     section 2 of  H.R. 11928 shall become
                     a basis for delay. We expect just the
                     opposite. We believe that section 2 of
                     H.R.  11928 will result in the increas-
                     ing rate of  new  construction starts.
                       In  order to give the Environmental
                     Protection Agency some guidelines on
                     this,  I  would expect that regulations
                     to implement section 2 would be pro-
                     mulgated within  120  days after en-
                     actment and that funding in accord-
                     ance  with section 2 would  be initi-
                     ated  in the absolute latest by the be-
                     ginning of the next fiscal year.
                       Mr.  Speaker,  I  wculd like to  ask
                     my   distinguished  friend   and   col-
                     league,  the   gentleman  from   Min-
                     nesota,  the  chairman  of the Public
                     Works Committee,  if  he concurs in
                     my remarks.
                       Mr.  BLATNIK.  The  gentleman's
                      remarks are  correct.
                        The  distinguished gentleman  from
                      Ohio raised  a question on the provi-
                      sion  regarding  international agree-
                      ments.
                        Mr.  Speaker,  I  might  point  out
                      that  the reason we put in the special
                      section  with which the gentleman  is
                      concerned is the fact that the Envir-
                      onmental Protection Agency requires
                      the  various  border  States  to   give
                      the highest  priority  to  those  treat-
                      ment works  required to  meet our in-
                      ternational  agreements.  This is  con-
                      trary to the law.  We wrote specif-
                      ically  in the  law that  each  State
                      was to set its own priority.
                        In  the State of  Ohio, as an  ex-
                      ample,  there are  some  $500 million

-------
           WATER—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                               217
worth  of  projects required on  Lake
Erie to meet our international agree-
ments.
  They need to be constructed imme-
diately, if we are to meet the agree-
ments.  This means  that the alloca-
tion for the State of  Ohio for the
next 2 fiscal years or more would be
used only  on the shores of Lake  Erie.
There  are other areas in the  State
that have equal priority. H.R. 11928
would   preclude  the  Administrator
from  making this unlawful require-
ment.
  Mr.  STEIGER of  Wisconsin. Mr.
Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
                         [p. H11631]
  Mr.  HARSHA. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr.  STEIGER of  Wisconsin. Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate very much the
gentleman from Ohio yielding to me.
  I want  to raise a question on this
determination of need.  One  of the
difficulties that I have  with this bill
is that the  new formula, as we have
it in this  bill, rather  effectively dam-
ages,  for  example, the  State of Wis-
consin.
  We  have  2 percent  of the popula-
tion,  and  we end up if I read the
tables  correctly,  with  about 1.3  per-
cent of the  allocation of funds,  when
it is determined on the  basis, as the
gentleman explained,  of 50 percent
plus 50 percent of  need, because the
communities in Wisconsin had a good
record  of  meeting their  needs  well
in  advance  of  a  lot  of the  work
that was done in other States.
   I am not as yet  sure why the de-
cision  was  made  by the  Committee
on Public Works,  to  disregard any
kind of population analysis from its
allocation under this kind of  a for-
mula.
   Mr.  HARSHA.  Mr.  Speaker,   I
would say to my distinguished friend
from  Wisconsin that  we are not pro-
viding for  reimbursement  of  past
expenditures. This  is a formula for
the distribution or allocation of  funds
to construct new projects.  We are
providing for existing needs.
  Wisconsin provided ahead of many
of the other State.
  That is certainly an admirable posi-
tion for a State to be in, but we have
many other needs.  The  proposed  al-
location  formula is based upon the
ratio  of  the  needs  a State has sent
to EPA  to the total needs of all the
rest of the country.
  Mr.  STEIGER  of   Wisconsin.  I
understand  that, may  I say to the
gentleman from Ohio.  I do recognize
that. But when I get through looking
at all of  the charts and tables that go
with  this I  see  we still end up in
Wisconsin  at a  point  less than  we
would if we would  consider,  for ex-
ample, straight population.
  Mr. HARSHA. I  am  sure  we can
pick out  specific instances  whereby
in using  a needs formula some States
will receive more and some States will
receive less than they  would on the
basis  of  a population  formula.  How-
ever,  with all  of the  factors  being
considered,  the needs  formula  was
considered to be more equitable to get
at the problem which exists through-
out the entire country.
  In addition to  that, we included a
provision whereby Wisconsin, for  ex-
ample, would not  receive less than the
allotment for fiscal  year 1972.  I  am
sure under  the new formula with a
reasonable  total  allotment,   Wiscon-
sin will  receive more  than it did in
the past under  the population for-
mula.
  Mr.  STEIGER of Wisconsin. I  am
deeply grateful to the gentleman  for
his  explanation  and  the  continual
good  work  he has  done as  well as
the Committee on Public Works have
done.
  The difficulty comes in part related
to the  point  that   the  distinguished
chairman of the full committee  made.
We can  receive more only if, in fact,
we get more of an  appropriation  for
the money that has been distributed

-------
218
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n
under  this act.  That  is  one  of the
concerns I may say I have about what
is being done today.
  Mr.  HARSHA. Of course, we pro-
vided for contract authority  in the
legislation hoping to  circumvent the
problems we  had in the  past with
getting appropriations  through  the
Administration and the  OMB.  Appar-
ently we still  have that problem, but
that cannot be rectified in this parti-
cular legislation.
  Mr.  STEIGER of Wisconsin. I do
understand that, and I thank the gen-
tleman.
  Mr.  HARSHA. I yield  to the gen-
tleman from California.
  Mr.  DON H.  CLAUSEN. I thank
the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr.  Speaker,  I  rise  in  support of
H.R.  11928. In so doing,  I must say
that this bill presented a difficult task
to be accomplished by the Committee
on  Public  Works.  We worked very
hard to develop  a  formula for the al-
location  of  grant funds  for treat-
ment works construction which would
be most fair to all of the States.
  It was interesting to  me  to  note
when  we held hearings  on this bill
that we had, I believe, 14 States come
before the Committee on Public Works
to  testify. All  but  one advocated a
formula which  would  provide maxi-
mum  funding to  their  States. That
one State, in fact, advocated a for-
mula which would have provided the
maximum 2  years hence. Each wit-
ness was interested  solely in maxi-
mum funding  for his State.
  We on the  committee also were in-
terested in what was best  for  our
 States or region. As  important  as
this was to each  of  us,  it was  even
more  important for the committee to
do  what was fair to all of the States.
 We did this.
   It was suggested that we  approve
an allotment formula for only 1 year
 This  suggestion  was  properly  re-
 jected. The next  study is due to be
 submitted  in  14 months.  This study
                     will require  this time.  Our  hearings
                      ndicated  that an  interim  study as
                      Dassed by the other body could not be
                      :ompleted in time. A 1-year allotment
                     will result in an incomplete  and pos-
                     sibly inaccurate study in 1975.
                       While some may say there is some
                     inequity in the allotment formula we
                      lave reported  I  want to remind you
                      ;hat needs evaluation is the only equit-
                     able basis to allot grant funds. A new
                     and  more  complete  study   will be
                     available in 14 months.
                       What we have brought to you to-
                     day is a formula for  allocation which
                     is fair to  all the States and I  urge
                     your support of H.R. 11928.
                       Mr. HARSHA. Just to elaborate on
                     the  gentleman's  statement, this allot-
                     ment  formula is only for  a 2-year
                     period. Every  2  years  we must come
                     back with a new  cost estimate and
                     therefore  a  new allotment  formula
                     will come from the  Congress  every
                     2 years.  If  you find from  past ex-
                     perience  that your  needs  have  not
                     been met,  then the next needs report
                      should reflect the additional needs of
                      your particular State.
                        I now  yield  to my friend  from
                      North  Carolina  (Mr. MIZELL),
                        Mr. MIZELL  asked and was given
                      permission to revise and extend his
                      remarks.)
                        Mr. MIZELL, Mr.  Speaker. I  want
                      to  commend  the Public  Works  Sub-
                      committee on Water  Resources for
                      the work it has done in  preparing
                      the Water Pollution Control Amend-
                      ments of 1973.
                        The subcommittee has established a
                      new formula  for allocation  of  clean
                      water  funds,  and this new formula
                      would  give my State of  North Caro-
                      lina, for  example, $24 million  more
                      than it received from this program in
                      fiscal year 1973.
                        The Senate version  of this  bill  is
                      even more generous to my State, and
                      a  majority  of other States as well,
                      and while I  fully appreciate the great
                      care  and   considerable  study   that

-------
WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
219
went into the preparation of the
House version of this bill, I must
continue to hope that the House-
Senate conference will resolve the
differences between these two for-
mulas in a way that will benefit North
Carolina and the majority of States
to the fullest possible extent.
I am proposing today a com-
promise formula that would com-
bine the House-inspired hold-harmless
provision with the Senate's needs
formula in a way that benefits 32
States over the House version, and
still provides the other 17 States a
great deal more money than they re-
ceived in fiscal 1972.
The tables showing State alloca-
tions for a $3 billion allotment under
the House formula, the Senate for-
mula, and the formula I am propos-
ing today are included in the RECORD
at this point for my colleagues' in-
formation and review.
I would hope this compromise for-
mula would receive the special con-
sideration of the Members who will
sit on the conference committee. I
am convinced this formula represents
the fairest and most equitable method
of distribution of these funds that we
could devise for these clean water
funds.
[In millions]
Senate House Mizell
version version formula
Alabama $31.92 $33.8 $44.3
Alaska 10.74 10.9 7.1
Arizona 	 16.50 17.7 23.2
Arkansas - .-. 21.15 19.4 26.6
California --- -- 369.60 383.5 312.8
Colorado --. - , 27.81 22.5 31.9
Connecticut 	 37.86 50.7 41.9
Delaware - 14.61 15.8 10.3
District of
Columbia 	 5.94 27.9 9.3
Florida 	 -. 125.70 120.0 107.0
Georgia -- 65.49 55.6 66.2
Hawaii 30.39 30.0 18.2
Idaho - 	 	 7.44 7.8 9.3
Illinois 	 175.68 183.9 164.5
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
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands 	
American Samoa __
Trust Territory 	
Pacific Island
Total

52.71 50.0 67.6
36.63 28.7 39.8
28.86 29.2 31.7
47.64 47.6 47.5
28.98 35.6 45.3
19.92 19.1 17.9
50.88 39.6 54.9
68.25 65.7 77.4
123.45 137.6 126.
47.5 46.8 52.1
22.0 22.3 29.7
65.7 54.3 67.8
6.2 7.5 9.7
14.3 15.3 19.7
14.7 13.7 10.2
24.0 25.6 15.9
190.9 185.8 132.2
8.0 10.7 13.3
326.2 357.5 281.6
65.5 51.5 70.9
4.1 6.0 8.2
153.4 141.0 152.7
39.7 34.1 38.4
25.7 24.8 29.3
139.7 162.5 161.0
13.6 15.3 14.2
45.2 40.4 42.8
4.9 7.3 8.9
43.7 38.2 52.9
82.4 105.9 134.4
14.0 12.2 15.9
8.9 8.5 8.2
79.4 71.9 71.4
45.7 47.1 48.2
26.6 27.4 26.7
46.5 42.6 58.1
3.1 4.0 5.1
1.6 2.2 .2
34.7 29.8 2.7
2.3 2.3 38.7
.5 .5 2.8
.7 .3 .2
3,000.2 2,999.9

[p. H 11632]
STATES GAINING UNDER MIZELL FORMULA
Alabama Montana
Arizona Nebraska
Arkansas New Mexico
Colorado North Carolina
Georgia North Dakota
Idaho Ohio
Indiana Oklahoma
Iowa Oregon
Kansas South Carolina
Louisiana South Dakota
Maryland Tennessee
Massachusetts Texas
Michigan Utah
Minnesota Washington
Mississippi Wyoming
Missouri

-------
220
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
  Mr.   HARSHA.  Mr.  Speaker,  I
yield to the gentleman from Califor-
nia (Mr.  DON H. CLAUSEN).
  Mr.   DON   H.   CLAUSEN.  Mr.
Speaker,  I  thank the  gentleman for
yielding to me.
  Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN asked and
was given  permission  to revise and
extend his remarks.)
   [Mr.   DON  H.   CLAUSEN  ad-
dressed the House.  His remarks will
appear  hereafter in the Extensions  of
Remarks.]
  Mr.   HARSHA.  Mr.  Speaker,  I
yield to the gentleman from Wyoming
 (Mr. RONCALIO) who is a member  of
the committee.
   (Mr.   RONCALIO  of   Wyoming
asked  and  was  given permission  to
revise and extend his remarks.)
   Mr. RONCALIO  of  Wyoming. Mr.
Speaker,  I thank the minority Mem-
ber for yielding  time  to me on this
side of the aisle.
   I might  say in  answer to the  in-
quiry  of  the gentleman from  Ohio
 (Mr. STANTON)  that I do not believe
we can look  to  international help  in
this area because  the  International
Joint Commission of the United States
and Canada  is  limited  as  to funds,
and until the very able  chairman  on
our side and his Canadian  counter-
 part  can secure the kind of adequate
 funding they need, there will be very
 little they  can do in this  connection.
 So, the bill before  us  is the  best  bet
 we  have  for this  purpose,  and  we
 hope that it can  serve to  improve
 boundary water quality between  us
 and our Canadian neighbors.
   I commend my  colleagues  on  the
 committee for this legislation.
   The  SPEAKER. The question is
 on the motion offered by the gentle-
 man from Texas (Mr. ROBERTS) that
 the House suspend the rules and pass
 the bill (H.R. 11928) as amended.
   The  question was taken; and  (two-
 thirds  having voted in favor thereof)
 the rules were suspended and the bill,
 as amended, was passed.
                        Mr.   ROBERTS.   Mr.  Speaker,  I
                      ask unanimous consent that the Com-
                      mittee on Public Works be discharged
                      from further consideration of the Sen-
                      ate bill  (S. 2812) to authorize a for-
                      mula for the allocation of funds au-
                      thorized for fiscal year 1975 for sew-
                      age  treatment  construction  grants,
                      and  for other purposes, and  ask for
                      its immediate consideration.

                         The  Clerk  read   the  title of the
                      Senate bill.
                         The  SPEAKER.  Is  there objection
                      to the request of the gentleman  from
                      Texas?

                         There was no objection.

                         The  Clerk  read the  Senate bill, as
                      follows:

                                      S. 2812
                        Be it  enacted by the  Senate  and House of
                       Representatives   of  the   United  States  of
                       America in Congress assembled,
                        Section  1.  Section  (a)  of section  205  of
                       the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,  as
                       amended  (86 Stat. 337), is amended by in-
                       serting "(1)" after "(a)"  and by adding the
                       following new paragraph:
                        "(2)   Sums authorized to be appropriated
                       for the fiscal year ending June  30, 1975, shall
                       be allotted by the Administrator among the
                       States in the following  ratio:

                            State                   Percentage
                       "Alabama 	   1.064
                        Alaska 	   .358
                        Arizona 	  	   .550
                        Arkansas 	   .705
                        California 	 	 12.320
                        Colorado 	 	   .927
                        Connecticut 	 	   1.262
                        Delaware	   .487
                        District of Columbia	   .198
                        Florida	   4.190
                        Georgia 	   2.183
                        Hawaii	   1.013
                        Idaho  	   .248
                        Illinois	   5.856
                        Indiana 	   1.757
                        Iowa	   1.221
                        Kansas	  	 	   .962
                        Kentucky	   1.688
                        Louisiana 	 	   .966
                        Maine	   .664
                        Maryland 	   1.696
                        Massachusetts 	 	   2.275
                        Michigan	   4.115
                        Minnesota	   1.582

-------
            WATER—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY
                                                                                 221
   State
Mississippi  _ _  	
Missouri  	
Montana  	.	
Nebraska	
Nevada  	
New Hampshire	
New Jersey  -  	
New Mexico	
                                Percentage
                                     .733
                                    2.191
                     __  		475
                     	    .491
                     		    .800
                     	   6.362
                     _-		    .265
 New York	  10.872
 North Carolina	   2.182
 North Dakota 	    .138
 Ohio 	   5.113
 Oklahoma 	   1.324
 Oregon  	 	    .856
 Pennsylvania  	    4.656
 Rhode Island  	    .453
 South Carolina	   1.506
 South Dakota 	 _  	    .164
 Tennessee 	 -    	    1.457
 Texas	 	   2.748
 Utah		  	 ...    .488
 Vermont	 	    .295
 Virginia  	   2.648
 Washington 			   1.524
 West Virginia	    .887
 Wisconsin	  	   1.550
 Wyoming  	 	   0.104
 Guam _ _. 	     .053
 Puerto Rico 	   1.167
 Virgin Islands	  	  	     .075
 America  Samoa 		018
 Pacific  Island Territory 	    .042"
  SEC. 2.  Subsection (b)  of section 516  of the
Federal   Water  Pollution  Control  Act,  as
amended  (86 Stat.  895), is amended  by in-
serting "(1)" after "(b)"; by striking "(1)",
"(2)", "(3)", and "(4)" and inserting in lieu
thereof  "(A)",  "(B)",   "(C)",  and  "(D)",
respectively;  and  by adding  the  following
new  paragraph:
  "(2) Notwithstanding  the second sentence
of paragraph  (1) of this subsection, the  Ad-
ministrator  shall  make   a  detailed estimate
called for  by subparagraph (B)  of such para-
graph and  shall  submit such  detailed esti-
mate to  the Congress no later  than June 30,
1974.  The  Administrator  shall require each
State to prepare an estimate of cost for such
State, and  shall  utilize the   survey form
EPA-1,  O.M.B. No.  158-R0017, prepared for
the 1973  detailed estimate, except that such
estimate shall  include all costs of compliance
with section  201(g)(2)(A)  of  this Act  or
water quality  standards established  pursuant
to section 303 of this  Act,  and all costs  of
treatment  works as  denned in section 212(2),
including  all  eligible  costs  of  constructing
sewage collection  systems  and  correcting ex-
cessive infiltration or inflow and all  eligible
costs of correcting combined storm and  sani-
tary sewer problems and treating storm water
flows. The survey form shall  be distributed  by
the Administrator to each State  no later than
January 31. 1974.".
  SEC. 3.  Subsection (a) of section 203 of the
Federal  Water  Pollution  Control  Act,  as
amended  (86 Stat.  835), is  amended  to add
at  the end  thereof  the following sentence:
"The Administrator shall approve as a project
each physical or financial phase of a treatment
works which otherwise meets the  requirements
of this Act.".
       MOTION OFFERED BY MR. ROBBETS
   Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker,  I of-
fer a motion.
   The Clerk read as follows:
  Mr. ROBERTS  moves to strike   out all  after
the enacting clause of the Senate bill S.  2812,
and  insert in  lieu thereof  the  provisions  of
H.R. 11928, as passed by the House.
   The motion was agreed to.
   The  Senate  bill was  ordered  to be
read a third time, was read the third
time, and passed.
   The  title   was amended  so  as  to
read:  "To amend  the Federal  Water
Pollution Control Act to establish the
ratio  for   allocation  of   treatment
works  construction  grant  funds,  to
insure  that  grants may be  given for
other  than   operable units,  and  to
clarify the requirements for develop-
ment of priorities."
   A  motion  to  reconsider  was  laid
on the table.
   A similar  House bill  (H.R. 11928)
was laid  on the table.
                            [p. H11633]

-------
222
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n
1.2r(3)(c)  Dec.  21:  Senate  agreed  to  House amendments  with
   amendments,  House concurred  in  Senate  amendments,  pp.
                      S 23819-S 23821, H 11946-H 11947.
SEWAGE    TREATMENT    CON-
   STRUCTION     GRANTS—MES-
   SAGE  FROM THE  HOUSE.
   Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask
the  Chair to lay before the Senate  a
message  from  the  House  of  Repre-
sentatives on S. 2812.
   The   PRESIDING  OFFICER  laid
before  the Senate the amendments  of
the  House of Representatives to the
bill   (S.  2812)  to  authorize  a  for-
mula  for  the  allocation   of  funds
authorized for  fiscal  year 1975 for
sewage treatment construction grants,
and  for other  purposes, which were
to strike  out all after the enacting
clause, and insert:
   That  (a)  subsection  (a)  of section 205  of
the  Federal Water  Pollution  Control Act  is
amended by inserting  immediately  after the
third sentence thereof  the  following new
sentence:  "For the  fiscal years  ending  June
30, 1975, and  June  30, 1976, such ratio shall
be determined  one-half on the basis of table
I  of House Public Works Committee  Print
Numbered 93-28 and one-half  on the basis  of
table II  of  such print,  except that  no  State
shall receive an allotment less than that which
it received for the  fiscal year ending June 30,
1972, as  set forth in table III  of such print.".
   (b) The last sentence of  subsection (a)
of section 205  of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act is amended by striking  out "June
30, 1974," and inserting in lieu thereof "June
30, 1976.".
   SEC. 2. Section 203  of  the Federal Water
Pollution  Control  Act is amended by adding
at the  end thereof  the following  new sub'
section:
   "(d)  Nothing in this Act shall be construed
to require,  or  to authorize the Administrator
to require, that grants under this( Act for con-
struction of treatment works be made only for
projects  which are operable units  usable  for
sewage collection, transportation, storage, waste
 treatment,  or  for  similar purposes  without
additional construction.".
   SEC. 3. Section  511  of the  Federal  Water
 Pollution Control Act  is amended  by adding
 at the  end thereof  the following new sub-
 section :
   "(d)  Notwithstanding this Act or any other
 provision of law, the  Administrator (1) shall
 not  require any State to consider  in the  de-
 velopment of the ranking in order  of priority
                          if needs for the construction of  treatment
                          yorks (as denned in title II of this  Act), any
                          .vater pollution  control  agreement which may
                          tiave been  entered into between the United
                          states and any other nation, and (2) shall not
                          consider any such agreement in the approval
                          of any such priority ranking,", amend the title
                          so as to read:  "An Act to amend the Federal
                          Water Pollution  Control Act to establish the
                          ratio for allocation  of  treatment works  con-
                          struction grant funds,  to  insure  that  grants
                          may be  given  for other than operable units,
                          tnd  to  clarify the requirements for develop-
                          nent of  priorities."

                            Mr.   MUSKIE.   Mr.   President.  I
                          move  that  the Senate concur in  the
                          House    amendments   with   certain
                          amendments which  I send to the desk.
                            The  PRESIDING  OFFICER. The
                          amendments will be stated.
                            The  assistant legislative clerk read
                          as follows:
                            On page 1, line 4  of  the text of the amend-
                          ment strike "years"  and insert in lieu thereof
                          "year" ;
                            On page 1, line 4 and  5 of the  text of the
                          amendment, strike "and  June 30,  1976.";
                            On page 2, line 2, strike "1976"  and insert
                          in lieu therof "1975" ; and
                            On page 2, after line 23, add the following
                          new section:
                            SBC. 4. Subsection (b) of section 516 of the
                          Federal  Water  Pollution  Control Act,  as
                          amended (86 Stat. 895), ia amended by insert-
                          ing  "(1)" after "(b)";  by  striking  "(1)",
                          "(2)", "(3)", and "(4)" and inserting in lieu
                          thereof  "(A)",  "(B)",  "(C)",  and  "(D)",
                          respectively; and by adding the following new
                          paragraph:
                            "(2)  Notwithstanding  the  second sentence
                          of paragraph  (1)  of this subsection, the Ad-
                          ministrator shall make a preliminary detailed
                          estimate called for  by subparagraph  (B)  of
                          such paragraph and  shall submit such pre-
                          liminary detailed estimate to  the Congress  no
                          later than September  3, 1974. The Adminis-
                          trator shall require each State to prepare  an
                          estimate of  cost for  such  State, and  shall
                                                       [p. S23819]

                          utilize  the survey form  EPA-1,  O.M.B.  No.
                          158-R0017,  prepared   for  the  1973 detailed
                          estimate,  except that such estimate shall  in-
                          clude  all  costs of  compliance with  section
                          201(g)(2)(A)  of this  Act or water  quality
                          standards  established pursuant to  section  303
                          of this  Act, and all  costs of  treatment works

-------
           WATER—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                223
as  defined in section  212(2),  including  all
eligible costs  of constructing sewage collection
systems  and  correcting excessive  infiltration
or inflow and eligible costs of correcting com-
bined storm and sanitary sewer  problems and
treating storm water flows. The survey form
shall  be distributed by the Administrator to
each  State no later than January 31, 1974.".
  Mr.  MUSKIE. Mr. President, one
week ago  today the Senate  passed
S. 2812 authorizing a formula for the
allocation  of  funds  authorized  for
fiscal year 1975 for sewage  construc-
tion  grants and  for other purposes.
  This past week the House amended
this  bill in  several significant respects.
  The  House has substituted a differ-
ent ratio for the allocation of waste-
water treatment grants. That ratio is
to be determined one-half on the basis
of table I of House  Public  Works
Committee print  No. 93-28  and one-
half on the basis of table II of such
print.  Under  this  amendment,   no
State shall receive for fiscal year 1975
an allotment less than that which it
received for the  fiscal year  ending
June 30, 1972, as  set  forth in table
III  of  the  House Public Works Com-
mittee  print.
  The   House  amendment  required
that this ratio be used for allocating
funds  for  both fiscal years  1975 and
1976.
  Mr.  President,  the  amendment.  I
propose  would limit the  use  of the
House  ratio  to fiscal year 1975 only
as was proposed in the original Sen-
ate version of S. 2812.
  The  amendment I propose  would re-
store the Senate requirement that the
Administrator  of  the  Environmental
Protection  Agency   accelerate  the
"needs" survey required under section
516 (b) of the Federal Water  Pollu-
tion Control Act of 1972. This amend-
ment  requires the  Administrator to
submit a  preliminary  detailed cost
estimate to  Congress  no  later  than
September 3, 1974. The final  results
will be expected no later than Feb-
ruary  10,  1975  as  required in sec-
tion 516 (b).
  This is a modification, as to date,
of the Senate provision, but in other
respects is similar in intent and pur-
pose to the original Senate bill. The
Administrator  need  only transmit  a
summary  of  categorized  costs  that
States submit. If the  Administrator
has time,  he may also accompany the
report with appropriate analysis and
a recommendation.
  In adopting these amendments, the
Public  Works  Committee  of  each
House  expects  the  Environmental
Protection Agency to do three things:
First, to insure an accurate estimate
of all needs for all  treatment works,
the agency should develop more de-
finitive  statements and  definitions of
which  costs  will be eligible.  Second,
the Agency  should  consult with the
Committees on Public Works of both
Houses  prior to  going forward  with
the survey. Third, the agency should
provide monthly  reports to Congress
on  the  progress of  the preliminary
detailed estimate of survey needs.
  In amending section 203 of Public
Law 92-500, the House has included
substitute  language on the issue of
phased  funding.  The  Senate   and
House amendments overrule  an er-
roneous interpretation by the Environ-
mental  Protection  Agency on  how
projects are to be funded. Presently,
the Agency limits grants for portions
of treatment works which  are "oper-
able units." As the  House and Sen-
ate  noted,  this  was  not  the intent
of  the  Congress. The difference be-
tween the  two  bills  is   related  to
whether grants are  made to financial
phases or engineering phases of proj-
ects.  The House, in  requiring that
grants  be made  for  projects  which
are operable units, narrows the Sen-
ate's  provision,  but  corrects  the
basic flaw  in Agency interpretation.
  Finally, the House  included an ad-
ditional   provision  which  prohibits
the Environmental Protection Agency
from requiring  States to establish,

-------
224
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n
in their construction  grant priority
lists, a preference for projects which
treat wastes to be discharged into in-
ternational waters.
  I recommend the Senate accept this
amendment.
  The hasic cause of the problem we
face in  fulfilling obligations to clean
up  international treaties stems from
earlier action  by this  administration.
If  the  administration had  not  im-
pounded water  pollution control al-
locations, there  could  have  been ade-
quate funds  available to  meet  our
international commitments as well as
meet the needs of the States for con-
struction  of  other  waste  treatment
facilities. The attempt by the admin-
istration  to  pressure the  States to
place international projects  at the top
of their priority list is  an unaccept-
able response  to the failure to release
adequate funds.
  The  illegal decision   to  impound
water  pollution  funds   has  created
tremendous problems. The administra-
tion is now feeling the rebound of that
action. The correct policy would be to
release the impounded allocations.

  SENATOR RANDOLPH SUPPORTS EQUIT-
     ABLE DISTRIBUTION OF WATER
          TREATMENT FUNDS
  Mr.  RANDOLPH.  Mr.  President,
the Federal Water  Pollution Control
Act which became  law  a  year  ago
committed the Federal Government to
a major  new effort to  end the  dis-
charge of pollutants into our country's
waters.
  To bring   that   commitment   into
being, the act authorized the expendi-
ture  of  substantial sums  to  assist
States and local governments in pro-
viding the physical facilities  needed
to reduce water pollution.
  The legislation before the  Senate
establishes the formula for allocating
funds among  the States  for the  con-
struction of  waste  treatment facili-
ties in  fiscal  year 1975.  Approval of
this formula was a right the Congress
                      held  to  itself  when the  act  was
                      developed.
                        Utilizing  information  as  to  the
                      needs for these facilities which has
                      been gathered by  the Environmental
                      Protection Agency, the Congress will
                      approve the formula by  which Fed-
                      eral  assistance  will  be  distributed.
                      The  bill before us makes this  alloca-
                      tion  in an equitable manner. Its  pro-
                      visions were worked  out  in meetings
                      with Members of  the House of Re-
                      presentatives.  Through this procedure
                      we have avoided the necessity for a
                      Senate-House  conference  at this late
                      date in the congressional session.
                        This bill  is a compromise  of the
                      positions  previously  taken  by  the
                      Senate and House  of Representatives.
                      The  formula provides for the  alloca-
                      tions of  half  of waste treatment
                      construction   funds  in  the manner
                      recommended  by  the Environmental
                      Protection  Agency.  The other  half
                      will  be  allocated on  the basis  of the
                      Agency's  table  3  which reflects its
                      assessment of all  categories  of na-
                      tional  needs.  No  State  will receive
                      less than it received for the 1972 fiscal
                      year, as in the House bill.
                        Mr.  President,  this legislation al-
                      locates funds only for fiscal year  1975
                      as provided in the  original Senate bill.
                      A  2-year  allocation  formula,  as
                      adopted by  the House, has  been de-
                      leted.
                        In developing this bill earlier this
                      month, the Senate Committee on  Pub-
                      lic  Works was concerned  that the
                      needs  study  of the Environmental
                      Protection Agency did not accurately
                      reflect needs.  We, therefore,  agreed
                      to require an additional  survey  next
                      year before allocating funds for fiscal
                      year 1976.
                        The bill reflects this  concern  with
                      the procedures used  for  ascertaining
                      waste treatment facility needs. It di-
                      rects the Administrator of the Agency
                      to restudy needs  and report to  the
                      Congress by September  3, 1974.  This
                      report is viewed as a preliminary ver-

-------
            WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY
                                   225
sion  of the  report  required  by  law
to be submitted on February 10, 1975.
The  September  preliminary  report
will be the  basis for  allocating  1976
funds.
  Mr. President,  this  bill is intended
to permit States  and  communities  to
meet   the  responsibilities  imposed
under  the  Federal  Water Pollution
Control Act to halt pollution.
  It  will  not be  successful, however,
so long as the  executive branch  con-
tinues  to make  impossible the  allo-
cation of all the funds  authorized.
  For fiscal  years 1973 and 1974 the
act authorized $11 billion, but only  $5
billion  was  allocated. There are  $7
billion  authorized for  fiscal  year 1975,
but  we have  been led to believe  that
a substantial portion  of this amount
also will be impounded.
  Mr.  President,  the denial  of  this
construction  authority to  the States
can seriously undermine the thrust  of
the  total  water pollution control  pro-
gram. Ambitious  goals were set in the
1972 act,  goals that are  attainable if
we  are willing  to address ourselves
to the  task. We  have the  technology
and we have the resources. The  con-
tinued  impoundment  of these  funds
by  the  administration  brings   into
doubt whether  it has the  determina-
tion  to make this program  succeed.
   Under  the  law, the allocation  for-
mula must  be  approved by the  Con-
gress before  the end of this  month.
Approval will permit  the orderly  con-
tinuation of this important program.
I urge approval of this bill.
   Mr.  DOMENICI. Mr. President, I
am  here  in  behalf   of  the  Senator
from  Tennessee   (Mr.  BAKER),  the
ranking   member of  the   committee
involved. The Sena-
                            [p.  S23820]
tor  from Tennessee  is  detained  be-
cause of transportation problems. He
has a  prepared  statement  indicating
the  consensus on the  Republican side.
We compliment the  chairman for  his
work.
  I ask unanimous  consent  that  the
statement   of   the   Senator   from
Tennessee  be printed in the  RECORD.
  The PRESIDING  OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
       STATEMENT BY SENATOR BAKER
  Mr.  President, I wish to express iny support
for  S. 2812, legislation authorizing the  alloca-
tion of Fiscal 1975 sewage construction funds.
  There are two facets of  significance in  this
legislation. This bill authorizes the distribution
of sewage treatment funds based entirely on
the needs of the states.  The needs formula is
not as generous to  some states  as was the
earlier Senate formula based partly on needs,
partly  on  population. I support  this change
because I believe that a "needs" formula, how-
ever flawed, is the proper basis for  the distri-
bution of funds under this program. It is my
expectation  that EPA and the  states will de-
velop  a more realistic needs formula in  time
for the fiscal 1976 distribution.
  The other  vital  aspect of  this bill involves
Congressional restatement of the authority for
a state to permit  phased funding  of sewage-
treatment projects. P.L.  92-500 recognized the
reasonableness of such an approach, including
language  that permits states and communities
to finance portions of projects in  any given
year,  then obtaining further funds in subse-
quent  years.
  Unfortunately, the Environmental  Protection
Agency failed to allow such "phasing". That
decision hampered the ability of many state
water pollution control agencies to develop the
most  effective  and logical control program.
Often funding of a large project prevented the
start  of construction of  other needed projects
on a State's priority list.
  This bill will rectify that EPA error and it
will  assure  states  the  ability  to  phase-fund
projects.
  While this  language is  somewhat different
from  language I introduced as  S. 1594, subse-
quently incorporated  into an earlier version
of this bill,  this new language will have the
same  impact and intent as S.  1594.
  This section will give to the States the right
and ability to seek approval—and for EPA to
grant such  approval—for 75 percent  grants
toward  a  portion  of  a  treatment  works,
whether that portion is  selected in a financial
or  physical  basis.  A community  might, for
example,  seek  initially a  grant for one-fifth
of the total cost of construction of a plant. Or
it might  seek funds  for the first  1,000  feet
of an interceptor sewer.  In  future  years, the
applicant would come back for further grants
to finish each project.
  EPA should view phasing as an opportunity

-------
226
LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
for  flexibility to get more projects  on line
more quickly, and thus to achieve our national
goal of clean water more expeditiously.
  I urge the adoption of this bill.
  The PRESIDING  OFFICER.  The
question is on agreeing to the motion
of the Senator from Maine.
  The motion was agreed to.

                          [p. S23821]
AUTHORIZING  A FORMULA FOR
  THE  ALLOCATION  OF  FUNDS
  AUTHORIZED  FOR 1975  FOR
  SEWAGE   TREATMENT  CON-
  STRUCTION GRANTS
  Mr.  ROBERTS.  Mr. Speaker,  I
ask  unanimous consent  to take from
the  Speaker's  table  the Senate  bill
(S. 2812)  to authorize a formula for
the allocation of  funds authorized for
fiscal year 1975 for sewage treatment
construction  grants,  and  for  other
purposes, with the House amendments
to the bill  and the Senate amendments
to the House amendments,  and  con-
sider  the  Senate amendments  to the
House amendments.
  The  Clerk  read  the title of  the
Senate bill.
  The Clerk read the Senate amend-
ments, as follows:
  Page 1, line 5, of  the House engrossed
amendments, strike  out  "years"  and  insert
"year".
  Page 1, lines 5 and 6, of the  House  en-
grossed amendments, strike  out  "and  June
30, 1976,".
  Page 2, line 2,  of  the House engrossed
amendments, strike  out "1976,'*."  and  insert
"1975,".".
  Page 2, after line 23,  of the  House  en-
grossed amendments,  insert:
  SEC. 4.  Subsection  (b) of section 516 of the
Federal  Water Pollution Control  Act,  as
amended  (86 Stat. 895), is  amended by  in-
serting "(1)" after "(b)"; by striking "(1)",
"(2)", "(3)", and  "(4)" and inserting in lieu
thereof "(A)", "(B)", "(C)", and  "(D)",  re-
spectively; and  by adding the following new
paragraph:
  "(2)  Notwithstanding the  second sentence
of paragraph (1)  of this subsection,  the Ad-
ministrator  shall  make  a  preliminary  de-
tailed  estimate called  for by  subparagraph
(B)  of such paragraph and shall submit such
preliminary  detailed estimate  to  the  Con-
gress  no  later than  September 3,  1974. The
Administrator  shall  require each  State to
prepare an  estimate of cost for  such  State,
                       and  shall  utilize  the  survey  form  EPA-1,
                       O.M.B.  No. 1B8-R0017, prepared for the 1973
                       detailed  estimate,  except that  such estimate
                       shall include all  costs of compliance  with
                       section  201 (g) (2) (A)  of this Act  and  water
                       Quality   standards  established   pursuant  to
                       section  303 of this Act, and all  costs of treat-
                       ment works  as defined in section 212(2),
                       including all eligible  costs  of constructing
                       sewage  collection systems  and  correcting ex-
                       cessive  infiltration or inflow and  all eligible
                       costs of correcting combined storm and  sani-
                       tary sewer problems and treating storm water
                       flows. The survey form  shall  be  distributed
                       by the  Administrator to  each  State no  later
                       than January 31, 1974.".
                          The SPEAKER. Is there  objection
                       to the request of the gentleman  from
                       Texas?
                          There was  no objection.
                          The SPEAKER.  The Chair recog-
                       nizes the gentleman from Texas  (Mr.
                       ROBERTS).
                          Mr.  ROBERTS.  Mr.   Speaker,  S.
                       2812,  as amended by  the Senate,  is
                       different  from   the  House  version
                       which  passed this  body on December
                       18,  in several rather minor respects.
                          The Senate would limit the applica-
                       tion of the allocation formula in the
                       bill for  grants  for  waste treatment
                       works for 1 year, fiscal  year  1975,
                       whereas  the House   version   would
                       have  the formula used  for 2 fiscal
                       years. This  is  not a major change
                       since  there are no authorizations  in
                       the basic water pollution  control act
                       at  this  time for  fiscal   year   1976.
                       This  is a  matter  we  will deal  with
                       next year. This  amendment requires
                       changing the date in two places.
                          The Senate also added  a  provision
                       which would  require  the  Environ-
                       mental Protection  Agency to prepare
                       with  the States  and  submit  to the
                       Congress  by September  3,  1974, an
                       interim needs study. The Federal  Wa-
                       ter Pollution Control Act requires the
                       next needs survey report to be  sub-
                       mitted in February 1975.  An interim
                       submittal in  September 1974 would  be
                       very  helpful in  our  legislative  con-
                       sideration  next year.  This  does not
                       change the requirement for EPA  to
                       i submit a  report  in  February  1975.

-------
           WATER—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                227
  My friend, Mr.  CLAUSEN,  of  Cali-
fornia, will also discuss S. 2812, as
amended. His remarks reflect the in-
tent of this legislation.
  I urge the approval of S.  2812, as
amended.
  (Mr.  ROBERTS  asked and  was
given permission  to  revise  and ex-
tend his remarks.)
  (Mr.  DON  H.  CLAUSEN  asked
and was given permission to  revise
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr.  DON  H.   CLAUSEN.   Mr.
Speaker, I rise in  support of S. 2812
as amended today by the other body.
As  you  remember, the Committee on
Public Works brought to the floor on
December 18 H.R. 11928 which  was
passed. We then  passed  a motion to
strike all after the enacting clause of
S. 2812 and inserted in lieu thereof
the provisions of our bill H.R. 11928.
  Today  the   other  body  further
amended S. 2812 and we now bring
this bill to you with the  recommenda-
tion that  you support.  This bill, as
originally passed  by this House,  pro-
vided a  formula for allocation which
would be utilized for the fiscal years
ending June 30,  1975, and June 30,
1976. The  amendment by the other
body revised this to provide  that the
allotment  formula as  passed by the
House will  be  utilized only for the
fiscal year ending June 30,1975.
  The amendment further  provides
that  the   Environmental  Protection
Agency  shall provide to  the Congress
on  September 3, 1974, a preliminary
report on the report which is due to
be submitted pursuant to the require-
ments of section 511 on  February 10,
1975. This  preliminary  report could
be  utilized  as the  basis  for allot-
ments for the fiscal year ending June
30,1976.
  It is absolutely  necessary  that the
Environmental   Protection  Agency
meet  the  September 3  report  date.
It will be  incumbent  upon  the Con-
gress to approve by law the allotment
formula  for the  fiscal  year ending
 June 30, 1976,  before  the 93d Con-
 gress adjourns.  It is anticipated that
 the  Congress could  adjourn by Octo-
 ber  1.  Any  delays  by the  Environ-
 mental Protection  Agency would  be
 unacceptable.
   We  expect the Environmental Pro-
 tection Agency to initiate immediately
 those planning steps and other actions
 necessary  to  meet the dates in this
 act. Further, we expect the Environ-
 mental Protection Agency to submit
 monthly reports defining  the  schedule
 for completion of the preliminary and
 final reports, milestones, and the prog-
 ress in meeting the milestones.
   Because the forms and procedures
 utilized by the Environmental Protec-
 tion Agency  to  develop   the  assess-
 ment of
                         [p. H11946]

 needs  are very important to  the suc-
 cess of the effort  and  because  we
 expect this report to reflect the intent
 of the  Congress, I  want to say now
 that we expect the representatives of
 the  Environmental Protection Agency
 to meet early and regularly with  our
 committee. The assessment of  needs
 is too important for  us to find possibly
 at a late date, that the  study does not
 reflect our intent.
   We  expect the Environmental Pro-
 tection Agency to take all steps neces-
 sary to include in  the September  3
 perliminary report the  needs  required
 to meet best practicable technology.
 We also expect  the Environmental
 Protection Agency to coordinate very
 closely with  the States to incorporate
 the  needs required to meet new water
| quality standards. We  recognize that
 the  regulations for these new water
 quality standards might  not be pro-
 mulgated  until  next summer.  How-
 ever, the proposed regulations will be
 available and they  should be utilized
 for  the determination of  needs when-
 ever possible. We heard  during  our
 recent  hearings that such a prelimi-
 nary report would  impact  upon  the

-------
228
        LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n
quality  of  the report due  February
10, 1975. We recognize this possibility
but hope it will not be the  case. We,
therefore,  urge  the  Environmental
Protection  Agency  to evaluate the
time requirements for submitting the
February 10,  1975, report. I want to
say  now  that we  would be  willing
to consider a  reasonable extension of
this  date if the  Environmental  Pro-
tection Agency believes it is necessary.
If such an extension would assure a
report   of   the   highest   quality,
thoroughness,   and  accuracy,  I am
sure  there will  be  no difficulty in
extending  the dates next fall  at the
same time the allotment formula for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976,
is established.
  I want  to caution the  States that
they  must immediately initate their
efforts to provide the information and
data  necessary to thoroughly and ac-
curately report their  needs. We will
not  look favorably upon excuses by
the States that they were  not ready
or did not submit  all of  their needs.
Remember, the basis for allotment for
                             fiscal year ending June 30, 1976, could
                             be the  preliminary report which must
                             must be submitted on September 3.
                               Alltoments for the  fiscal year end-
                             ing June 30, 1977, and June 30, 1978,
                             will  be based upon the February 10,
                             1975, final  report. The States  now
                             have the task of developing  the in-
                             formation and data upon which allot-
                             ments  will  be based  for the next 3
                             fiscal years.  The joint  task  by the
                             States and  the Environmental  Pro-
                             tection Agency must  be complete and
                             thorough.
                               I  am sure  my remarks  reflect the
                             view of our full committee  and I urge
                             you  to  support S.  2812 as amended.
                                MOTION OFFERED BY MR. ROBERTS
                               Mr.   ROBERTS.  Mr.  Speaker,  I
                             offer a motion.
                               The Clerk read as follows :
                               Mr. ROBERTS moves that the House concur
                             in the Senate amendments  to the House amend-
                             ments.
                               The  Senate  amendments  to  the
                             House amendments were concurred in.
                             A motion to  reconsider was  laid on
                             the table.
                                                     [p. H11947]
 Sec.
 1001.
 1002.

 1003.
 1004.
 1004a.
 1005.
       POLLUTION OF THE  SEA BY OIL

Definitions.
Prohibition  against  discharge  of  oil or  oily mixtures;  permissible
  discharges; regulations.
Excepted discharges; securing  safety of ship; prevention of damage
  to ship or cargo; saving life;  damaged ship or unavoidable leakage;
  residue from purification or clarification.
Excepted discharges; oily mixtures from bilges.
United  States tankers;  construction  standards  [New].
  (a) Tank  arrangement  and tank  size limitation  pursuant  to
        provisions of annex C to  the convention; building contracts
        placed on or after effective date.
  (b) Same;  building contracts placed or keel laid  before effective
        date.
  (c) Domestic tankers without certificate of compliance or exemption
        prohibited from engaging in domestic or foreign trade.
  (d) Foreign tankers  with foreign  registry but without certificate
        of compliance;  consultation with  foreign government; denial
        of access.
  (e) Foreign tankers  without foreign registry;  denial of access.
Penalties for violations; liability of vessel.

-------
          WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      229

Sec.
1006.  Repealed.
1007.  Personnel  for enforcement  of provisions;  arrest of offenders and
        procedure;  ship fittings and equipment;  civil penalty.
1008.  Oil record book.
         (a) Printing; regulations by Secretary.
         (b) Book supplied without charge; inspection and surrender.
         (c) Operations requiring recordation.
         (d) Entries; signatures.
         (e) Rules and regulations.
         (f) Penalties.
1009.  Regulations.
1010.  Boarding of ships; production of records; evidence of violations  by
        foreign ships.
1011.  Repealed.
1012.  Repealed.
1013.  Appropriations.
1014.  Effect on other laws.
1015.  Repealed.
1016.  Effective date of 1973 Amendments [New],
         (a) General provision.
         (b) Savings provision.
         (c) Special provision.

  §  1001.  Definitions
  As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires—
  (a) The term  "convention" means the International Conven-
tion for the Prevention of the Pollution  of the  Sea by  Oil,  1954,
as amended;
  (b) The term "discharge" in relation  to oil or to an  oily mix-
ture means any discharge or escape howsoever caused ;
  (c) The term "instantaneous rate of discharge of oil content"
means the rate of discharge of oil in liters  per hour at any in-
stant divided by the speed of the ship in  knots at  the  same
instant;
  (d) The term  "heavy diesel oil" means diesel oil, other than
those distillates of which more than 50  per centum, by volume
distills at a temperature not exceeding three hundred and  forty
degrees  centigrade when tested by American  Society  for  Test-
ing and Materials standard method D. 86/59;
  (e) The term  "mile"  means a  nautical mile of six  thousand
and eighty feet  or one thousand  eight hundred  and   fifty-two
meters;
  (f) The term "oil" means crude oil,  fuel  oil, heavy  diesel oil,
and lubricating oil,  and "oily"  shall be construed  accordingly;
an "oily mixture" means a mixture with any oil content;
  (g) The term "person" means an individual, partnership, cor-

-------
230          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

poration, or association; and any owner, operator, agent, master,
officer, or employee or a  ship;
  (h)  The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of the depart-
ment in which the Coast Guard is operating;
  (i) The term "ship",  subject to  the exceptions  provided in
paragraph (1)  of  this subsection, means  any seagoing vessel of
any type whatsoever of American registry or nationality, includ-
ing floating craft, whether self-propelled or towed by another ves-
sel making a sea voyage; and "tanker", as a type included within
the term "ship", means a ship in which the greater part of the
cargo space is  constructed or  adapted for the carriage of liquid
cargoes in bulk and which is not,  for the time being, carrying
a cargo other than oil in that part of its cargo space.
  (1)  The following categories  of vessels are excepted from all
provisions of this  chapter:
       (i)  tankers of under one hundred  anf fifty gross tonnage
     and other  ships of under five hundred tons  gross tonnage.
       (ii) ships for the  time being  engaged in the whaling in-
     dustry when actually employed on whaling operations.
       (iii) ships  for the  time being  navigating the Great Lakes
     of North America and their connecting and tributary waters
     as far east as the lower exit of Saint Lambert  lock at Mon-
     treal in the Province  of Quebec, Canada.
       (iv)  naval  ships and ships for the  time  being used as
     naval auxiliaries.
   (j)  The term "from the nearest land" means from the baseline
from which the  territorial sea of the territory in question  is
established in  accordance with the  Geneva Convention on the
Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, 1958; except that, for
the  purpose of this  chapter "from the  nearest land"  off the
northeastern coast of Australia  means a line drawn  from a point
on the coast of Australia in latitude 11 degrees south, longitude
142  degrees 08 minutes  east  to a point in latitude 10 degrees
35 minutes south,  longitude 141  degrees 55 minutes east—
  thence  to a point latitude 10  degrees 00 minutes  south, longi-
tude 142 degrees 00 minutes east;
  thence  to a point latitude 9  degrees 10  minutes  south, longi-
tude 143  degrees 52 minutes east;
   thence to a  point latitude 9  degrees 00  minutes  south, longi-
tude 144  degrees 30 minutes east;
  thence  to a point latitude 13  degrees 00 minutes  south, longi-
tude 144  degrees 00 minutes east;
  thence  to a point latitude 15  degrees 00  minutes  south, longi-
tude 146  degrees 00 minutes east;

-------
         WATER—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY      231

  thence to a point latitude  18 degrees 00 minutes south, longi-
tude 147 degrees  00 minutes  east;
  thence to a point latitude  21 degrees 00 minutes south, longi-
tude 153 degrees 00 minutes east;
  thence to  a point  on the coast of Australia  in latitude 24
degrees 42 minutes south, longitude 153 degrees 15 minutes east.
As amended Pub.L. 93-119, § 2(1), Oct. 4, 1973, 87 Stat. 424.

  § 1002.  Prohibition against discharge of oil or oily mixtures;
permissible discharges
  Subject to the provisions  of sections 1003  and  1004 of this
title, the discharge of oil  or oily mixture  from  a ship is  pro-
hibited unless—
       (a)  the ship is proceeding en route; and
       (b)  the instantaneous rate of discharge  of oil content
    does not exceed sixty liters per mile, and
       (c) (1) for a ship, other than a tanker—
           (i)  the oil content of the discharge is less  than one
         hundred parts per one million parts of the mixture, and
           (ii) the discharge is made as far as practicable from
         the nearest land;
       (2)  for a tanker,  except discharges from machinery space
    bilges which shall be  governed by the above provisions for
    ships other than  tankers—
           (i)  the total quantity  of  oil discharged on  a  ballast
         voyage does not  exceed one fifteen-thousandths  of the
         total cargo-carrying capacity, and
           (ii) the tanker is  more  than fifty  miles  from  the
         nearest land.
Pub.L. 87-167, § 3, Aug. 30, 1961, 75 Stat.  402; Pub.L. 89-551,
§ 1(3), Sept. 1, 1966, 80 Stat. 373, and amended,  Oct. 4, 1973,
Pub.L. 93-119, 32(2), 87 Stat. 425.

  §  1003.   Excepted discharges; securing safety of ship; preven-
tion of damage to ship  or cargo; saving life;  damaged ship or
unavoidable leakage
  Section 1002 of this title  does  not apply to—
       (a)  the discharge of  oil or oily mixture from a ship for
    the  purpose of  securing the safety of a ship,  preventing
     damage to a ship or  cargo, or saving life at sea; or
       (b) the escape of oil, or of oily mixture, resulting from
     damage to a ship or  unavoidable leakage, if all reasonable
     precautions  have been  taken after the  occurrence  of the

-------
232          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

    damage or discovery of the leakage for the purpose of pre-
    venting or minimizing the escape.
       (c)  Repealed. Pub.L.  93-119,  §  2(3)(C), Oct.  4, 1973, 87
    Stat. 425.
As  amended  Pub.L 93-119,  § 2(3),  Oct.  4, 1973, 87 Stat. 425.

  § 1004.  Excepted discharges; tanker ballast from cargo tank
  Section 1002 of this title does not apply to the discharge of
tanker ballast  from a cargo tank which, since the cargo  was
last carried therein, has been so cleaned that  any effluent there-
from, if it were  discharged  from a stationary tanker into clean
calm water on a clear day, would produce no  visible traces of
oil on the surface of the water.
As amended Pub.L. 93-119,  § 2(4), Oct. 4,  1973, 87 Stat. 425.

  § 1004a.  United States  tankers;  construction standards—
Tank arrangement and tank size limitation pursuant to provi-
sions of annex C to the convention; building contracts placed on
or after effective date
  (a)  Every tanker to which this chapter applies and built in
the United States and for which the building contract is  placed
on  or after the effective date of this section shall be  constructed
in accordance with the provisions of annex C to the convention,
relating to tank arrangement and limitation of tank size.
         Same; building  contracts or keel laid before effective date
  (b)  Every tanker to which this chapter applies and built in
the United States and for which the building contract is placed,
or  in the  absence  of  a building contract the keel of which  is
laid or which  is at a similar  state  of construction, before the
effective date of this  section, shall, within two years after  that
date, comply with  the provisions of annex C  of the convention
if—
       (1) the delivery of the tanker is after January 1,  1977; or
       (2) the delivery of the tanker  is not later than  January
     1,  1977, and the  building  contract is placed after  January
     1,  1972, or  in cases where no building  contract has  pre-
     viously been placed, the keel is laid  or  the tanker is  at  a
     similar stage of construction, after June 30, 1972.
      Domestic tankers without certificate of compliance or exemption
          prohibited from engaging in domestic or foreign trade
   (c)  A tanker  required under this  section to be constructed in
accordance with annex C to the convention and so  constructed
shall carry on  board a certificate issued  by the Secretary attest-

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      233

ing to that compliance. A tanker which is  not required to be
constructed in accordance with annex  C to the convention shall
carry on board  a certificate to that effect issued by the  Secre-
tary,  or if a tanker  does comply with annex C though not re-
quired to do so, she may carry on board a certificate issued by
the Secretary attesting to that  compliance.  Tankers  under the
flag of the  United States are prohibited from engaging in domes-
tic or foreign  trade without  an appropriate  certificate  issued
under this  section.
  Foreign tankers with foreign registry but without certificate of compliance;
          consultation with foreign government; denial of access
  (d) Certificates issued to foreign tankers pursuant to the con-
vention by other nations party thereto shall be accepted by the
Secretary as of the same force as certificates issued by him. If
the Secretary  has clear grounds for  believing that a  foreign
tanker  required  under the convention  to be constructed  in ac-
cordance with annex C entering ports of the  United  States or
using offshore terminals under United  States control does not in
fact   comply with  annex  C, he may  request  the Secretary of
State to seek consultation with the government with which the
tanker is registered. If after consultation or otherwise, the Secre-
tary  is satisfied that such tanker does not  comply with annex
C, he may for this reason deny  such  tanker access to ports of
the United States  or to offshore terminals under United States
control until such time  as  he is satisfied that the tanker has
been  brought into compliance.
        Foreign tankers without foreign registry; denial of access
   (e) If the Secretary is  satisfied that any other foreign  tanker
which,  if registered in a country party to the convention, would
be required to be constructed  in  accordance with annex C, does
not in fact comply with the standards  relating to tank arrange-
ment and limitation of tank size of annex C, then he may  deny
such  tanker access to ports of the United States or to offshore
terminals under United States control.
Pub.L.  87-167, § 6, as added Pub.L. 93-119, § 2(5), Oct. 4, 1973,
87 Stat. 425.

   §  1005.  Penalties for violations—Criminal penalties for will-
ful violations; separate violations
   (a) Any person who willfully discharges oil or  oily mixture
from a ship in violation of this chapter or the regulations there-
under shall  be  fined not more than  $10,000 for each  violation
or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

-------
234           LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

        Civil penalties for willful or negligent and other violations;
                        separate violations
   (b)  In addition to any other penalty prescribed by law any
person  who  willfully or negligently discharges oil or oily mix-
ture from a ship in  violation of this chapter or any regulation
thereunder shall be  liable to  a civil  penalty of not  more than
than $10,000 for each violation, and  any person who otherwise
violates this chapter  or any regulation thereunder  shall be liable
to a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each violation.
                      Liability of vessel; venue
   (c) A  ship from which oil  or oily mixture  is  discharged in
violation  of  this chapter  or any regulation thereunder is liable
for any pecuniary penalty under this section  and may  be pro-
ceeded against in the district court of any district in which the
vessel may be found.
Administrative proceedings: assessment of  civil penalties;  remission, miti-
    gation, or compromise of  any penalty; notice and hearing; judicial pro-
    ceedings:  civil  actions by Attorney General for collection  of penalties;
    trial de novo
   (d)  The Secretary may assess  any civil penalty incurred un-
der this chapter  or  any  regulation thereunder and,  in his dis-
cretion, remit, mitigate, or compromise any penalty. No penalty
may be assessed  unless the alleged violator shall have  been given
notice and the opportunity to be  heard on the  alleged violation.
Upon any failure to  pay a  civil penalty  assessed  under this
chapter,  the Secretary may  request the  Attorney General  to
institute  a civil  action to collect the penalty.  In  hearing such
action, the district court shall have authority to  review the viola-
tion and the assessment of the civil penalty de novo.
Pub.L.  87-167, § 7,  formerly § 6, Aug.  30,  1961,  75 Stat. 403,
renumbered  and amended Pub.L. 93-119,  §  2(6),  Oct. 4, 1973,
87 Stat. 426.

   §  1006.  Suspension  or revocation  of license   of  officers  of
offending vessels
  Pub.L. 93-119, §  2(7),  Oct.  4, 1973, 87
Stat. 427, renumbered section  7 to be 8 of
Pub.L. 87-167, Aug. 30,1961, 75 Stat. 403.

   § 1007. Personnel for enforcement of  provisions; arrest  of
offenders and procedure; ship fittings and equipment
   (a)  In the administration  of sections 1001  to  1010  of this
title, the  Secretary may  utilize by agreement,  with  or without

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      235

reimbursement, law enforcement officers or other personnel, fa-
cilities,  or equipment of other  Federal  agencies  or the States.
For  the  better enforcement of  the provisions of said  sections,
officers of the Coast Guard and other persons employed by or
acting under the  authority of the  Secretary shall  have  power
and  authority and it shall be their duty  to  swear out process
and to arrest and take into custody,  with or without process, any
person who may violate any of said provisions:  Provided, That
no person  shall be arrested without process for  a violation not
committed in the presence of  some one of  the aforesaid officials:
And provided further, That whenever any arrest is made under
the provisions of  said sections  the person so arrested shall be
brought forthwith before a commissioner,  judge,  or court of the
United States for  examination of  the offenses  alleged against
him; and such commissioner, judge, or court shall proceed in
respect thereto as authorized  by law in  cases of  crimes against
the United States.  Representatives  of the  Secretary and  of the
Coast Guard of the United States may go on board and inspect
any  ship as may be necessary for enforcement of this chapter.
  (b) To implement article VII  of the convention,  ship fittings
and  equipment, and operating requirements thereof, shall be in
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
Pub.L. 87-167, § 9, formerly § 8, Aug. 30, 1961, 75 Stat. 403,
renumbered and amended Pub.L. 93-119,  § 2(8), Oct. 4, 1973,
87 Stat. 427.

  §  1008.  Oil record book—Printing; regulations by Secretary
  (a) The Secretary shall have printed separate oil record books,
containing instructions  and spaces for inserting information in
the form prescribed by the Convention, which shall  be  published
in regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
          Book supplied without charge, inspection and surrender.
  (b) If  subject to this chapter, every  ship  using  oil fuel and
every tanker shall be provided, without  charge, an  oil  record
book which shall be carried on board. The provisions of section
140 of Title 5 shall not apply.  The ownership of the booklet shall
remain  in the United  States Government. This book  shall be
available for inspection as provided in this chapter  and for sur-
render to the United States Government pursuant to regulations
of the Secretary.
  (c) The oil record book shall  be completed on each occasion,
on a tank-to-tank basis, whenever  any  of the following  opera-
tions take place in the ship:

-------
236          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n

       (1)  for tankers—
           (i) loading of oil cargo;
           (ii) transfer of oil cargo during voyage;
           (iii)  discharge of oil cargo;
           (iv)  ballasting of cargo tanks;
           (v) cleaning of cargo tanks;
           (vi)  discharge of dirty ballast;
           (vii) discharge of water from slop tanks;
           (viii) disposal of residues;
           (ix) discharge overboard of bilge water containing oil
         which has accumulated  in machinery spaces  while in
         port, and  the  routine  discharge at  sea  of  bilge  water
         containing oil  unless the latter has been entered  in the
         appropriate logbook;
       (2)  for ships other than tankers—
           (i) ballasting or cleaning of bunker fuel tanks;
           (ii) discharge of dirty ballast or cleaning water from
         bunker fuel tanks;
           (iii)  disposal of residues;
           (iv)  discharge overboard  of bilge water containing
         oil which  has accumulated  in  machinery spaces while
         in port, and the routine discharge at sea of bilge water
         containing oil  unless the latter has been entered  in the
         appropriate logbook. In the event of such discharge or
         escape  of  oil or oily mixture  as is  referred to in section
         1003 of this title, a statement  shall be made in the oil
         record  book of  the circumstances of, and reason  for,
         the discharge or escape.

                        Entries; signatures
   (d)  Each operation described in subsection  (c)  of this section
shall be fully recorded without delay in the oil  record book so
that all the entries in the book  appropriate to that operation are
completed. Each page of the book  shall be signed by the officer or
officers in charge of the operations concerned and, when the ship
is manned, by the master of the ship.

                       Rules and regulations
   (e)  Oil  record books shall be  kept in such manner and for
such length of time as  set forth in the regulations prescribed by
the Secretary.
   (f)  Repealed. Pub.L. 93-119, §  2(9) (C), Oct. 4, 1973, 87 Stat.
428. Pub.L. 87-167, § 10, formerly, § 9, Aug. 30, 1961, 75 Stat.
404, amended Pub.L. 89-551, §  1(6), Sept.  1, 1966, 80 Stat. 374,

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      237

renumbered and amended Pub.L. 93-119, § 2(9), Oct. 4, 1973, 87
Stat. 427.

  § 1009.  Regulations
  The Secretary may make regulations for the administration of
sections 1002, 1003, 1004, 1004a,  1005,  1007, and 1008 of this
title.
Pub.L. 87-167,  §  11,  formerly §  10, Aug. 30,  1961, 75 Stat.
404, amended Pub.L. 89-551, § 1(7), Sept. 1, 1966, 80 Stat. 375,
renumbered and amended Pub.L. 93-119, § 2(10), Oct. 4, 1973,
87 Stat. 428.

  § 1010.  Boarding of ships; production of records; evidence of
violations by foreign ships
   (a)  The  Secretary may  make  regulations empowering  such
persons as may be  designated to go on board any ship to which
the convention applies, while the  ship  is  within  the territorial
jurisdiction of the  United States, and to  require production of
any records  required to  be kept in accordance  with the con-
vention.
   (b)  Should evidence be  obtained  that a  ship  registered in
another country party to the convention  has discharged  oil in
violation of the  convention but outside the territorial sea of the
United States such evidence should be  forwarded to the State
Department for  action in accordance with article X  of the con-
vention.
Pub.L. 87-167, § 12, formerly § 11, Aug. 30, 1961, 75 Stat. 404,
renumbered and amended Pub.L. 93-119,  § 2(11), Oct. 4, 1973,
87 Stat. 428.
   § 1011.  Repealed. Pub.L. 93-119, § 2(12), Oct. 4, 1973, 87 Stat.
428
   § 1012. Repealed. Pub.  L. 89-551, § 1(9), Sept. 1, 1966, 80 Stat.
375
   § 1013.  Appropriations
  Pub.L. 93-119, §  2(13), Oct. 4, 1973, 87 of Pub.L. 87-167, Aug.
30, 1961, 75  Stat. Stat. 428 renumbered  section 14 to be 13 407.
   § 1014.  Effect on other laws
   Nothing in this chapter or in regulations issued hereunder shall
be construed to  modify or amend  the provisions  of section 1321
of this title or of section  89 of Title 14.
Pub.L. 87-167, § 15, formerly § 16, Aug. 30,  1961, 75 Stat. 407,
renumbered and amended Pub.L. 93-119,  § 2(14), Oct. 4, 1973,
87 Stat. 428.

-------
238          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

  § 1015.   Repealed. Pub.L. 93-119, § 2(15), Oct. 4, 1973, 87 Stat.
428

  § 1016.   Effective date of 1973 Amendments—General provision
  (a) Except as provided in subsection  (c)  of this section, this
amending Act is effective upon the date of its enactment or upon
the date amendments  to  the International  Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution of the  Sea by  Oil,  1954, as  amended,
adopted by the  Assembly  of the Inter-Governmental  Maritime
Consultative Organization on October 21,  1969, October 12, 1971,
and October 15, 1971, are ratified or accepted with the  advice
and consent  of the  Senate of the United States, whichever  is
the later date.

                        Savings provision
  (b) Any rights  or liabilities existing on the  effective date  of
this Act shall not  be affected by the enactment of this  Act. Any
regulations or procedures  promulgated or effected pursuant  to
this chapter, as previously amended, remain  in effect until modi-
fied  or superseded  under  the  authority of this chapter,  as
amended by  this Act.  Any reference  to  the International Con-
vention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954,
in any  law or regulation shall be  deemed to be a reference  to
the convention as  revised or amended by the latest amendments
in respect of  which the United States has  deposited an instru-
ment of ratification or acceptance.

                        Special provision
  (c) Notwithstanding the foregoing  provisions of this section,
subsections (d)  and (e) of section  1004a of this  title, shall be
effective upon the date of their enactment or upon the date the
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution  of the
Sea by  Oil, 1954, as  amended by the amendments adopted  by the
Assembly of the Inter-Govermental Marine Consultative Organi-
zation  on  October  15, 1971, enters into force pursuant  to  article
XVI of that convention, as amended, whichever is later; and no au-
thority shall be exercised pursuant to  article VI  bis (3) and (4)
of such amendments prior to the effective date of such subsec-
tions.
Pub.L. 93-119, § 3, Oct. 4, 1973, 87 Stat.  428.

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY      239

1.3c Oil Pollution Act Amendments of 1973

               October 4,1973, P.L. 93-119, 87 Stat. 424.

                           An Act
To amend the Oil  Pollution Act,  1961  (75 Stat. 402), as amended,  to
  implement the 1969 and 1971 amendments to the International Convention
  for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by  Oil, 1954, as amended; and
  for other purposes.

  Be it enacted by the Senate and House  of Representatives  of
the United States of America  in Congress assembled, That this
Act may be cited as the "Oil Pollution Act Amendments of 1973".
  SEC. 2. The Oil Pollution Act, 1961 (75 Stat.  402), as amended
(33 U.S.C.  1001-1015), is amended as follows:
  (1) Section 2 (33 U.S.C. 1001)  is amended—
       (A) by repealing subsection (g);
       (B)  by redesignating subsections (c), (d),  (e), and (f),
    as subsections (d), (e), (f), and (g), respectively;
       (C)  by adding a new subsection (c) to read:
  "(c)  The  term 'instantaneous  rate  of  discharge of oil  con-
tent' means  the rate of discharge of oil  in liters  per hour  at
any  instant  divided by the speed of  the  ship in knots  at the
same instant;";
       (D) in subsection (c) (redesignated (d) by subparagraph
     (B) of this paragraph):
           (1)  by deleting the word "marine";  and
           (2)  by deleting the words "American Society for the
        the  Testing of Materials" and substituting therefor the
        words "American Society for Testing and Materials";
       (E) in subsection (e)  (redesignated (f)  by subparagraph
     (B) of this paragraph)  by changing  the  period to a semi-
    colon at the end of the first sentence thereof and by amend-
    ing the second sentence to read "an 'oily  mixture' means a
    mixture  with  any oil content;";
       (F) by amending subsection (h) to  read "The term  'Secre-
    tary'  means the  Secretary of the department in which the
    Coast  Guard is operating;"; and
       (G) in subsection  (j) by  changing  the  period to a semi-
    colon and  by  adding the  following to the sentence: "except
    that, for the purpose of this Act 'from the nearest land' off
    the northeastern coast of Australia means a line drawn from
    a point on  the coast of Australia in latitude 11 degrees south,
    longitude 142 degrees 08  minutes east to a point in latitude

-------
240          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

    10 degrees 35 minutes south, longitude 141 degrees 55 min-
utes east—
      "thence to a point latitude 10 degrees 00 minutes south,
    longitude 142 degrees 00 minutes east;
      "thence to a  point latitude 9 degrees 10 minutes south,
    longitude 143  degrees  52 minutes  east;
      "thence to a point latitude 9 degrees 00 minutes south,
    longitude 144 degrees 30 minutes east;
      "thence to a point latitude 13 degrees 00 minutes south,
    longitude 144 degrees 00 minutes east;
      "thence to a point latitude 15 degrees 00 minutes south,
    longitude 146 degrees 00 minutes east;
      "thence to a point latitude 18 degrees 00 minutes south,
    longitude 147 degrees 00 minutes east;
      "thence to a point latitude 21 degrees 00 minutes south,
    longitude 153 degrees 00 minutes east;
      "thence to a  point on  the coast  of Australia  in  latitude
    24 degrees 42 minutes south, longitude 153 degrees  15 min-
utes east.".
                                                        [p. 1]
  (2) Section 3  (33 U.S.C. 1002) is amended to read  as  follows:
  "SEC. 3.  Subject to the provisions of sections 4 and 5,  the  dis-
charge of oil or oily mixture from a ship is prohibited unless—
      "(a) the ship is proceeding en route; and
      "(b) the instantaneous rate of discharge  of  oil  content
    does not exceed sixty liters per mile, and
      "(c) (1) for a ship, other than a tanker—
           "(i)  the oil  content of the discharge  is less than  one
        hundred parts  per one million parts of the mixture,  and
           "(ii) the discharge is made as far as practicable from
        the nearest land;
      "(2) for a tanker, except discharges from machinery space
    bilges  which shall  be governed by the above  provisions  for
    ships other than tankers—
           "(i)  the total quantity of oil  discharged on a ballast
        voyage does not exceed one  fifteen-thousandths of  the
        total cargo-carrying capacity, and
           "(ii)  the  tanker is  more than fifty  miles from  the
        nearest land.".
  (3) Section 4  (33 U.S.C. 1003) is amended—
       (A) by changing the word "shall" to  "does"  in the in-
    troductory clause thereof;

-------
         WATER—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      241

       (B) by changing the  semicolon to a period at the end of
    subsection (b) thereof; and
       (C) by repealing subsection  (c) thereof.
   (4)  Section 5 (33 U.S.C. 1004) is amended to read as follows:
  "SEC. 5. Section 3 does not apply to  the  discharge of tanker
ballast from a cargo tank which, since  the  cargo was  last car-
ried therein, has  been so  cleaned that any effluent therefrom, if
it  were discharged from a  stationary  tanker into clean calm
water on a clear day, would produce no visible traces  of oil on the
surface of the water.".
   (5) Insert a new section 6, to read as follows, following section
5:  "SBC.  6.  (a)  Every tanker to  which this Act  applies and
built in the  United States and for which the building contract is
placed on or after the effective date of this section shall be con-
structed in accordance with  the provisions of annex C to  the
convention,  relating to  tank  arrangement and limitation of tank
size.
  "(b)  Every tanker to which this Act applies and  built in the
United States and for which the building contract is placed, or in
the absence of a building contract  the  keel of which is  laid or
which  is at a similar state of construction, before the effective
date of this section, shall, within two years after  that date, com-
ply with the provisions of annex C of the convention if—
       "(1)  the delivery of the tanker is after January 1, 1977; or
       "(2)  the delivery of the tanker is not later than January
    1, 1977, and  the building contract  is placed after January
    1, 1972, or in cases where no building contract has previously
    been  placed, the keel is  laid or the tanker is at a  similar
    stage of construction, after June 30, 1972.
   "(c)  A tanker  required under  this section to be constructed
in  accordance with annex C to the convention and so constructed
shall carry on board a  certificate issued by the Secretary attest-
ing to that compliance. A tanker  which is not  required to  be
constructed in accordance with annex C to the convention shall
carry on board a certificate to that effect issued by the Secretary,
or if a tanker does comply with annex C though  not required to
do so, she may carry on board a certificate issued by the Secretary
attesting  to that  compliance. Tankers   under the  flag  of  the
United States are prohibited from engaging in domestic or foreign
trade without an appropriate certificate issued under  this section.
                                                        [p.  2]
  "(d)  Certificates  issued to foreign tankers pursuant  to  the
convention by other nations party thereto shall be  accepted  by

-------
242          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

the Secretary as of the same force as certificates issued by him. If
the Secretary has clear gounds for believing that a foreign tanker
required under  the  convention to be  constructed  in accordance
with annex C entering ports of the United States or using off-
shore terminals under United States control does not in fact com-
ply with annex C, he may request the Secretary of State to seek
consultation with  the government with  which the tanker is  re-
gistered. If after consultation or otherwise, the Secretary is satis-
fied that such tanker  does not comply  with  annex C, he may
for this reason  deny such  tanker access to ports  of the United
States or to offshore terminals under United States control until
such time as he is satisfied that the tanker has been brought into
compliance.
  "(e) If the Secretary is satisfied that any other foreign tanker
which, if registered in a country party to the convention, would
be required to be constructed in accordance with annex  C, does
not in fact comply with the standards relating to  tank arrange-
ment and limitation of tank  size of annex  C,  then he may deny
such tanker access to  ports of the United  States  or to offshore
terminals under United States control."
  (6) Section 6  (33 U.S.C. 1005) is renumbered section 7 and is
amended to read as  follows:
  "SEC. 7. (a) Any person who willfully discharges  oil or oily
mixture from a ship in violation of this Act  or the regulations
thereunder shall be fined  not more than $10,000 for each viola-
tion or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
  "(b)  In addition to  any other penalty prescribed by law any
person who willfully or negligently discharges  oil or oily mixture
from a ship in violation of this Act or any  regulation thereunder
shall  be liable to  a civil penalty of not more than $10,000  for
each violation, and any person who otherwise violates this Act or
any regulation thereunder shall be liable to a civil  penalty of  not
more than $5,000 for each violation.
  "(c)  A ship from which oil or oily mixture is  discharged in
violation of this Act or any regulation  thereunder is  liable  for
any pecuniary penalty under this section and may be  proceeded
against in the district court of any district in which the vessel
may be found.
  "(d)  The Secretary may assess any civil  penalty  incurred
under this Act or any regulation thereunder and, in his discretion,
remit, mitigate, or compromise any penalty. No penalty may be
assessed unless  the  alleged violator  shall have been given notice
and the opportunity to be heard on the alleged violation. Upon

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      243

any failure  to pay  a civil penalty assessed under this Act, the
Secretary may request the Attorney General to institute a civil
action to collect  the penalty. In hearing such action,  the district
court shall have  authority to review the violation and the assess-
ment of the civil penalty de novo."
  (7) Section 7 is renumbered section 8.
  (8) Section 8 (33 U.S.C. 1007)  is renumbered section  9 and
is amended—
      (A) in subsection  (a)  by amending the  first  sentence to
    read as follows: "In  the administration of  sections 1-12 of
    this  Act, the Secretary may  utilize by agreement, with or
    without  reimbursement,  law  enforcement officers or other
    personnel, facilities, or equipment of other  Federal agencies
    or the States,";
      (B) in subsection  (a) by amending the  first part of the
    second  sentence which precedes the first use of  the word
     "shall"  to  read: "For the better  enforcement of the pro-
    visions  of  said sections,  officers  of  the Coast  Guard  and
    other persons employed by or acting under the authority of the
    Secretary";
                                                        [p. 3]

      (C) in subsection  (a) by deleting  from the last sentence
    thereof the  words "Bureau of Customs and"  and the  words
    "in a prohibited zone or in a port of the United States";
    and
      (D) in subsection (b)  by  deleting in the first sentence
    thereof the  words "of the  Department in which the Coast
    Guard is operating" and  by  deleting the  second sentence
    thereof in its entirety.
  (9) Section 9 (33 U.S.C. 1008) is renumbered  section 10  and is
amended—
      (A) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
  "(c) The  oil record book shall be completed on each occasion,
on a ^ank-to-tank basis, whenever any of the following operations
take place in the ship:
      "(1)  for tankers—
          "(i) loading of oil  cargo;
          "(ii)  transfer of oil cargo during voyage;
          " (iii) discharge of oil cargo;
          "(iv) ballasting of cargo tanks;
          "(v)  cleaning of cargo tanks;
          "(vi) discharge of  dirty ballast;
          "(vii) discharge of water from slop tanks;

-------
244          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

           "(viii) disposal of residues;
           "(ix)  discharge overbroad of bilge water  containing
        oil which has accumulated in machinery spaces while in
        port, and the routine discharge at sea of bilge water
        containing oil unless the latter has been entered in the
        appropriate logbook;
       "(2) for ships other than tankers—
           "(i) ballasting or  cleaning of bunker fuel tanks;
           "(ii)  discharge of dirty ballast  or  cleaning water
        from bunker fuel tanks;
           "(iii)  disposal of  residues;
           "(iv)  discharge overboard of bilge water  containing
        oil which has accumulated  in machinery spaces while
        in port,  and the routine discharge at sea of bilge water
        containing oil unless the latter has been entered in the
        appropriate logbook. In the event of such discharge or
         escape of oil or oily mixture as is referred to in sec-
        tion 4 of this Act, a statement shall be made in the oil
        record book of the circumstances of, and reason for, the
         discharge or escape.";
       (B) by changing  the figure "9"  in subsection (d) to read
     "10"; and
       (C) by repealing  subsection (f).
   (10) Section 10 (33 U.S.C. 1009) is renumbered section 11 and
is amended to make the sectional enumeration read  as follows:
"Sections 3,4,5,6,7,9,  and 10."
   (11) Section 11 is renumbered section 12 and is amended by
deleting the  words  "any prohibited  zone" in  subsection  (b)
thereof and by substituting  therefor the words "violation of the
convention but outside the territorial sea of the United States".
   (12) Section 12 (33 U.S.C. 1011) is repealed.
   (13) Sections  14  and 15  are renumbered  sections  13 and 14,
respectively.
   (14) Section 16 (33 U.S.C. 1014) is renumbered section 15 and
is amended by adding  between  the words "provisions  of" and
the  word "the" the  words "section 311 of",  and by deleting the
words "Oil Pollution Act, 1924 (33 U.S.C. 431-437),", and sub-
 stituting  therefor the words "Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended,".
   (15) Section 17 (33 U.S.C. 1015) is  repealed.
   SEC. 3. (a)  Except as  provided in subsection (c) of this section,
this amending Act is effective upon the date of  its enactment or
 upon the
                                                        [p. 4]

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY     245

date amendments to the International Convention for the Preven-
tion of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954, as amended, adopted by
the Assembly of  the  Inter-Governmental  Maritime Consultative
Organization on October 21, 1969, October 12, 1971, and October
15, 1971, are ratified or accepted with the advice and consent of
the Senate of  the United States, whichever is the later date.
   (b) Any rights or  liabilities existing on the effective date of
this Act shall not be affected by the enactment of this Act. Any
regulations or procedures promulgated or effected pursuant to the
Oil Pollution Act, 1961, as previously amended,  remain in effect
until modified or superseded under the authority  of the Oil Pollu-
tion Act, 1961,  as amended by this Act.  Any reference  to the In-
ternational Convention for the Prevention  of Pollution of the Sea
by Oil, 1954, in any law or regulation  shall be  deemed to be a
reference to the convention as revised or  amended by  the latest
amendments in respect of which the United  States has deposited
an instrument of  ratification or acceptance.
   (c) Notwithstanding  the  foregoing  provisions  of  this sec-
tion, subsections  (d)  and (e) of section  6 of the Oil Pollution
Act, 1961, as amended by section 2 of this bill, shall be effective
upon the date of  their enactment or upon the date the Interna-
tional Convention for the Prevention of Pollution  of the Sea by
Oil,  1954, as amended by the amendments  adopted by the As-
sembly of the  Inter-Governmental Marine Consultative Organi-
zation on October 15, 1971,  enters into force pursuant to  article
XVI of that convention,  as amended, whichever  is later; and no
authority shall  be exercised pursuant to article  VI bis (3) and
(4) of such amendments prior to the effective date of  such sub-
sections.
   Approved October  4, 1973.
                                                       [p. 5]

-------
246          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n

1.3c (1) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT  MARINE AND
                          FISHERIES
           H.R. REP. No. 93-137, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973).

         OIL POLLUTION ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1973
APRIL 13, 1973.—Committed to the Committee on the Whole House on the
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed
  Mrs. SULLIVAN, from the Committee on Merchant Marine and
                Fisheries, submitted the following

                            REPORT

                     [To accompany H.R. 5451]

  The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, to whom
was referred the bill  (H.R. 5451) to amend  the Oil Pollution
Act, 1961 (75 Stat. 402), as amended, to  implement the 1969 and
1971 amendments to the International Convention for the  Pre-
vention of the  Pollution of the  Sea by  Oil, 1954, as amended;
and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favor-
ably thereon with an amendment  and recommend that  the bill
as amended  do  pass.
  The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all  after the enacting clause and insert  in lieu thereof
the following:

That this Act  may be cited as the "Oil Pollution Act Amendments  of 1973".
  SEC. 2. The  Oil  Pollution Act, 1961 (75 Stat. 402), as amended (33 U.S.C.
1001-1015), is amended as follows:
  (1) Section  2 (33 U.S.C. 1001) is amended—
      (A) by repealing subsection (g);
      (B) by redesignating subsections (c), (d), (e),and (f), as subsections
     (d), (e),  (f), and  (g), respectively;
      (C) by adding a new subsection  (c) to read:
  "(c) The term  'instantaneous rate of  discharge of oil content' means the
rate of discharge  of oil in liters per hour at any instant divided by  the speed
of the ship in knots at the same instant;";
       (D) in  subsection (c) (redesignated (d) by subparagraph (B) of this
     paragraph):
          (1) by deleting the word "marine"; and
          (2) by deleting the words  "American Society for the Testing of
        Materials" and substituting therefor the words  "American Society
        for Testing and Materials";

-------
          WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      247

     (E)  in subsection (e)  (redesignated (f)  by subparagraph  (B) of this
   paragraph)  by changing the period to a semicolon at the end of the first
   sentence thereof and by amending the second sentence to read "an 'oily
   mixture' means a mixture with any oil content;";
     (F)  by amending subsection  (h) to read "The term 'Secretary' means
   the Secretary of the  department in which the  Coast  Guard  is  oper-
   ating;"; and
     (G)  in subsection (j) by changing the period to  a semicolon and adding
   the following to the sentence: "except that, for the  purpose  of  this Act
   'from the nearest land' off the  northeastern coast of Australia  means a
   line drawn from a point on  the coast  of Australia in latitude 11 degrees
   south,  longitude 142 degrees 08 minutes east to  a point in  latitude 10
   degrees 35 minutes  south, longitude 141 degrees 55 minutes east—
     "thence to a point latitude 10 degrees 00 minutes  south, longitude 142
   degrees 00 minutes east;
     "thence to a point latitude 9 degrees 10 minutes south, longitude 143
   degrees 52 minutes east;
     "thence to a point latitude 9 degrees 00 minutes  south, longitude 144
   degrees 30 minutes east;
     "thence to a point latitude 13 degrees 00 minutes  south, longitude 144
   degrees 00 minutes east;
     "thence to a point latitude 15 degrees 00 minutes  south, longitude 146
   degrees 00 minutes east;
     "thence to a point latitude 18 degrees 00 minutes  south, longitude 147
   degrees 00 minutes east;
     "thence to a point latitude 21 degrees 00' minutes  south, longitude 153
   degrees OO1 minutes east;
     "thence to a point on the  coast of Australia in latitude 24 degrees 42
   minutes south, longitude 153  degrees 15 minutes east."
 (2) Section 3 (33 U.S.C. 1002) is amended to read  as  follows:
 "SEC.  3. Subject to the provisions of sections 4 and 5,  the discharge of oil
or oily mixture from a ship is prohibited unless—
     "(a) the ship is proceeding en route; and
     "(b) the instantaneous rate of discharge of oil content does not exceed
   sixty liters per mile, and
     " (c)  (1)  for a ship, other than a tanker—
       "(i) the oil content of the  discharge is less than one hundred parts
     per one million parts  of the mixture, and
       "(ii) the discharge is made as far as practicable from the nearest
     land;
 (2) for a tanker,  except discharges from machinery  space bilges which
   shall be governed by the above provisions for ships other than tankers—
       "(i) the total quantity of  oil discharged on a  ballast voyage does
     not exceed one fifteen-thousands of the total cargo-carrying capacity,
     and
       "(ii) the tanker is more than  fifty from the nearest land.".
 (3) Section 4 (33 U.S.C. 1003) is amended—
     (A)  by changing the word "shall" to "does" in the introductory clause
   thereof;
     (B)  by changing the semicolon to a period at the end of subsection (b)
   thsreof; and
     (C)  repealing subsection (c) thereof.

-------
248           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

  (4)  Section 5 (33 U.S.C. 1004) is amended to read as follows:
  "SEC. 5. Section 3 does not apply to the discharge of tanker ballast from a
cargo tank which, since the cargo was last carried therin, has been so cleaned
that any effluent therefrom,  if it were discharged from a stationery tanker
into clean calm water on  a clear day, would produce no visible traces of oil
on the surface of the water.".
  (5)  Insert a new section 6, to read as follows, following section 5:
  "SBC. 6. (a)  Every tanker to which this Act applies and built in the United
States and for which the building contract is placed on or after the  effective
date of this section shall be constructed in accordance with the provisions of
annex C to the convention, relating to tank  arrangement and limitation of
tank size.
  " (b) Every tanker to which this Act applies and built in the United States
and for which the building contract is placed, or in the absence of a  building
contract the keel of which is  laid or which is  at a similar state  of construc-
tion, before the effective date of this section, shall, within two years after that
date, comply with the provisions of annex C to the convention if—
       "(1)  the delivery of the tanker is after January 1,1977; or
       "(2)  the delivery of the tanker is not later than January 1, 1977, and
     the building contract is  placed after January 1, 1972, or in cases where
     no building                                                     r  gn

     contract has previously been placed, the keel is laid or the tanker is  at a
     similar stage of construction, after June 30,1972.
  "(c) A tanker required under this section to be constructed in accordance
with annex C to the convention and so constructed shall carry  on  board a
certificate  issued by the  Secretary attesting  to  that compliance. A tanker
which is not  required to  be  constructed in accordance with  annex C  to  the
convention  shall carry on board a  certificate to that  effect issued by  the
Secretary, or if  a tanker  does comply  with  annex C though not required to
do  so, she may carry on board a certificate issued by the Secretary attesting
to  that compliance. Tankers under  the flag of the United  States  are  pro-
hibited from  engaging in  domestic or  foreign trade without an  appropriate
certificate issued under this section.
   "(d) Certificates issued to foreign tankers  pursuant  to the convention by
other nations party thereto shall be accepted by the Secretary as  of the same
force  as certificates  issued by him.  If the Secretary has clear grounds for
believing that a foreign tanker required under the convention to be constructed
in accordance with annex  C  entering ports of  the United States  or using off-
shore terminals  under United States control does not in  fact  comply  with
annex C, he may request the  Secretary of State to seek consultation  with the
government with which the tanker is registered. If after consultation  or other-
 wise,  the Secretary is satisfied that  such tanker does not comply with annex
 C,  he may for this reason deny  such tanker access  to ports of the United
 States or to  offshore terminals under  United States  control until such  time
 as he is satisfied that the tanker has been brought into compliance.
   "(e) If the Secretary  is satisfied that any other foreign tanker which, if
 registered  in  a  country  party to the convention, would be required  to be
 constructed in accordance with  annex C, does not in fact comply  with the
 standards relating to tank arrangement and limitation of tank size  of annex
 C, then he may  deny such tanker access to ports of the United  States or to
 offshore terminals under United States control."

-------
           WATER—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY       249

  (6) Section 6 (33  U.S.C. 1005) is renumbered section 7 and is amended to
read as follows:
  "SEC. 7.  (a)  Any person who willfully discharges oil or oily mixture from
a ship in violation of this Act or the regulations thereunder shall be fined not
more than $10,000 for each violation  or imprisoned not more than one year,
or both.
  "(b) In  addition to any other penalty prescribed by law  any person who
willfully or negligently discharges  oil  or oily mixture from a  ship in violation
of this Act or any regulation thereunder shall be  liable to a civil penalty of
not more than $10,000 for each  violation, and  any person who otherwise
violates this Act or any regulation  thereunder shall be liable to a civil penalty
of not more than $5,000 for each violation.
  "(c) A ship from which  oil  or  oily mixture is discharged in violation of
this  Act or any  regulation thereunder is  liable  for any  pecuniary  penalty
under this  section and may be  proceeded against  in the district court of any
district in which the vessel may  be found.
  "(d) The Secretary may assess any civil penalty incurred under  this Act
or any regulation thereunder and, in his discretion, remit, mitigate,  or com-
promise any penalty. No penalty may be assessed unless the alleged  violator
shall have  been given  notice and the  opportunity  to be heard on the alleged
violation. Upon any failure to pay a civil penalty assessed  under this  Act,
the Secretary may request the  Attorney General to institute  a civil action to
collect the penalty.  In hearing such action, the  district court shall have
authority to  review the violation  and  the assessment of the  civil  penalty
de novo."
  (7) Section 7 is renumbered section 8.
  (8) Section 8 (33 U.S.C.  1007)  is renumbered  section 9 and is amended—
      (A) in subsection (a) by amending the first  sentence to read as follows:
    "In the administration  of  sections  1-12  of this Act,  the Secretary  may
    utilize by  agreement, with or without reimbursement, law enforcement
    officers or other  personnel,  facilities,  or equipment of other  Federal
    agencies or the States.";
       (B)  in subsection (a) by amending the first part of the second sentence
    which  precedes the first use of the word "shall" to read: "For the better
    enforcement of the provisions  of said sections, officers of the Coast Guard
    and  other persons employed  by  or acting under the authority of  the
    Secretary";
                                                                   [p. 3]

      (C)  in subsection (a) by deleting from the last sentence thereof the
    words  "Bureau of Customs and"  and the words "in a prohibited zone or
    in a port of the United States"; and
      (D) in  subsection  (b)   by  deleting  in the first sentence thereof  the
    words  "of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating" and
    by deleting the second sentence thereof in its entirely.
  (9) Section 9 (S3 U.S.C. 1008)  is renumbered section 10 and is amended—
      (A) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
    "(c) The oil record book shall be completed on each occasion, on a tank-
to-tank basis, whenever any of the  following operations take place in the ship:
      "(1) for tankers—
           " (i) loading of oil cargo;
           "(ii) transfer of oil  cargo during voyage;

-------
250           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n

          " (iii) discharge of oil cargo;
          " (iv) ballasting of cargo tanks;
          " (v)  cleaning of cargo tanks;
          "(vi) discharge of dirty ballast;
          " (vii) discharge of water from slop tanks;
          "(viii)  disposal of residues;
          "(ix) discharge overboard of  bilge water containing oil which has
        accumulated in machinery spaces while in port, and the routine dis-
        charge at sea of bilge water containing oil unless the latter has been
        entered into the appropriate log book;
      "(2)  for ships other than tankers—
          "(i) ballasting or cleaning of bunker fuel tanks;
          " (ii)  discharge of dirty ballast or cleaning water from bunker fuel
        tanks;
          " (iii) disposal of residues;
          "(iv) discharge overboard of  bilge water containing oil which has
        accumulated in machinery spaces while in port, and the routine dis-
        charge at sea of bilge water containing oil unless the latter has been
        entered in the appropriate logbook. In the event of such discharge or
        escape of  oil or oily mixture as is referred to in section 4 of this Act,
        a statement shall be made in the oil record book of the circumstances
        of,  and reason for, the discharge or escape.";
       (B)  by changing the figure "9" in subsection (d) to read "10"; and
       (C) by repealing subsection (f).
   (10)  Section 10  (33 U.S.C. 1009)  is renumbered  section  11 and is amended
to make the sectional enumeration read as follows: "Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9,
and 10."
   (11)  Section  11  is renumbered  section 12 and is amended by  deleting the
words "any prohibited zone" in subsection (b) thereof and by  substituting
therefor the words "violation of the  convention but outside the territorial sea
of the United States."
   (12)  Section 12 (33 U.S.C. 1011) is repealed.
   (13)  Sections 14 and 15 are renumbered sections  13  and 14, respectively.
   (14)  Section 16  (33 U.S.C. 1014)  is renumbered section  15 and is amended
by adding between the words "provisions of" and the word "the",  the  words
"section 311 of",  and by deleting the words "Oil Pollution Act, 1924  (33
U.S.C. 431-437),",  substituting therefor  the words "Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended,".
   (15)  Section 17 (33 U.S.C. 1015) is repealed.
   SEC.  3. (a) Except as provided  in subsection (c)  of this section, this
amending Act is effective upon the date of its enactment or upon the date
amendments to the International Convention for the Prevention of the  Pollu-
tion of the  Sea by Oil,  1954, as  amended, adopted by the Assembly of the
Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative  Organization on October 21, 1969,
October 12, 1971,  and October 15,  1971,  are ratified  or  accepted with the
advice and  consent of the Senate of  the United States, whichever is the later
date.
   (b) Any rights or liabilities existing on the effective date of this Act shall
not be  affected by  the enactment  of this Act. Any regulations or procedures
promulgated or effected pursuant  to  the Oil Pollution Act,  1961, as  previously
amended, remain in effect until modified  or  superseded under the authority of
the Oil Pollution  Act, 1961, as amended by this  Act. Any  reference to the

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      251

International Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution of the  Sea by
Oil, 1954, in any law or regulation shall be deemed to be a reference to the
convention as revised or amended by the latest amendments in respect of
which the United States has deposited an instrument of ratification or accept-
ance.
                                                           [p. 4]
  (c) Notwithstanding the  foregoing provisions of this section,  subsections
(d) and (e) of section 6 of the Oil Pollution Act, 1961, as amended by section
2 of this bill, shall be effective upon the date of their  enactment or upon the
date the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea
by Oil, 1954, as amended by the amendments adopted by the Assembly of the
Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization on October 15, 1971,
enters into force pursuant  to article XVI  of that convention, as amended,
whichever is  later; and no  authority shall be exercised pursuant to article
VI bis (3)  and  (4) of such amendments prior to the effective date of such
subsections.

                  PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION

   H.R.  5451,  as reported,  amends the  Oil Pollution Act, 1961,
(75 Stat. 402), as amended, in order to implement certain amend-
ments  to the International Convention  for  the Prevention of
Pollution  of the Sea by Oil, 1954,  as amended.  In addition, the
bill expands the penalty provisions of the Act. This amendatory
legislation is  necessary in  order to reflect changes to the Con-
vention, adopted in the Assembly  of  the  Inter-Governmental
Maritime  Consultative  Organization  (IMCO),  on  October 21,
1969, October 12, 1971,  and October 15, 1971.

           BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION
   The Act being amended  is the domestic law implementing the
International  Convention, which, first adopted in  1954, was the
initial  international agreement to bring under control  the prob-
lem of polluting the oceans by oil  discharge from vessels.  The
amendments to  that Convention which are reflected in this legis-
lation were adopted by the IMCO Assembly, pursuant to  proce-
dures for amending the Convention.  The first  of the amendments,
adopted on October 21, 1969, were a  follow-on of the extraordi-
nary meeting  of the IMCO  Council in May 1967, in the aftermath
of  the TORREY  CANYON  disaster,  wherein  an oil   tanker
grounded off  the southwest coast  of the United  Kingdom and
released massive quantities of oil which polluted the oceans and
shore areas in the United Kingdom and  in France. The Maritime
Safety  Committee, the technical body in IMCO, was directed to
take all reasonable measures to achieve significant progress on
prevention and  control of oil pollution. As one of those  measures,

-------
252         LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

the Maritime Safety Committee in February 1969, recommended
certain amendments to the Oil Pollution Convention to tighten
existing control measures with respect to the deliberate discharge
of oily wastes into  seas.  In addition, the Maritime Safety Com-
mittee sought to update the Convention to reflect existing mari-
time practices which had already progressed beyond the require-
ments of the Convention itself.  The amendments recommended
by the Maritime  Safety  Committee were adopted by the  IMCO
Assembly at its sixth regular session on October 21, 1969. These
amendments were subsequently referred by the President  to the
Senate for its advice  and consent. On September 20, 1971, the
Senate gave  its  advice and  consent  to  the ratification of the
amendments. That ratification has not yet been deposited, pend-
ing the enactment of this amendatory legislation.
  In subsequent proceedings in IMCO, the Maritime Safety Com-
mittee, continuing its work in reviewing the Convention and its
provisions, in 1971 recommended two  additional  sets of amend-
ments. The first of  these consist of a proposal advanced by Aus-
tralia to treat the
                                                       [p. 5]

Great Barrier Reef off its eastern and northeastern coast as if it
were land for the  purposes of applying certain  "distance from
land" criteria contained in the 1969  amendments. The  second
group of amendments  related to new requirements for  tank ar-
rangements and the limitation of tank sizes in certain  new tank
vessels. The purpose of these latter amendments was to  limit the
potential outflow of oil from supertankers, in the event of  a colli-
sion  or  a stranding.  The  two sets  of 1971  amendments were
adopted  by the  IMCO  Assembly  on  October 12, 1971, and on
October 15,  1971, respectively. In the  case of the  latter adoption,
the  Assembly,  in its resolution, deemed  that those amendments
were of such an  important nature that any Contracting Govern-
ment which does not accept those amendments within 12 months
of their coming into force, shall at the expiration of that  period,
cease to be a party to the Convention.
   Both sets of 1971 amendments were submitted by the Presi-
 dent to the  Senate  in May 1972, for advice and consent for rati-
fication. No Senate action was taken during the  92nd  Congress.
 However, Senate hearings have  been scheduled  for advice  and
 consent  action for next week, and all indications are that the
 Senate action will be favorable. As to action by other Nations, as
 of April 11,  1973, the  Department  of  State advised  that the
 Nations which have ratified  the 1969 amendments are Iceland,

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY     253

Madagascar,  Denmark, Japan,  the  United  Kingdom,  Norway,
U.S.S.R., Saudi Arabia, France,  Canada, Liberia, Lebanon and
Sweden, a total of 15. The first set of 1971 amendments has been
ratified by Jordan,  Lebanon, Liberia, Egypt, Fiji,  and Sweden.
The second set of 1971 amendments  has been ratified by Jordan,
Lebanon, Liberia, Sweden, and the Ivory Coast.
  The 1969 amendments provide as follows:
  (1) The so-called "prohibited zones" wherein  under the pro-
visions of the present Convention only  minimal oil  discharge is
permitted, are abolished; and the principle of prohibition (sub-
ject to certain specified exceptions)  is extended  throughout the
oceans. In other words, this amendment eliminates areas where,
prior to  the  1969  amendments, there  was  no  control  over
discharges of oil content for certain vessels.
  (2)  The exceptions to  total  prohibitions under  which dis-
charges with  oil content are permitted are limited, as to tankers,
to a distance more than 50  miles from the nearest land, to a rate
of discharge of oil content of not more than 60 liters (15.9 gal-
lons) per nautical mile, while the tanker is proceeding enroute on
its voyage, and with a maximum  quantity of oil to be dis-
charged on a ballast voyage, amounting to no more than 1/15,000
of the total cargo-carrying capacity  of the tanker. As to vessels
other than tankers, the limitations that  apply  are a distance as
far as practicable from land, at a rate of discharge of oil content
not to exceed either 60 liters per nautical mile or  100 parts of oil
per million parts of effluent, while the ship is proceeding enroute
on its voyage.
  (3) Certain exemptions  relating to purification and clarifica-
tion  of fuel or lubricating  oil and for oil which  has leaked into
machinery spaces are eliminated, and
  (4) A  simplified oil record book  which  will  more precisely
record necessary information is  provided for.
  The first set of 1971 amendments provides  special protection
for the Great Barrier Reef by  redefining "nearest  land"  to  in-
clude the area of that Reef, thereby invoking the limitations for
distance  from land for discharges in the Reef  area  as  if that
area were land.
                                                        [p. 6]

  The second set of 1971 amendments provides for tank arrange-
ments and limitations of tank sizes in the construction of new
large tankers by adopting a new annex to the  Convention which
contains  construction requirements  based  upon vessel  length,
width and depth. These requirements will result in restrictions

-------
254          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n

as to tank placements and tank  volumes. The purpose of these
construction standards is to limit the maximum amount of hypo-
thetical oil outflow that would result in the event of collision or
stranding1 of the tanker based upon the maximum assumed dam-
age resulting from such accidents and upon the worst combina-
tion of compartmental damage.  The  formulae and  limitations
adopted would, in effect, restrict wing tanks to a 30,000 cubic
meter  size and center tanks to a 50,000 cubic  meter size. The
practical impact of such limitations will begin to be felt, from an
economic viewpoint, at vessel sizes of approximately 300,000 dead-
weight tons.
  In addition to the implementation of the three sets of Conven-
tion amendments, and certain necessary technical  and conform-
ing language, the bill, as reported, also  provides for changes in
the penalty provision  of the Act,  to provide for a civil  penalty in
addition to a criminal penalty to which the present Act is  limited
and to increase the maximum fine authorized for a criminal pen-
alty.
  Finally, the bill provides for an effective date of this amenda-
tory legislation, with  one exception, as the date of enactment, or
the deposit of ratification by the United States to the three  sets
of amendments,  whichever  is later. The purpose of this provi-
sion is to bring into effect at the earliest possible date, changes
to the Convention which  are necessary to  tighten its provisions,
without awaiting the  ratification  process.
  As to the exception referred to, the  provisions of the new sec-
tion 6 of the Act concerning exercise of control  measures over
foreign vessels will become effective at  the time  of the  comple-
tion of the ratification process,  which must, of course,  include
United States ratification.

                      COMMITTEE ACTION

  No hearings were scheduled  by your Committee on  H.R. 5451,
in  view of the  fact that testimony on  a  substantially identical
bill,  H.R. 15627, were  held  by  the  Subcommittee on Coast
Guard and Navigation during  the  92nd Congress. Testimony on
that bill was received from representatives  of the Department of
State, the Department  of Transportation, and  the American
Institute  of Merchant Shipping. All the witnesses endorsed  the
implementation provisions of the bill,  although the AIMS repre-
sentative expressed reservation as to an earlier effective date for
United States  vessels than  the  final  coming into force of  the
amendments,  particularly the second  set  of 1971 amendment,

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      255

through the ratification process.  At the conclusion of the Sub-
committee consideration, H.R.  15627 was  reported to the Full
Committee, and subsequently,  by your Committee to  the House
with the deletion of those sections related to the 1971  amend-
ments. As reported, the bill was passed by the House under Sus-
pension of the Rules on October 11, 1972. As House Report 92-
1486, October 2,  1972, will indicate, the  deletion of the 1971
amendments from H.R. 15627,  as reported, was based solely upon
the fact that the Senate had not yet acted, (and probably would
not act) to  give  its advice and  consent to  those amendments.
                                                       [P-7]
  By virtue  of the  1972  hearings on virtually identical provi-
sions, your Committee  did not  elect to hold hearings on the pres-
ent bill. It  has been  advised,  however,  that, as  to  the 1971
amendments, Senate action for advice and consent is imminent,
and H.R.  5451, as  amended, retains the  implementing  sections
for those amendments, to become effective at such time as the
United States ratifies them, with the advice  and consent of the
Senate.
  Your Committee believes that the amendatory language of this
bill will demonstrate the  intention of the  United States to live
up  to its international commitments and to remain in the fore-
front in the  international efforts to reduce the pollution of the
oceans as a part of the overall initiative to improve the world
environment.  The provisions  for  early effective date  without
awaiting the total ratification  process is  consistent with IMCO
Assembly resolutions recommending to  governments  that early,
prompt, effective, national action should  be taken. Representa-
tives of the United  States were leaders in having those resolu-
tions adopted. Resolution A.236(VII), adopted by the Assembly,
stated in part that
       The Assembly * *  * Invites Governments concerned,
     pending the entry into  force  of  (the  1969)  amend-
     ments, to: (a)  * * *  (b)  give legal effect to the 1969
     amendments  in respect of ships registered under their
     control  before  the amendments  have come into  force
     internationally in  accordance with  Article XVI,  (4) of
     the Convention; (c) * * *
  As to the first set  of  1971 amendments,  Resolution A. 232
 (VII), adopted by the  Assembly, stated  in part:
       The Assembly,  * * *  Invites further  Governments
     which have  implemented, on  a  national  basis,  the
     amendments  to  the Convention adopted  by the Assem-

-------
256         LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

    bly on 21 October 1969, to give  effect also to the at-
    tached provisions for the protection of the Great Barrier
    Reef.
  As  to  the second set of 1971 amendments,  Resolution A.246
(VII), adopted by the  Assembly, provided, in part,  as follows:
      The Assembly,  *  *  * Invites all  Governments  con-
    cerned to accept the amendments at the earliest  pos-
    sible date, * * *.
  The bill, as amended, was ordered reported by your Committee
by voice  vote.
                  COST  OF THE LEGISLATION
  Pursuant to Clause 7 of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the  Committee estimates that there will be no
additional  cost incurred  by the Government as  a result of the
legislation other than  minor administrative cost occasioned by
the necessity of changing the oil record books. This estimate is
consistent  with the estimate furnished to the  Committee by the
Department of Transportation.
                                                      [p. 8]

                   DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS

  Executive Communication No. 446 and departmental  report on
H.R.  5451, follow:

                    [Exec. Comm. No. 446]
                     THE SECRETARY OP TRANSPORTATION,
                         Washington, B.C., February IS, 1973.
Hon.  CARL ALBERT,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
   DEAR MR. SPEAKER :  There is  transmitted herewith a draft of a
proposed bill, "to amend the Oil Pollution Act, 1961, (75 Stat. 402),
as amended, to implement the 1969 and 1971 amendments to the
International  Convention for the Prevention of  Pollution of the
Sea by Oil, 1954, as amended; and for other purposes."
   The proposed bill would  incorporate into the existing domes-
tic law which implements the  original  1954 Oil Pollution Con-
vention the latest amendments  to the  Convention adopted by the
Inter-governmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO)
by Resolution A.175(VI) on October 21, 1969; Resolution A.232
 (VII) on October 12, 1971, and Resolution A.246(VII) on  Octo-
ber 15, 1971. You will recall that ratification of the 1969 amend-
ments was advised and consented to by the Senate on September

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      257

20, 1971. Additionally in May 1972 the 1971 amendments were
submitted to the Senate for their advice and consent. The sub-
mission of draft legislation at this time is in accord with the Exe-
cutive Branch intention  of seeking legislative implementation at
the earliest possible time.
  The 1969  convention  changes, particularly  as they  impose
more stringent constraints on oil  and  oily mixture  discharges
from vessels anywhere, represent another advancing step toward
remedy of  ocean oil pollution, a major  international  as  well as
national environmental  problem. Those  amendments abandon
the  concept which prohibited discharges within certain zones
(generally within 50  miles of land) and which discouraged but
did not prohibit indiscriminate discharges in the open  sea beyond
the zones. Under the amendments and the legislation here pro-
posed, discharges will be prohibited anywhere unless certain con-
ditions are met.  Those conditions relate to  discharge rate, oily
mixture dilution, total quantity  of oil  discharged, and distance
from land. For example, a tanker will  be prohibited from any
discharges  within 50  miles of land, and beyond that distance
may only discharge  while proceeding  enroute and so long as a
discharge of oil content  does  not exceed 60  liters per mile, and
provided that the total  quantity of oil  discharged on a ballast
voyage does not exceed 1/15,000 of the total cargo-carrying capa-
city of the vessel.
  The 1971 amendments apply the distance from land criterion
for discharges  of oil and oily mixtures to the area of the Great
Barrier Reef as if it  were land, and concern tank arrangements
and limitations of tank size for new tank vessels. The objective
of the amendments relating to tank arrangements and tank size
is to limit the quantity of oil which can escape into the sea as the
result of collision or other vessel casualty.
                                                        [p. 9]

  In addition to  the  criminal penalties  now provided for viola-
tions of the  1961 Act these proposed amendments  would make
civil penalties  also available for more  flexible and  effective en-
forcement. Article VI of the  Oil Pollution Convention requires
that penalties which  a country imposes for  unlawful  discharges
by  domestic  vessels  beyond its territorial sea shall not  be less
than those  for  the same  infringements within the territorial sea.
That requirement will be satisfied because the civil penalties pro-
posed  in the draft bill are equal to or larger  in amount than
those contained in section 311  of the  Federal  Water Pollution
Control Act (P.L. 92-500).

-------
258         LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

  It would be appreciated if you would lay this proposal before
the House of Representatives. A similar proposal  has been sub-
mitted to the President of the Senate.
  The Office of Management and Budget advises  that this pro-
posed legislation is consistent with the  Administration's  objec-
tives.
       Sincerely,
                                       CLAUDE S. BRINEGAR.
                                DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
                             Washington, D.C., April 9,1973

Hon. LEONOR K. SULLIVAN,
Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
House of Representatives.

  DEAR MRS. SULLIVAN : The Secretary has asked that I  reply to
your letter of March 14 requesting the comments of the Department
of State on H.R. 5451, a bill "To amend the Oil Pollution Act, 1961
 (75 Stat. 402), as amended, to implement  the 1969 and 1971
amendments to the International Convention for the Prevention
of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954, as amended; and for other
purposes."
  H.R.  5451 is motivated by three sets of  amendments to  the
1954 Convention: the amendments with respect to oily discharge
adopted  by the Assembly of the Inter-Governmental Consulta-
tive Organization (IMCO) on October 21, 1969; the amendments
for the protection of the Great Barrier Reef adopted by the  IM-
CO Assembly  on October 12, 1971; the amendments concerning
tank  arrangements and limitation of tank size adopted by  the
IMCO Assembly on October 15, 1971. The Senate has consented
to the first  of these amendments, and has the other two before
it for advice  and  consent.  The  Department of  State  believes
that ratification of the three sets of amendments would be in the
interest  of the United  States.  It accordingly supports the adop-
tion of H.R. 5451, by which they would be implemented.
   Adoption of this legislation would not result in any signifi-
 cant costs to the Department of State.
   The Office of Management and Budget advises  that from the
standpoint of the Administration's  program there is no objec-
tion  to the submission of this  report, and that enactment of

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      259

H.R. 5451 would be consistent with the Administration's objec-
tives.
      Sincerely,
                                    MARSHALL WRIGHT,
        Acting Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations.
                                                      [p. 10]

   CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

  In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives,  changes in existing law made by the
bill,  as  reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed
to be  omitted is enclosed in  black  brackets,  new  matter is
printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is
shown in roman) :

             OIL POLLUTION ACT, 1961, AS AMENDED

       (75 Stat. 402, 80 Stat. 372 (33 U.S.C. 1001-1015) )
AN ACT To implement the provisions of the International Convention for the
           Prevention of the  Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954
  Be it enacted by the Senate and House of  Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this
Act, to implement the provisions of the International Convention
for the Prevention of  the  Pollution of the Sea by Oil,  1954, as
amended, may be  cited  as the  "Oil  Pollution  Act,  1961, as
amended,".
  SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.—As used  in this  Act, unless the context
otherwise requires—
  (a) The term  "convention"  means the International Conven-
tion for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954, as
amended;
  (b)  The  term "discharge"  in  relation to  oil  or to an oily
mixture means any discharge or escape howsoever caused;
  (c) The term "instantaneous rate of discharge of oil content"
means the rate of discharge of oil in liters 'per hour at any instant
divided by the speed of the ship in knots at the same instant;
  [ (c) ]  (d) The term "heavy diesel oil" means [marine]  diesel
oil, other than those distillates of which more than 50 per centum,
by volume distills at a temperature not exceeding three hundred
and  forty degrees centigrade when tested by  [American Society
for the Testing of Materials] American Society for Testing and
Materials standard method D.86/59;
  [(d)] (e)  The term "mile" means a nautical  mile of six  thou-

-------
260          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

sand and eighty feet or one thousand eight hundred and fifty-two
meters;
  [ (e) ] (/) The term "oil" means crude oil, fuel oil, heavy diesel
oil, and lubricating oil, and "oily" shall be construed accordingly.
[An "oily mixture"  means a mixture with  a oil content of one
hundred parts or more in one million parts of mixture;]; an "oily
mixture" means a, mixture with any oil content;
  [ (f) ] (flO The term "person" means an individual, partnership,
corporation,  or association; and any  owner,  operator, agent,
master, officer, or employee  of a ship;
  [(g)  The term "prohibited zones" means the zones described in
section 12 of this Act as modified by notices, if any, of extension or
reduction issued by the Secretary;]
   (h)  [The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Army;]
The term "Secretary" means the  Secretary of the department in
which  the Coast Guard is operating;
                                                      [p. H]
   (i) The term "ship", subject to  the exceptions provided in para-
graph  (1)  of this  subsection, means any  seagoing vessel of any
type whatsoever of  American registry or nationality,  including,
floating craft,  whether  self-propelled or towed  by another  ves-
sel making a sea voyage; and "tanker", as a type included within
the term "ship", means a ship in which the greater part of the
cargo space is constructed or adapted for the carriage of liquid
cargoes in bulk and  which is not, for the time being, carrying a
cargo other than oil in that part of its cargo space.
   (1)  The following categories of vessels are excepted  from all
provisions of the Act:
       (i) tankers of under one hundred and fifty tons gross ton-
     nage and other ships of under five hundred tons  gross ton-
     nage.
       (ii) ships for the  time being engaged  in  the  whaling
     industry when actually employed on whaling operations.
       (iii) ships for the time being navigating the Great Lakes
     of North America and their connecting and tributary waters
     as far east as the lower exit of Saint Lambert lock at Mon-
     treal in the Province of Quebec, Canada.
       (iv) naval  ships and ships for the time being used as
naval auxiliaries.
   (j) The term "from the nearest land" means from the baseline
from which  the territorial sea  of the territory in question  is
established in accordance with  the Geneva  Convention on the
Territorial Sea and  the Contiguous Zone, 1958;  except  that, for
the purpose  of this  Act "from the nearest land" off  the north-

-------
         WATER—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      261

eastern coast of Australia means a line drawn from  a  point on
the coast Australia in latitude  11  degrees south,  longitude 142
degrees 08 minutes east to  a point in latitude  10 degrees 35
minutes south, longitude 14-1 degrees 55 minutes east—
  thence to a point latitude  10  degrees 00 minutes south, longi-
tude 142 degrees 00 minutes east;
  thence to a point latitude 9 degrees 10 minutes south, longitude
143 degrees 52 minutes east;
  thence to a point latitude 9 degrees 00 minutes south, longitude
144 degrees 30 minutes east;
  thence to a point latitude  13  degrees 00 minutes south, longi-
tude 144 degrees 00 minutes east;
  thence to a point latitude 15 degrees 00 minutes south, longitude
146 degrees 00 minutes east;
  thence to a point latitude  18  degrees 00 minutes south, longi-
tude 47 degrees 00 minutes east;
  thence to a point latitude 21 degrees 00 minutes south, longitude
153 degrees 00 minutes east;
   thence to a point on the coast of Australia in latitude 24 degrees
42 minutes south, longitude 153 degrees 15 minutes east.
  [SEC. 3. Subject to the provisions  of sections 4  and 5, it shall
be unlawful  for any  person to discharge  oil or oily mixture
from:
       [ (a) a tanker within any of the prohibited zones.
       [ (b) a ship, other than a tanker, within any of the pro-
    hibited zones, except when  the ship is proceeding to a port
    not provided with facilities  adequate for the reception, with-
    out causing undue delay, it  may  discharge such residues and
    oily mixture as would remain  for disposal if  the bulk of the
    water had been separated
                                                       [p.  12]
    from the mixture: Provided, such  discharge  is made as far
    as practicable from land.
       [(c)  a ship of  twenty thousand  tons gross tonnage or
    more, including a tanker,  for which the building contract
    is placed on or after the effective date of this  Act. However,
    if in the opinion of the  master, special circumstances make
    it neither reasonable not practicable to  retain the oil or oily
    mixture  on board,  it may be discharged outside  the pro-
    hibited zones. The  reasons for  such  discharge shall be re-
    ported in accordance with the regulations prescribed by the
    Secretary.]
  Sec. 3. Subject to  the provisions of sections  4 and 5,  the

-------
262          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n

discharge of oil or oily mixture from a ship is prohibited unless—
       (a) the ship is proceeding en route; and
       (6) the instantaneous  rate of  discharge  of oil content
    does not exceed sixty liters per mile, and
       (c) (1)  for a ship, other than a tanker—
              (i)  the oil content of the discharge is less than one
           hundred parts per one million parts of the mixture, and
              (ii)  the  discharge is made  as far  as practicable
           from the nearest land;
       (2) for a tanker, except discharges from machinery space
    bilges which  shall be  governed by  the above provisions for
    ships other than tankers—
              (i)  the total  quantity of oil discharged on a ballast
           voyage does not exceed one fifteen-thousandths  of the
           total cargo-carrying capacity, and
              (ii)  the  tanker is  more than fifty  miles from the
           nearest land.
   SEC. 4.  Section 3 [shall] does not apply to—
       (a) the discharge of oil or oily mixture from a ship for
    the  purpose  of securing  the safety  of a ship, preventing
    damage to a ship or cargo, or saving life at sea; or
       (b) the escape of  oil, or of oily mixture, resulting from
    damage to a ship or  unavoidable leakage, if all reasonable
    precautions have been taken after the occurrence of the dam-
    age or discovery of the leakage for the purpose of preventing
    or minimizing the [escape;]  escape.
       [(c) the discharge of residue arising from the purification
    or clarification of fuel oil or lubricating oil: Provided, That
    such discharge is made as far from land  as practicable.]
   [SEC.  5. Section 3  shall not apply to the discharge from  the
 bilges of a ship of an oily mixture containing no oil other than
 lubricating oil  which has drained  or leaked from  machinery
 spaces.]
   Sec. 5. Section  3 does  not  apply  to the  discharge of  tanker
 ballast from a cargo tank  which, since the cargo was last carried
 therein,  has  been so  cleaned  that any effluent therefrom, if it
 were discharged from a stationary tanker into clean calm water
 on a clear day,  would produce no visible  traces  of  oil on  the
 surface of the water.
   Sec. 6. (a)  Every tanker to  which this Act applies and built in
 the United States and for which the building contract is placed
 on or after the effective date of this section shall be constructed

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      263

in accordance with the provisions of annex C to the convention,
relating to tank arrangement and limitation of tank size.
                                                       [p.  13]
  a(b) Every tanker to which this Act applies and built in the
United States and for which the building contract is placed, or in
the absence of a building contract  the  keel of which  is laid or
which is at a similar state of construction, before the effective date
of this section, shall, within two years after that date, comply
with the provisions of annex C to the convention if—
       (1)  the delivery of the tanker is after January 1, 1977; or
       (2)  the delivery of the  tanker is not  later  than January
    1, 1977, and the building  contract is placed after January
    1,1972, or in cases where no building contract  has previously
    been placed, the keel is  laid or the  tanker is at a similar stage
    of construction, after June  30,1972.
  (c) A tanker required, under  this section to be contructed in ac-
cordance with annex C to the convention and so constructed shall
carry on board a certificate issued by the Secretary  attesting
to that compliance.  A tanker  which is not  required to be con-
structed  in accordance with annex C  to the convention shall
carry on board a certificate to that effect issued  by the Secre-
tary,  or if a tanker does comply with  annex C though not re-
quired to do so, she may carry on  board  a certificate issued by
the Secretary attesting  to  that  compliance.  Tankers under the
flag of the  United States are prohibited from  engaging in domes-
tic  or foreign trade ivithout  an appropriate certificate issued
under this section.
  (d) Certificates issued to foreign tankers pursuant to the con-
vention by other nations  party thereto  shall  be  accepted by the
Secretary as of the  same force as certificates issued by him. If
the Secretary has clear grounds for believing that a foreign tanker
required under the  convention to  be  constructed  in accordance
with annex C entering ports of  the United States or  using  off-
shore terminals under United States  control does  not in fact
comply with annex C, he may request the Secretary of State to
seek consultation with the government vvith which the tanker is
registered.  If after  consultation or otherwise, the Secretary is
satisfied  that such tanker  does  not comply  with  annex C,  he
may for this reason deny such tanker access to ports of the United
States or to offshore terminals under  United States control until
such  time  as  he  is  satisfied that the tanker  has  been brought
into compliance.
  (e) If the Secretary is satisfied that any other foreign tanker

-------
264          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

which, if registered in a country party to the convention, would
be required to  be constructed in accordance with annex  C, does
not in fact comply  with the standards relating to  tank arrange-
ment and limitation of tank size of annex C, then he may deny
such tanker access  to ports of the United States or to offshore
terminals under United States control.
   [SEC. 6. Any person who  violates any provision of this  Act,
except sections 8(b)  and 9, or any  regulation  prescribed  in
pursuance  thereof,  is guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon convic-
tion shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $2,500 nor less
than $500, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both
such  fine and  imprisonment, for each offense.  And  any  ship
(other than a  ship owned and operated by  the  United States)
from which oil is  discharged in violation of  this Act, or any
regulation prescribed in pursuance  thereof,  shall be  liable for
the pecuniary  penalty specified  in this section, and clearance of
such  ship  from a  port of  the  United  States  may be withheld
until the penalty is paid, and said penalty shall constitute a lien
on such ship which may be recovered in proceedings by libel in
rem in the district court of the United States for any district
within which the ship may be.]
                                                        [p. 14]
   Sec. 7.  (a)  Any person who willfully  discharges  oil or  oil
mixture from  a ship in violation of this Act or the regulations
thereunder shall be fined not more than $10,000 for each violation
or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
   (b) In addition  to any other penalty prescribed by law  any
person who willfully or negligently discharges oil or oily mixture
from a ship in violation of this  Act or any regulation thereunder
shall be liable  to a  civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for each
violation, and  any  person who otherwise violates  this Act or any
regulation thereunder shall be liable to a civil penalty of not more
than $5,000 for each violation.
   (c) A  ship  from which oil or oily mixture is discharged in
violation of this Act or any  regulation thereunder is liable for
 any pecuniary penalty under this section and  may be proceeded
against in the district court  of  any district  in which the vessel
may be found.
   (d) The Secretary may assess any civil penalty incurred under
 this Act or any regulation thereunder and, in his discretion, re-
 mit,  mitigate,  or  compromise any penalty. No penalty may be
 assessed unless the alleged violator shall have been given notice
 and  the opportunity to be heard  on the alleged violation.  Upon

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      265

any failure  to pay  a civil penalty  assessed under  this Act, the
Secretary may request the Attorney General to institute a civil
action to collect  the penalty. In  hearing such action, the district
court shall have  authority to review the violation and the assess-
ment of the civil penalty de novo.
  [SEC. 7.]  Sec.  8. The Coast Guard  may, subject to the pro-
visions  of section  4450 of the  Revised  Statutes, as  amended
(46 U.S.C. 239), suspend or revoke  a license issued to the master
of other licensed officer of any ship found violating the provisions
of this  Act  or the  regulations issued pursuant thereto.
  [SEC. .8.] Sec. 9.  (a)  In  the administration  of  sections
1-12 of this  Act, the Secretary may make use of the organization,
equipment,  and   agencies, including  engineering,  clerical,  and
other personnel,  employed under his direction in the improvement
of rivers  and harbors and in the  enforcement of laws for the
improvement of rivers  and harbors and  in the  enforcement of
laws for the preservation and protection of navigable waters.]
In the administration of sections 1-12  of this Act, the Secretary
may utilize  by agreement, with or without reimbursement, law
enforcement officers or  other  personnel, facilities, or equipment
of other Federal agencies or the Sates. [For the better  enforce-
ment of the provisions  of said  sections, the officers  and agents
of the United States in charge of river and harbor improvements
and persons employed  under them by authority of the Secre-
tary, and officers and employees of the Bureau of Customs and
the Coast Guard,] For  the better enforcement of the provisions
of said  sections,  officers of the  Coast  Guard and other persons
employed by or acting under  the authority  of the Secretary
shall have power and authority and it shall be their duty to swear
out process  and  to arrest and take  into custody, with or without
process, any person who  may  violate any of  said  provisions:
Provided, That no person shall be arrested without process  for a
violation not committed in the presence of some one of the afore-
said officials: And  provided further, That whenever any arrest
is made under the  provisions of said sections the person so ar-
rested  shall be brought forthwith before  a commissioner, judge,
or court of the United  States  for examination  of the  offenses
alleged against him;
                                                       [p. 15]
and such  commissioner, judge, or court shall proceed in respect
thereto  as authorized by law  in  cases of crimes against the
United  States.  Representatives  of the  Secretary  and  of the
[Bureau of  Customs and] Coast Guard of the United States may

-------
266          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

go on board and inspect any ship [in a prohibited zone or in a port
of the United States]  as may be necessary for the enforcement
of this Act.
   (b)  To implement article  VII of the convention,  ship  fitting
and  equipment, and operating requirements thereof, shall be  in
accordance with  regulations prescribed  by  the  Secretary [of
the Department in which  the Coast  Guard is operating]. [Any
person found violating these regulations shall, in addition  to any
other penalty prescribed by law, be subject to a civil penalty not
in excess of $100.]
   [SEC. 9.]  See  10.  (a)  The  Secretary  shall  have  printed
separate oil record books,  containing instructions and spaces for
inserting information in the form prescribed by the Convention,
which shall be published in  regulations prescribed by the Secre-
tary.
   (b) If subject  to this Act, every ship using oil fuel  and every
tanker shall be provided, without charge, an oil record book which
shall be carried on board. The provisions of section 140  of title
5, United States Code, shall not apply. The ownership of the book-
let shall  remain in the United States Government. This book
shall be available for inspection as provided  in this Act and for
surrender to the United States Government  pursuant  to  regula-
tions of the Secretary.
   [(c) The oil record book  shall be  completed on each occasion,
whenever any of  the following  operations  takes  place  in  the
ship:
       [(1)  ballasting of and  discharge of ballast from cargp
     tanks of tankers;
       [(2) cleaning of cargo tanks of tankers;
        [(3)  settling in slop tanks and discharge of water from
     tankers;
        [(4)  disposal  from  tankers  of oily  residues  from slop
     tanks or other sources;
        [(5) ballasting, or cleaning during voyage, of bunker fuel
     tanks of ships other than tankers;
        [(6)  disposal  from ships  other than tankers of  oily  re-
      sidues from bunker fuel tanks or other sources;
        [(7)  accidental or  other exceptional discharges or escapes
      of oil from tankers or ships other than tankers.
   [In the event of such discharge or escape of oil or oily mixture,
 as is referred to in subsection 3(c)  and section  4  of this Act, a
 statement shall  be made in the  oil record book of the  circum-
 stances of, and reason for, the discharge or escape.]

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      267

   (c) The oil record book shall be completed on each occasion, on
a tank-to-tank basis, whenever any of the following operations
take place in the ship:
       (1) for tankers—
             (i) loading of oil cargo;
             (ii) transfer of oil cargo during voyage;
             (iii) discharge of oil cargo;
             (iv)  ballasting of cargo tanks;
             (v) cleaning of cargo tanks;
             (in)  discharge of dirty ballast;
              (vii) discharge of water from slop tanks;
             (viii) disposal of residues;
                                                       [p. 16]
             (ix)  discharge overboard of bilge water containing
           oil which has accumulated in  machinery spaces while
           in port,  and the  routine  discharge  at sea of  bilge
           water containing oil unless the latter has been entered
           in the appropriate log book;
       (2) for ships other than tankers—
             (i)  ballasting  or cleaning   of  bunker fuel tanks;
             (ii)  discharge of dirty ballast or cleaning water from
           bunker fuel tanks;
             (iii) disposal of residues;
             (iv) discharge overboard of bilge water containing
           oil which has accumulated in  machinery spaces while
           in port, and the routine discharge at sea of bilge water
           containing oil unless the latter has  been entered in
           the  appropriate logbook. In  the  event of such dis-
           charge or escape of oil or  oily mixture as is referred
           to in section 4  of this  Act, a statement shall be made
           in the oil record book of  the circumstances of, and
           reason for, the discharge or escape.
   (d) Each operation described in  subsection [9] W  (c) of the
Act shall be fully recorded without delay in the oil record book so
that all the entries in the book appropriate to that operation are
completed. Each page of the book shall be signed by the officer or
officers in charge of the operations concerned and, when the ship
is manned, by the master of the ship.
   (e)  Oil record books shall be kept in such manner and for such
length of time as set forth in the regulations prescribed by the
Secretary.
   [(f)  If any person fails to comply with the requirements im-
posed by or under this section, he shall be liable on conviction to a

-------
268          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

fine not exceeding $1,000 nor less than  $500 and if any person
makes an entry in any records kept in accordance with this Act
or regulations prescribed thereunder by the Secretary which is to
his knowledge false or misleading in any material particular,  he
shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 nor less
than $500 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months,
or both.]
   [SEC. 10.] Sec. 11. The Secretary may  make regulations for the
administration of [sections 3, 4, 5, 8(a), 9, and 12.]  sections 3, 4,
5, 6, 7, 9, and 10.
   [SEC. 11.] Sec. 12. (a) The Secretary may make regulations em-
powering such persons as may be designated to go on board any
ship to which the convention applies, while the ship  is within the
territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and to require pro-
duction of any records required to be kept in accordance with the
convention.
   (b) Should evidence be obtained  that a  ship  registered  in  an
other country party to the convention has discharged oil in [any
prohibited zone] violation of the convention but outside  the terri-
torial sea, of the United States such evidence should be forwarded
to the State Department for action  in accordance with  article X
of the convention.
   [SEC.  12.  (a) All sea areas within fifty miles from the nearest
land shall be prohibited zones, subject to extensions or  reduction
effectuated in accordance with the terms of the Convention,  which
shall be  published in regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
   [ (b) With respect to the reduction or extension of the zones des-
scribed under  the terms  of  the  Convention, the Secretary shall
                                                       [p.  17]
give notice thereof by publication of such information in Notices
to Mariners issued by the United  States Coast Guard  and United
States Navy.]
   [SEC.  14.] Sec. 13. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated
such sums as may be necessary to carry  out the provisions of this
Act.
   [SEC. 15.] Sec. 14. If a provision of this Act or the application of
such provision to any person or circumstances  shall  be held  in-
valid, the remainder of the Act and the application of  such pro-
vision to persons or circumstances other than those to which it is
held  invalid shall not be affected thereby.
   [SEC. 16.] Sec. 15. Nothing in this Act or in regulations  issued
hereunder shall be construed to modify or amend the provisions of
section 311  of the [Oil Pollution Act, 1924  (33 U.S.C. 431-437),]

-------
         WATEK—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      269

Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, or of section 89
of 14, United States Code.
  [SEC. 17. (a) This Act shall become effective upon the date of
its enactment or upon the date the amended Convention becomes
effective as to the United States, whichever is the later date.
  [(b) Any rights or liabilities existing on the effective date of
this Act shall not be affected by the enactment of this Act. Any
procedures or rules or regulations in effect on the effective date of
this Act shall remain in effect until modified or superseded under
the authority of this Act. Any reference in any other law or rule
or regulation prescribed pursuant to  law to the "International
Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil,
1954," shall be deemed to be a reference to that Convention as
revised by the "Amendments of the International Convention for
the Prevention  of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954," which were
adopted by a Conference of Contracting Governments convened at
London on  April 11, 1962. Any reference in any other law or rule
or regulation prescribed pursuant to law to the "Oil Pollution Act,
1961," approved August 30, 1961 (33 U.S.C. 1001-1015), shall be
deemed to be a reference to that Act as amended by this Act.]
                                                     [p.  18]

1.3c(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
           S. REP. No.  93-405, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973).

        OIL POLLUTION ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1973
             SEPTEMBER 21,1973.—Ordered to be printed
      ME. MAGNUSON,  from the Committee  on Commerce,
                   submitted the following

                          REPORT

                    [To accompany H.R. 5451]

  The Committee on Commerce, to which was referred the bill
 (H.R. 5451) to amend  the Oil Pollution Act, 1961  (75 Stat. 402,
33 U.S.C. 1001), as amended, to implement the 1969 and  1971
amendments to the International Convention for the Prevention
of the Pollution of the Sea by  Oil,  1954, as  amended,  and for
other purposes,  having considered the  same,  reports favorably

-------
270          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

thereon without amendment and  recommends that the bill do
pass.

              SUMMARY AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

  On October 21, 1969, October 12, 1971, and October 15, 1971,
the Assembly of a specialized agency of the United Nations (the
Intergovernmental Maritime  Consultative  Organization-IMCO)
adopted amendments  to the 1954 International Convention  for
the Prevention of Pollution  of the Sea by Oil. H.R. 5451, as  ap-
proved by  the  House of Representatives, would amend  Federal
law (the Oil Pollution Act of 1961)  to bring it into conformity
with these Convention modifications.
1969 Amendment
  The 1969 amendment is stricter than the original Convention
in terms of prohibiting intentional discharges of oil  and oily
wastes from vessels. Further, it eliminated the "prohibited zone"
concept under  which  intentional oil discharges were prohibited
in zones approximately 50 miles from the nearest land but only
discouraged in the open sea beyond  these zones.
  The bill, following the  1969 amendment, prohibits  all  dis-
charges of oil  or oily mixtures from vessels to which  the Con-
vention applies
                                                        [p. 1]
 (other  than tankers),  except those  made while the  vessel is
underway  at sea  so  the extent that  such discharges  en route
do not exceed  15.9 gallons  (60 liters)  per nautical mile or  100
parts oil per million  parts  of effluent  and so long as  they  are
made as far as practicable from any land area. With  respect
to tankers, all  such discharges are prohibited except those made
while the  tanker  is  underway at sea to the extent that such
discharges  en  route  take place more  than 50 miles from  the
nearest land area, do not exceed 60 liters per nautical mile,  and
the total amount of oil discharged on a ballast voyage does not
exceed 1/15,000 of the total  cargo-carrying capacity of the tanker.
In addition, the bill follows the 1969 amendment with respect to
requiring a simplified oil record book in which necessary informa-
tion is to be recorded precisely and with  respect  to eliminating
certain exceptions regarding  fuel or oil purification  and  oil
leakage in machinery areas of the vessel.
1971 Amendments
   The first 1971 amendment, which is incorporated in the  bill,
redefines the Great Barrier Reef off Australia as  a "land" area,

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      271

which amounts to prohibiting oil or oily mixture discharges from
vessels within 50 miles of this reef.
  The second  and major 1971 amendment sets new construction
standards for oil tankers. The  bill, following this  amendment,
establishes that every tanker to which the Convention  applies
must be constructed according to Annex C of the Convention. An-
nex C sets construction requirements on the basis of the  length,
width, and draft of the vessel. In general, these new construction
standards would  limit the potential  loss of oil from  a  tanker
following a collision  or in case it  goes aground. "Wing" tanks
would be limited to 30,000 cubic meters and "center" tanks to
50,000  cubic meters in size. The standards apply only to tankers
as to which construction is commenced following the  date of en-
actment  of this bill  or  the  date the  United States ratifies all
three amendments.  Section  6 of  this  bill, which applies the
legislation to foreign vessels entering ports  of the United States,
will  not  become  effective until  the ratification process for the
treaty is  complete.
  As an added sanction,  a tanker  can be denied access  to any
port or terminal maintained  by a  nation which  is a  signatory
to the  Convention unless it carries a valid certificate attesting
that it complies with these new construction standards  or that
such standards are inapplicable.
  Since the Convention is not self-executing,  each nation which
is a  signatory party is responsible  for independent enforcement.
To carry out this responsibility the  bill provides for sanctions not
included  in any of the amendments to the Convention. One will
increase  the  maximum fine for  a criminal  (willful) violation to
$10,000 and another authorizes a new civil penalty of $10,000 for
a negligent discharge.
  As noted in the letter of transmittal, the  Senate has  given ad-
vice and consent  to the 1969  amendment. Advice and consent is
expected soon on the 1971 amendments.


                 NEED  FOR  THE LEGISLATION

  H.R.  5451  is viewed by  the Committee as  a  necessary, but
limited,  improvement of  the  legal regime  aimed at controlling
vessel-source  oil  pollution of the marine environment. The  en-
forcement record of the
                                                        [p. 2]

Oil Pollution Act of 1961 has not been good. Only two  violations
of either the Convention or  the  Act were detected beyond 12

-------
272          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

miles from  United States  shores  during the period from  1969
through 1972, and only an over-all total of seven anywhere.
  A major  drawback to the  effectiveness  of the  Oil  Pollution
Act  and  the proposed amendments is the reliance on an opera-
tional  discharge standard  based on  oil in effluent,  usually ex-
pressed in parts per million.  Such a standard  presents greater
practical enforcement difficulties than a vessel construction stand-
ard  for two reasons. First, compliance with an operational dis-
charge standard must rely  heavily on the judgment of the human
element operating  the system. Full observance of the mandate of
the  Act  depends  greatly  upon the  diligence and  integrity of
vessel  masters  who must operate their vessels under strong eco-
nomic constraints. Second, it is far more difficult to demonstrate
violation of a  discharge standard than  of a vessel construction
standard. Proof of a discharge violation must be founded on docu-
mentation of the discharge and evidence of oil content. The  Coast
Guard would have to be "on-the-scene" taking samples at the time
of the incident to satisfy the burden of proof.
  Accordingly, the Committee is pleased to see  the trend toward
construction standards  (the  tank size limitations  contained in
this Act) which put the  emphasis  on preventing the need for
intentional  discharges  of oil and  preventing  discharges  as  a
result of accidents. This approach  has  obvious merit from the
enforceability standpoint and results in an internalization of the
costs associated with the transport of oil in vessels. To the extent
that the Coast Guard must invest in surveillance equipment  to
enforce  operational discharge standards, costs associated with
oil transport must be borne by taxpayers and not consumers. Re-
liance upon construction standards  obviates the need for an ex-
pensive  enforcement system and  channels  the  costs of reducing
pollution into the  internal  costing procedures of the oil transport
system associated with those costs. For further  discussion of this
viewpoint, reference can be made to Senate Report No. 92-724 re-
lating to the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972.
   The Intergovernmental  Maritime  Consultative  Organization
 has scheduled  a Conference for October,  1973, to provide a com-
plete  update of the 1954  International  Convention for the Pre-
 vention  of  Pollution of the Sea by Oil. The Conference  will ad-
 dress  both  discharge standard and construction standard  issues
 relating to  ocean transport of oil and other hazardous substances,
 discharge of waste oil  from all ships, and the  control of sewage
 and garbage from all vessels. Greater emphasis is expected to be
 placed on  the manner of construction  of potentially polluting
 vessels. The Committee views this trend with encouragement.

-------
         WATER—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY      273

  The strengthening of our oil pollution prevention laws brought
about  by H.R. 5451 is therefore viewed  as necessary until the
new Convention on Marine Pollution from Ships comes into full
force and effect. The vessels which will carry the increased world
trade in  energy and raw materials are now being readied.  Fleets
of new supertankers and liquid natural gas (LNG) carriers are
being  built at a rapid pace.  It is  predicted that in the period
from 1970 to  1985 there will be increases of 200% to 400% in
the fleet capacity,  annual trade, and average  tonnage of bulk
carriers. It is  the Committee's goal  that these fleets be the safest
and least polluting possible.
                                                        [p. 3]

            ESTIMATED COST  OP THE LEGISLATION

  In accordance with section 252(a) of the Legislative Reorgani-
zation Act of  1970 (Public  Law  91-150), the Committee esti-
mates  that no costs, other than minor  administrative costs, will
be incurred as a result of enactment of this legislation.

                  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
are shown as follows  (existing law proposed to be omitted is
enclosed  in black brackets, new matter  is  printed in italic, exist-
ing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):

            OIL POLLUTION ACT, 1961, AS AMENDED

        (75 Stat. 402, 80 Stat. 372 (33 U.S.C. 1001-1015))

AN ACT To implement the provisions of the International Convention for the
           Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954

  Be it enacted by the Senate and House,  of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress  assembled, That this
Act,  to implement the  provisions of the International  Conven-
tion for the Prevention of the Pollution by the Sea by Oil,  1954,
as amended, may be cited as  the  "Oil Pollution Act, 1961, as
amended,".
  SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.—As used in this Act, unless the context
otherwise requires—
  (a)  The term "convention"  means the International  Conven-
tion for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil,  1954,
as amended;

-------
274          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

  (b) The term "discharge" in relation to oil or to any oily mix-
ture means any discharge or escape howsoever caused;
  (c) The term "instantaneous rate of discharge of oil content"
means the rate of discharge of oil  in liters  per hour at any
instant  divided  by the  speed of  the  ship in knots at  the same
instant;
  [(c)]  (d)  The term "heavy diesel  oil" means  [marine]  diesel
oil,  other than those distillates of which more than 50 per cen-
tum,  by volume distills at a temperature  not exceeding three
hundred and  forty degrees centrigrade when tested by [American
Society  for the Testing  of Materials]  American Society for Test-
ing and Materials standard method D. 86/59;
  [(d)]  (e)   The term "mile" means  a  nautical  mile  of six
thousand and eighty feet  or one thousand eight hundred and
fifty-two meters;
  [ (e) ]  (/)   The term  "oil" means crude oil,  fuel  oil,  heavy
diesel oil, and lubricating  oil, and  "oily" shall be construed ac-
cordingly [.  An "oily  mixture"  means a mixture  with an  oil
content of one  hundred parts or more in  one million parts of
mixture;]; an  "oily  mixture" means  a mixture  with any  oil
content;
  [(f)]  (ff)  The term  "person" means an individual, partner-
ship, corporation, or association; and  any owner, operator,  agent,
master, officer, or employee of a ship;
  [ (gO  The  term  "prohibited zones" means the zones described
in section  12 of this Act as modified by notices, if any,  of ex-
tension  or reduction issued by the Secretary;]
                                                        [p. 4]
   (h) [The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Army;]
The term "Secretary" means the Secretary  of the department in
which the Coast Guard is operating;
  (i) The term "ship", subject to the exceptions provided in
paragraph (1)  of this  subsection,  means  any  seagoing  vessel
of any type  whatsoever of American registry or nationality,  in-
cluding floating craft, whether self-propelled or towed by another
vessel making a sea voyage; and  "tanker", as  a type included
within the term "ship", means a ship in which the greater part
of the cargo  space is constructed or adapted for the carriage of
liquid cargoes in bulk and which is not, for the time being, carry-
ing a cargo other than oil in that part of its cargo space.
  (1) The following categories of vessels are  excepted from all
provisions of the Act:
       (i)  tankers of under one  hundred  and fifty tons gross

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      275

    tonnage  and other ships  of under five hundred tons gross
    tonnage.
       (ii)  ships for the  time  being engaged in the  whaling
    industry when actually employed on whaling operations.
       (iii)  ships for  the time  being  navigating  the  Great
    Lakes of North America and their connecting and tributary
    waters as far east as  the lower exit of Saint Lambert  lock
    at Montreal in the Province of Quebec, Canada.
       (iv) naval ships  and ships  for the time being  used as
    naval auxiliaries.
  (j) The term "from the nearest land" means from the baseline
from which the  territorial sea of the territory in  question  is
established in accordance  with the  Geneva Convention on the
Territorial Sea and the Contiguous  Zone, 1958; except  that, for
the purpose of this Act "from  the  nearest land" off  the  north-
eastern coast of Australia means a  line drawn from a  point on
the coast of Australia in latitude 11  degrees south, longitude H2
degrees 08 minutes  east to a point in latitude 10  degrees 35
minutes south, longitude 141 degrees 55 minutes east—
  thence to a point latitude 10  degrees 00 minutes south, longi-
tude 142 degrees 00 minutes east;
  thence to a point  latitude 9 degrees 10 minutes south, longi-
tude 143 degrees 52 minutes east;
  thence to a point latitude 9 degrees 00 minutes south, longitude
144 degrees 30 minutes east;
  thence to a point latitude 13  degrees 00 minutes south, longi-
tude 144 degrees 00 minutes east;
  thence to a point latitude 15  degrees 00 minutes south, longi-
tude 146 degrees 00 minutes east;
  thence to a point latitude 18  degrees 00 minutes south, longi-
tude 147 degrees 00 minutes east;
  thence to a point latitude 21  degrees 00 minutes south, longi-
tude 153 degrees 00 minutes east;
  thence to  a point  on the  coast  of Australia in  latitude 24
degrees 42 minutes south,  longitude  153 degrees 15 minutes  east.
  [SEC. 3.  Subject to the provisions  of sections 4 and 5, it shall
be  unlawful  for any person  to discharge oil or oily mixture
from:
       [(a) a tanker within any of the prohibited zones.
       [(6) a ship, other than a tanker, within any of the prohib-
     ited zones, except when the ship is proceeding to a port not
     provided with facilities adequate for the  reception, without
     causing undue
                                                        [p. 5]

-------
276          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

    delay,  it may discharge such  residues and oily mixture as
    would  remain for disposal if the bulk of the water had been
    separated  from  the  mixture:  Provided,  such discharge is
    made as far as practicable from land.
       [(c) a ship of twenty thousand tons gross tonnage or more,
    including a tanker, for which the building contract is placed
    on or after the effective date of this Act.  However, if in the
    opinion of the master, special  circumstances make it neither
    reasonable nor practicable to  retain the  oil or oily mixture
    on board, it may be discharged outside the prohibited  zones.
    The reasons for  such discharge shall be reported in accord-
    ance with the regulations prescribed by the Secretary.]
   Sec. 3. Subject to  the provisions of sections 4 and 5,  the dis-
charge of oil or  oily  mixture from a  ship is prohibited unless—
       (a)  the ship is proceeding en route; and
       (b)  the instantaneous rate of discharge of oil content does
    not  exceed sixty liters per mile, and
       (c) (1) for a ship,  other than a tanker—
           (i)  the  oil content of the discharge is less  than one
         hundred parts per one million parts of the mixture, and
           (ii)  the discharge is made as far as practicable from
         the nearest  land;
       (2)  for a tanker, except discharges from machinery  space
     bilges which shall be governed by the above  provisions for
    ships other than tankers—
           (i)  the total  quantity  of  oil discharged  on a ballast
         voyage does not exceed one fifteen-thousandths of the
         total cargo-carrying capacity, and
           (ii)  the tanker is more  than fifty miles from the near-
         est land.
   SEC. 4. Section 3 [shall] does not apply to—
       (a) the discharge of oil or oily  mixture from a ship for
     the  purpose of  securing the  safety of  a ship, preventing
     damage to a ship or cargo, or saving life at sea; or
       (b) the  escape of  oil,  or  oily  mixture,  resulting from
     damage to a ship or unavoidable leakage,  if all  reasonable
     precautions have  been taken after the  occurrence of the
     damage or discovery of the leakage for the purpose of pre-
     venting or minimizing the [escape;] escape.
       [(c) the  discharge of  residue arising  from  the purifica-
     tion or clarification  of fuel oil or  lubricating oil: Provided,
     That such  discharge is made as far from land as practic-
     able.]

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      277

  [SEC. 5.  Section 3 shall not apply to the discharge from the
bilges of a ship of an oily mixture containing no oil other than
lubricating  oil  which has  drained or  leaked  from machinery
spaces.]
  Sec. 5. Section 3 does not apply to  the  discharge of tanker
ballast from a cargo tank which,  since the cargo was last  car-
ried therein, has been so cleaned  that any effluent therefrom,
if it were discharged from a stationary tanker into clean calm
water on a  clear day, would produce no visible traces of oil on
the surface  of the water.
  Sec.6.  (a) Every tanker to  which this Act applies and built
in  the  United  States and for  ivhich  the  building  contract  is
placed on or after the effective date of this  section shall  be  con-
structed in  accordance with the provisions of  annex C to the
convention,  relating to tank arrangement  and limitation of tank
size.
                                                         [p. 6]
  (&) Every tanker to which  this Act applies  and built in the
United States and for which the building contract is placed, or
in the absence of a building contract the keel of which is laid or
which is at a similar state of construction, before  the effective
date of  this section, shall, within two years after that date, com-
ply ivith the provisions of annex C to the convention if—
       (1)  the delivery of the tanker is after January 1, 1977; or
       (2) the  delivery of the  tanker is not later than January
     1, 1977, and the building contract is placed after January
     1, 1972, or in cases  where no building  contract  has  pre-
     viously been placed, the keel is laid or the tanker  is at a
     similar stage of construction, after June 30,1972.
  (c) A tanker required  under this section  to be constructed in
accordance  ivith annex C to the convention and  so  constructed
shall carry on board a certificate issued by  the Secretary attest-
ing  to that compliance. A tanker  which  is not required to be
constructed  in  accordance with  annex  C to  the  convention shall
carry on board a certificate to that effect issued by the Secretary,
or if a tanker does comply with  annex C  though not required to
do so, she may  carry on  board a certificate  issued by the Secre-
tary attesting to that compliance.  Tankers under the flag of the
United States are prohibited from  engaging in  domestic  or for-
eign trade without an appropriate certificate issued under this
section.
  (d)  Certificates issued to foreign tankers  pursuant to the con-
vention by other nations party thereto  shall be accepted by the

-------
278          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

Secretary as of  the  same force  as  certificates issued, by  him.
If the Secretary  has  clear grounds for  believing that a foreign
tanker required under  the convention to  be constructed in ac-
cordance with  annex C entering  ports  of the  United States or
using off-shore terminals under  United States control does not
in fact comply with  annex C, he may request the Secretary of
State to seek consultation with the government with which the
tanker is registered. If after  consultation or otherwise, the Secre-
tary is satisfied that  such tanker  does not comply with annex C,
he may for this reason deny such tanker access to ports of the
United States or to offshore  terminals under United States con-
trol  until such time  as  he is  satified that the tanker  has  been
brought into compliance.
   (e) If the Secretary is satisfied that any other foreign tanker
which, if registered in  a country  party  to the convention, would
be required to  be constructed  in  aocordance with  annex C, does
not in fact  comply with the  standards relating to tank arrange-
ment and limitation of tank size  of annex C,  then he may  deny
such tanker access to ports  of the United States  or to offshore
terminals under United States control.
   [SEC.  6. Any person who violates any  provision of this Act,
except sections 8(b)  and 9, or any regulation  prescribed in pur-
suance thereof, is guilty of a misdemeanor,  and upon conviction
shall be punished by a fine  not  exceeding $2,500 nor  less  than
$500, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both such
fine  and imprisonment, for  each offense. And  any ship (other
than a ship owned  and operated by the United States)  from
which oil is discharged in violation of this Act, or any regulation
prescribed in pursuance thereof,  shall be liable for the pecuniary
penalty specified in this section, and  clearance of such ship  from
a port of the United States may be withheld until the penalty is
paid, and said  penalty shall  constitute a lien on such ship which
may be recovered in proceedings by libel in rem  in  the district
court of the United States for any district within which the ship
may be.]
                                                        [p. 7]
   Sec.. 7.  (a)  Any  person  who  willfully discharges oil or oil
mixture from  a  ship in violation of this  Act or the regulations
thereunder shall be fined not  more than $10,000 for each viola-
tion or imprisoned not more  than one year, or  both.
   (b) In addition to any other  penalty prescribed by law any
person who willfully or negligently discharges oil or oily mixture
from a ship in violation of this Act or any regulation thereunder

-------
          WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      279

 shall be liable to a civil penalty of not more  than $10,000 for
 each violation, and any person who otherwise violates this Act or
 any regulation thereunder shall be liable to a civil penalty of not
 more than $5,000 for each violation.
   (c)  A  ship  from which oil or oily  mixture is discharged in
 violation  of this Act or any regulation thereunder is liable for
 any pecuniary penalty  under this section  and may be proceeded
 against in the district  court of any  district in which the vessel
 may be found.
   (d)  The Secretary may assess any civil penalty incurred under
 this Act  or any  regulation thereunder and,  in his discretion,
 remit, mitigate, or compromise any penalty. No penalty may be
 assessed unless the  alleged violator shall have been given notice
 and the opportunity to be  heard on the alleged violation. Upon
 any failure to pay  a civil  penalty assessed under this Act, the
 Secretary may request the Attorney General to institute a civil
 action to collect the penalty.  In  hearing  such actions,  the  dis-
 trict court shall have  authority to review the violation  and the
 assessment of the civil penalty de novo.
   [SEC. 7.] Sec.  8. The Coast Guard may, subject to the provi-
 sions of section 4450  of the Revised Statutes, as amended  (46
 U.S.C. 239), suspend or revoke a  license issued to the master or
 other licensed  officer of any ship found violating  the provisions
 of this Act or the regulations issued pursuant thereto.
   [Sec. 8.]  Sec.  9.  (a.)  In the administration of sections 1-12
 of this Act, the Secretary may make use of the organization,
 equipment,  and  agencies,  including engineering, clerical,  and
 other personnel, employed  under his direction in the improve-
 ment of rivers and harbors and  in the  enforcement  of laws for
 the improvement of rivers and harbors and in the enforcement
 of laws for the preservation and protection of navigable waters.]
 In the administration of sections 1-12 of this Act, the Secretary
 may utilize by agreement,  with or without  reimbursement, law
 enforcement officers or other personnel, facilities, or equipment
 of other Federal agencies or the States.  [For the better enforce-
 ment of the provisions of said sections, the officers and agents of
 the United States in charge of river and harbor  improvements
 and  persons employed under them by authority of the Secretary,
 and  officers and  employees of the Bureau of Customs and  the
 Coast Guard,]  For the better  enforcement of the provisions  of
 said sections, officers of the Coast Guard and other persons em-
 ployed by or acting under  the authority of the Secretary shall
have power and authority and it shall be their duty to swear  out
 process and to arrest and take  into  custody, with  or  without

-------
280          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

process, any person who may  violate any  of said provisions:
Provided,  That no person shall be arrested without process for a
violation not committed in the presence of some one  of the afore-
said officials: And provided further,  That whenever any arrest
is made under  the  provisions of said  sections  the person so ar-
rested shall be brought forthwith before a commissioner, judge,
or court of
                                                        [p. 8]

the United States for examination of the offenses alleged against
him; and  such  commissioner, judge, or court shall proceed in re-
spect thereto as authorized by law in cases of crimes against the
United States.  Representatives  of the  Secretary  and  of the
[Bureau of  Customs and] Coast Guard of the United States may
go on board and inspect any ship [in a prohibited zone or in a port
of the United  States] as may be necessary for enforcement of
this Act.
   (b) To implement article  VII of the convention, ship fittings
and equipment, and operating requirements thereof, shall be in
accordance  with regulations prescribed by the Secretary [of the
Department in which the Coast Guard is operating]. [Any person
found violating these regulations shall, in addition  to any  other
penalty prescribed by law, be subject to  a  civil  penalty not in
excess of $100.]
   [SEC. 9.]  Sec. 10 (a)  The Secretary shall have printed separate
oil record books, containing instructions and spaces for inserting
information in the form prescribed by the Convention, which shall
be published in regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
   (b) If  subject to this Act,  every ship using oil fuel and every
tanker shall be provided, without charge, an oil record book which
shall be carried on board. The provisions of section 140 of title 5,
United States Code, shall not apply. The ownership of the booklet
shall remain in the United States Government.  This book shall
be available for inspection as provided in this Act and for sur-
render to the United States Government pursuant to regulations
of the Secretary.
   [(c) The oil record book shall be completed on each occasion,
whenever any of the following operations takes place in the ship:
       [(1) ballasting  of  and discharge  of ballast from  cargo
     tanks of tankers;
       [(2) cleaning of cargo tanks of tankers;
       [ (3) settling in slop  tanks  and discharge of water from
     tankers;

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      281

       [ (4)  disposal from tankers of oily residues from slop tanks
    or other sources;
       [ (5)  ballasting, or cleaning during voyage, of bunker fuel
    tanks of ships other than tankers;
       [(6)  disposal from ships other than tankers of oily resi-
    dues from bunker fuel tanks or other  sources;
       [(7)  accidental or other exceptional discharges'or escapes
    of oil from tankers or ships other than tankers.
  [In the event of such discharge or escape of oil or oily mixture,
as is referred to in subsection S(c) and section 4 of  this Act, a
statement shall be made in the oil record  book of the circum-
stances of, and reason for, the discharge or escape.]
  (c)  The oil record book shall be completed on each occasion, on
a tank-to-tank basis, whenever any of the  following  operations
take place in the ship:
       (1)  for tankers—
              (i) loading of oil cargo;
              (ii)  transfer  of  oil cargo during  voyage;
              (Hi) discharge of oil cargo;
              (iv) ballasting of cargo  tanks;
              (v)  cleaning  of  cargo tanks;
              (vi) discharge of dirty ballast;
                                                        [p. 9]
              (vii)  discharge of water from slop  tanks;
              (viii) disposal of residues;
              (ix) discharge overboard of bilge water containing
           oil which has  accumulated in machinery spaces while
           in port, and the routine discharge at sea of bilge water
           containing oil unless the latter  has been entered in the
           appropriate log book;
       (2)  for ships other than tankers—
              (i) ballasting or cleaning of bunker  fuel tanks;
              (ii)  discharge of dirty ballast  or cleaning  water
           from bunker fuel tanks;
              (Hi) disposal of  residues;
              (iv) discharge overboard of bilge  water containing
           oil which has  accumulated in machinery spaces while
           in port, and the routine discharge at sea of bilge water
           containing oil unless the latter  has been entered in the
           appropriate logbook. In the event of such discharge or
           escape of oil or oily mixture as  is referred to in section
           4 of this  Act, a statement shall be made in the oil

-------
282          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

           record book of the circumstances of, and reason for,
           the discharge or escape.

   (d)  Each operation described in subsection  [9] 10 (c)  of the
Act shall be fully recorded without delay in the oil record book so
that all the entries in the book appropriate to that operation are
completed. Each page of the book shall be signed by the officer or
officers in charge of the operations  concerned and, when the ship
is manned, by the master of the ship.
   (e)  Oil record books shall be kept in such manner and for such
length of time as set forth in  the  regulations prescribed  by the
Secretary.
   [(f)  If any person  fails to comply with the requirements im-
posed by or under this section, he shall be liable on conviction to a
fine  not exceeding $1,000 nor less  than $500 and if any  person
makes an entry in any records kept in accordance with this Act
or regulations prescribed thereunder by the Secretary which is to
his knowledge false or misleading in any material particular, he
shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 nor less
than $500 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months,
or both.]

   [SEC. 10.] Sec. 11. The Secretary may make regulations  for the
administration of [sections 3, 4, 5, 8(a), 9, and 12.] sections 3, 4,
5, 6, 7, 9, and 10.

   [SEC. 11.] Sec. 12. (a) The Secretary may make regulations em-
powering such persons as may be designated to go  on  board any
ship to which the convention applies, while the ship is  within the
territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and to require pro-
duction of any records required to be kept in accordance with the
convention.
   (b) Should evidence be obtained that  a ship registered in an-
other  country party to the convention has discharged oil in [any
prohibited zone] violation of the convention but outside the terri-
torial sea of the  United States such evidence should be  forwarded
to the State Department for action in  accordance with article X
of the convention.

   [SEC. 12. (a)  All sea areas within fifty miles from the  nearest
 land shall be prohibited zones, subject to extensions or reduction
 effectuated in accordance with the terms of the  Convention, which
 shall be published in regulations prescribed by  the Secretary.
                                                        [p. 10]

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY     283

  [(b) With respect to the reduction  or  extension of the zones
described under the terms of the Convention, the Secretary shall
give notice thereof by publication of such  information in Notices
to Mariners issued by the United States Coast Guard and United
States Navy.]

  [SEC. 14.] Sec. 18. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated
such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this
Act.

  [SEC. 15.] Sec. 14. If a provision of this Act or the application of
such provision  to any person  or circumstances shall be  held in-
valid, the  remainder of the Act  and the application of such pro-
vision to persons or circumstances other than those to which it is
held invalid shall not be affected thereby.

  [SEC. 16] Sec. 15. Nothing in  this Act or in regulations issued
hereunder shall be construed to  modify or amend the  provisions
of section 311 of the [Oil Pollution Act, 1924 (33 U.S.C. 431-337,]
Federal Water Pollution Control Act,  as  amended, or of section
89 of title 14,  United States Code.

  [SEC. 17. (a) This Act shall become effective upon the date of its
enactment  or upon the date  the amended Convention  becomes
effective as to the United States, whichever is the later date.
  [ (b) Any rights or liabilities existing on the effective date of
this Act shall not be affected  by the enactment  of this Act. Any
procedures or rules or regulations in effect on the effective date of
this Act shall remain in effect until modified or superseded under
the authority of this Act. Any reference in any other law or rule
or regulation prescribed pursuant  to  law to  the "International
Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil,
1954," shall be deemed to be a reference to that Convention as re-
vised  by the "Amendments of the International Convention for the
Prevention of  Pollution of  the  Sea by Oil, 1954," which were
adopted by a Conference of Contracting Governments convened at
London on April 11, 1962. Any reference in  any other law or rule
or regulation prescribed pursuant  to  law to  the "Oil Pollution
Act,  1961," approved  August 30, 1961  (33 U.S.C. 1001-1015),
shall  be deemed to be a reference to that Act as amended by this
Act.]

                     AGENCY COMMENTS

  Executive Communication No. 446 and  departmental report on
S. 1067 (H.R. 5451)  follow:

-------
284          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

                     [Exec. Comm. No. 446]
                   THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION,
                         Washington, D.C., February 15,1973.
Hon.  SPIRO  T. AGNEW,
President of the Senate,
Washington, D.C.
  DEAR MR. PRESIDENT : There is transmitted herewith a draft of
a proposed bill, "to amend the Oil Pollution Act, 1961, (75 Stat.
402), as amended, to  implement the  1969 and 1971 amendments
to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of
the sea by Oil, 1954, as amended; and for other purposes."
                                                      [P.  11]

  The proposed bill would incorporate  into the existing domes-
tic!  law which implements the original  1954 Oil Pollution Con-
vention the  latest amendments to the Convention adopted by the
Intergovernmental  Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO)
by  Resolution A.175(VI)  on  October 21, 1969; Resolution A.232
 (VII) on October 12, 1971,  and Resolution A.246(VII)  on Octo-
ber 15,  1971. You will recall  that ratification of the 1969 amend-
ments was advised and consented to by the Senate on  Septem-
ber 20,  1971. Additionally  in May  1972 the  1971 amendments
were submitted  to the Senate for their advice and consent.  The
submission of draft legislation at this time is in accord with the
Executive Branch  intention of seeking legislative  implementa-
tion at the earliest possible time.
  The 1969  convention changes, particularly as they impose more
stringent constraints on  oil and  oily mixture  discharges from
vessels   anywhere,  represent another  advancing  step toward
 remedy  of ocean oil  pollution, a major international as well as
national environmental  problem. Those  amendments  abandon the
 concept  which prohibited discharges within certain zones (gen-
 erally within 50 miles  of land) and which discouraged but did
 not prohibit indiscriminate discharges in the open sea beyond the
 zones. Under the amendments and the  legislation here proposed,
 discharges will be prohibited anywhere unless certain conditions
 are met. Those  conditions relate to  discharge rate,  oily mixture
 dilution, total quantity  of oil discharged, and distance from land.
 For  example, a tanker will be prohibited from any discharges
 within  50 miles of land, and beyond that distance may only dis-
 charge while proceeding enroute and so long as a discharge of oil
 content  does not exceed 60 liters per mile, and provided that the
 total quantity of oil discharged  on a ballast  voyage  does not

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      285

exceed 1/15,000 of the total cargo-carrying capacity of the vessel.
  The 1971 amendments apply the distance from land criterion
for discharges of oil and oily mixtures to the area of the Great
Barrier Reef as if it were land, and concern tank arrangements
and limitations of tank size for new tank vessels. The objective of
the amendments relating to tank arrangements and tank size is to
limit  the quantity of oil which can escape into the sea as  the
result of collision or other vessel casualty.
  In  addition to the criminal penalties now provided for viola-
tions  of the  1961 Act these proposed  amendments  would make
civil penalties also  available for more flexible and  effective  en-
forcement.  Article VI of the  Oil  Pollution Convention  requires
that penalties which a country imposes for unlawful discharges
by  domestic  vessels  beyond its territorial  sea shall not be less
than those  for the same infringements within the territorial sea.
That  requirement will be satisfied  because the civil penalties
proposed in  the draft bill are equal to  or larger in  amount
than those  contained in section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (P.L. 92-500).
  It would be appreciated  if you would lay this proposal before
the Senate. A similar proposal has been submitted to the Speaker
of the House of Representatives.
  The Office of Management and  Budget advises that this  pro-
posed legislation is  consistent  with the  Administration's objec-
tives.
       Sincerely,
                                      CLAUDE S. BRINEGAE.
                                                      [p.  12]

                               DEPARTMENT  OF STATE,
                              Washington, D.C., May 31,1973
Hon.  WARREN  G. MAGNUSON,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
U.S.  Senate.
   DEAR MR.  CHAIRMAN : The Secretary has asked that I  reply to
your  letter of March 26 requesting the comments of the  Depart-
ment of State on S. 1067, a bill "To amend the Oil Pollution Act,
1961  (75 Stat. 402), as amended,  to implement the  1969 and the
1971  amendments to the International Convention for the Preven-
tion of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil,  1954, as amended; and for
other purposes."
   S.  1067  is motivated by  three sets of amendments to  the  1954
Convention: the amendments  with  respect to oily  discharge
adopted by the Assembly of the Inter-Governmental Consultative

-------
286          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

Organization (IMCO) on October 21, 1969; the amendments for
the protection of the Great Barrier Reef adopted by the IMCO
Assembly on October 12, 1971; and the amendments concerning
tank arrangements and limitation of tank size  adopted by the
IMCO Assembly on October 15, 1971. The Senate has consented to
the first of these amendments, and has the other two before it for
advice and consent. The Department of State believes that  ratifi-
cation of the three sets of amendments would be in the interest of
the United States. It accordingly supports the adoption of S. 1067,
by which they would be implemented.
  Adoption  of this legislation would not result in any significant
costs to the  Department of State.
  The  Office of Management and Budget  advises that  from the
standpoint of the Administration's program there is no objection
to the  submission of this  report and that enactment of S. 1067
would be consistent with the Administration's objectives.
       Sincerely,
                                   MARSHALL WRIGHT,
             Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations.
                      NATIONAL  SCIENCE FOUNDATION,
                                OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR,
                           Washington, D.C., August 20,1973.
 Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,
 Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
 U.S.  Senate,
 Washington, D.C.
   DEAR. MR.  CHAIRMAN: This is in  response to your  letter of
 March 26. 1973, requesting the comments of the National Science
 Foundation on S. 1067, the Oil  Pollution Act Amendments of
 1973 and S. 1070, the Intervention on the High Seas Act.
   S.  1067 would amend existing domestic legislation to  imple-
 ment and conform to the 1969 and 1971 amendments to the Na-
 tional Convention for the Prevention  of the Pollution of the Sea
 by Oil.
                                                     [p. 13]
 S. 1070  would provide legislation implementing  the  National
 Convention Relating to Intervention  on the High Seas in  Cases
 of Oil Pollution Casualties.
   Since the Foundation has no  direct responsibilities  under  the
 legislation, it  defers to the views  of the Department of State,  the
 Environmental Protection Agency, and other agencies directly
 affected by the bills.

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY     287

  The Office of Management and Budget has advised us that there
is no objection to the submission of this report from the viewpoint
of the Administration's program.
      Sincerely yours,
                                   R. L. BlSPLINGHOPF,
                           (for H. Guyford Stever, Director).
                   FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION,
                             OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN,
                            Washington, D.C., August 7,1973.
Hon.  WARREN G. MAGNUSON,
Chairman,  Committee  on Commerce,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
  DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : This is in response to your request for the
views  of the Federal Maritime  Commission with  respect  to
S. 1067, a  bill "To amend the  Oil Pollution Act, 1961  (75  Stat.
402), as amended,  to  implement the 1969  and the 1971 amend-
ments to the International Convention for  the Prevention of the
Pollution of the  Sea by Oil, 1954,  as amended; and for other
purposes."
  Inasmuch as the bill does not affect the responsibilities or juris-
diction of the Commission, we express no  views  as to its enact-
ment.
  The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there
would be no objection to the submission of this  letter  from the
standpoint of the Administration's program.
       Sincerely,
                                HELEN DELICH BENTLEY,
                                                 Chairman.
                                                      [p. 14]
      1.3c(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 119(1973):
 1.3c(3)(a)  May 8: Considered and passed House, pp. H3419-H3425
      OIL POLLUTION  ACT        The Clerk read as follows:
     AMENDMENTS OF 1973     I                      [p. H3419]
  Mrs. SULLIVAN. Mr.  Speaker,  l|
move to suspend the rules and pass |
the bill  (H.R. 5451)  to  amend  the
Oil Pollution Act, 1961 (75 Stat. 402),
as amended, to implement the  1969
and 1971 amendments to the Interna-
tional Convention for the Prevention
of the Pollution  of the Sea by  Oil,
  The SPEAKER. Is a second de-
manded?
  Mr. RUPPE.  Mr.  Speaker,  I de-
mand a second.
  The SPEAKER. Without objection,
a second will be considered as ordered.
 1954,  as  amended;  and for other!  There was no objection.
 purposes, as amended.              >  (Mrs. SULLIVAN asked  and was

-------
288
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
given permission  to  revise  and ex-
tend her remarks.)
  Mrs. SULLIVAN.  Mr. Speaker, I
yield myself such time as I may con-
sume.
  Mr. Speaker. H.R. 5451, as reported
by the Merchant Marine and Fisher-
ies   Committee  is  straight  forward
and  uncomplicated  in  concept,  al-
though  its provisions are somewhat
technical in nature.
  The bill proposes to amend the Oil
Pollution  Act, 1961,  as amended,  to
reflect  in that  act  three  sets  of
amendments to the International Con-
vention on Prevention of Pollution of
the  Sea  by  Oil,  1954,  as amended.
  The  1954 convention, of which the
United  States is  signatory, was the
first international  action  addressing
itself to the reduction of oil pollution
in  the  oceans.  Even at  that  early
date, it  was apparent  that it was
necessary to  take measures to pre-
vent the  oceans from becoming more
and more polluted from oil discharges.
With increasing  carriage  of  oil  by
tankers, now at a level of 1,300 mil-
lion metric tons per year, more and
more stringent controls must  be ap-
plied.
  As a result of its continuing con-
cern, the Inter-Governmental  Mari-
time  Consultative   Organization—
IMCO—took action in 1962 to tighten
the  provisions of  the convention, and
the   United  States  ratified  those
 changes  in  1966.  Again  in October
1969, IMCO took additional measures,
and those 1969 amendments are one
of  the three sets  of provisions which
this bill  before us  today will  incor-
porate  into  domestic  law.  The other
two sets  of amendments were adopted
 in IMCO  in October 1971.
   The  three  sets  of  amendments
 which  we  propose  to implement in
 this legislation  do   the   following
 things:
   First,  as to the 1969 amendments
 This set  of amendments abolishes  the
 so-called  "free  zones"  of  the  oceans
                      generally existing in areas more than
                      50  miles  from the nearest land,  and
                      extends the "prohibited zones" to cover
                      ;he entire ocean. The result is that
                      n  the  discharge  of  oil from  vessels
                      ;hrough ballasting and tank washing
                      operations, the vessels covered by the
                      convention, tankers  above 150 tons
                      and other vessels above 500 tons, may
                      discharge oily mixtures during their
                      operations only  when the vessel  is
                      proceeding en route on its  voyage,
                      the rate  of discharge of the oil con-
                      tent in the oily water does not exceed
                      15 gallons per mile, the  oil content
                      is  less than 100  parts per oil per 1
                      million parts of mixture, and the ves-
                      sel is  as far as  practicable  from
                      land.  As to  tankers,  discharge  of
                      effluent  with  any oil content  is  pro-
                      hibited unless  the tanker is  proceed-
                      ing on  its voyage,  the rate  of dis-
                      charge  does  not  exceed  15  gallons
                      per mile, the total quantity of oil dis-
                      charged on a ballast voyage  does not
                      exceed one fifteen-thousandths  cargo-
                      carrying capacity, and the tanker is
                      more  than 50  miles  from the nearest
                      land.
                         Under present conditions, it is esti-
                      mated that a total of almost 1 million
                      metric tons of oil are discharged into
                      the oceans each year from tank wash-
                      ings and oily ballast discharges.  Of
                      this amount, U.S. registered  tankers
                      are estimated to contribute  approxi-
                      mately  53,000 or about  6 percent of
                      the total. With  the  provisions of the
                      1969 amendments in force, the maxi-
                      mum quantity of oil at present cargo
                      levels  for  U.S.  tankers would  be
                      something less than 5,000 metric tons
                      or a reduction  of  approximately  90
                      percent. The same computation would
                      reduce the overall world discharge to
                      less than 90,000 metric tons per year.
                         Mr. Speaker,  the  1969 amendments,
                      adopted in  IMCO  in  October 1969,
                      were referred to the Senate for ad-
                      vice and consent to ratification,  and
                      on September 20, 1971, that body by a
                      vote of  75 to 0, adopted the  resolu-

-------
           WATER—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY
                                289
tion of ratification. In the second ses-
sion  of the 92d  Congress,  the Mer-
chant Marine  and Fisheries Commit-
tee reported favorably H.R. 15627, to
implement those  1969  amendments.
The bill was passed by
                          [p. H3420]

unanimous consent in the House late
in the second session and,  unfortun-
ately, the Senate did not take action
on the bill.  Therefore, as  to these
1969 amendments, this House has al-
ready spoken, and I solicit  your sup-
port to move this implementing legis-
lation forward once again.
  As  to the two sets  of amendments
adopted  in  IMCO  in  1971, each  of
which is also contained in this imple-
menting legislation, the first  relates
to the  Great Barrier Reef, off  the
northeast coast of Australia. Because
of its  fragile nature  and its  protec-
tion  to  the  continent of  Australia,
the IMCO Assembly adopted a resolu-
tion amending the convention to treat
the Great Barrier Reef as  if it were
land,  so  that  no tanker  discharges
with  any oil   content  could  occur
within 50 miles of that reef.
  The second set of  1971 amendments
is anticipatory in  nature. Faced with
the  prospect  of  increasingly  large
tankers  and  discussions looking  to
the possibility  of  large tankers  of
from  500,000 to 1 million deadweight
tons,  IMCO  with  the leadership  of
the U.S.  delegation, established cer-
tain  tank size  limitations  and tank
arrangements in these large tankers
which  would  result in limiting  the
outflow of oil in  the event that  one
of these  tankers  should  suffer colli-
sion or  stranding casualty. The  net
effect  of  the  amendments  would  be
that no tanker  could be constructed
after a certain date wherein the wing
tanks  could exceed  30,000  cubic me-
ters. The center tanks could not ex-
ceed 50,000 cubic meters. The formula
adopted would begin to have practical
effect  in  any  tanker  approaching
300,000 deadweight tons or larger.
  The  two sets  of 1971 amendments
have not yet been acted upon in  the
Senate. However, hearings were  re-
cently  held  by  a  subcommittee  of
the Foreign Relations Committee, and
there is  every reason  to believe that
favorable affirmative  action  will  be
taken  on those  amendments  within
the early future.
  In  addition  to implementing  the
three  sets of  amendments  which  I
have  described,  H.R.  5451,  as  re-
ported, makes certain  other technical
and conforming  changes to  the  Oil
Pollution Act,  1961,  and  increases
the penalty provisions in order to pro-
vide a more realistic sanction for vi-
olators.  The  new  penalties  provide
for a  maximum  fine of $10,000 and
imprisonment for not  more  than  1
year for willful  discharges in  viola-
tion of the act, a civil penalty of not
more than $10,000 for  either a willful
or negligent discharge in violation of
the  act  and a  civil penalty of  not
more than $5,000, for any other vio-
lation  of the act or  regulation  not
amounting to a discharge. Under the
present  provisions  of the  act,  the
maximum fine is $2,500, and  no civil
penalties are provided for.
  Finally,  the bill,  as reported, will,
with a single exception, place the im-
plementing  provisions into effect  as
soon  as  the bill is enacted or  the
amendments   are   ratified   by  the
United States, whichever is later. The
exception referred  to relates to  ac-
tions against foreign  vessels trading
in  American  ports  or  offshore ter-
minals.  This  provision  will  become
effective  only after  the second  set of
1971   amendments   goes  into  effect,
upon completion  of  the  international
ratification process.
  I  commend this legislation to  the
House, and  I  solicit the  support of
all  Members in the  enactment of this
bill. It is legislation which is  effective

-------
290
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n
and practical, a combination which is
not always possible.
   (Mr.  RUPPE asked and was given
permission to revise and  extend his
remarks.)
  Mr.  RUPPE. Mr. Speaker, I rise
in support  of H.R. 5451,  a  bill  to
amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1961
to  implement the  1969  and  1971
amendments   to   the  International
Convention for the Prevention of Pol-
lution of the Sea by Oil.
  The   Oil  Pollution  Convention  of
1954 was the first international at-
tempt to control the growing threat
of oil pollution  at sea  from the rou-
tine  operation of tankers and other
vessels. In essence, the convention es-
tablished the concept  of prohibited
zones extending 50  miles from shore
within  which  oil  may not  be dis-
charged. While this convention was a
step in the right  direction in that  it
at least minimized  the international
discharge of oil close in shore, it did
nothing  to  stop  the growing use  of
the oceans  generally as a  dumping
ground  for  oily  residues  from  the
thousands of ships  daily  transiting
the sealanes of the world.
   Following the Torrey  Canyon dis-
aster of 1964, the principal  maritime
nations  of the world  under the aus-
pices of  the  International  Maritime
Consultative  Organization—IMCO—
began to seriously reevaluate the full
spectrum of Safety at Sea  and Ma-
rine Pollution Conventions.  The 1969
and 1971 amendments to the Oil Pollu-
tion Convention which this legislation
would implement were the  result of
this post-Torrey Canyon reappraisal.
   As amended in  1969, the  Oil Pol-
lution  Convention  expands  upon the
prohibited zone  concept  to  establish
a more  rational  criteria  for the dis-
charge  of oil. Discharges from tank-
ers continue  to  be  flatly  prohibited
within   50  miles  from  the  nearest
land. In addition, discharges  beyond
50 miles at  sea, heretofore unregu-
lated,  may not  exceed 60  litres,  or
                      about 16 gallons,  per mile, and  the
                      total quantity of oil discharged on a
                      ballast voyage may  not exceed  one
                      fifteen-thousandths   of  the   cargo-
                      carrying  capacity of the ship. Com-
                      parable,  though not identical, provi-
                      sions governed discharges of oil from
                      all other ships. Stringent recordkeep-
                      ing provisions have been adopted to
                      insure compliance with these require-
                      ments.
                        The existing Oil Pollution Act pro-
                      vides only  criminal  penalties for vi-
                      olations.   The  bill   establishes  a
                      $10,000  civil  penalty  for  willful  or
                      negligent discharge of oil in violation
                      of the act  and  raises  the criminal
                      fine from a maximum of $2,500 to a
                      maximum of $10,000.
                        The  1971 amendments to the con-
                      vention  recognize  the Great  Barrier
                      Reef off  the coast of Australia as if
                      it  were  land for the purposes of the
                      50-mile limitation and establish regu-
                      lations  governing  the  size of  indi-
                      vidual  cargo  tanks  in  newly  con-
                      structed  tank vessels. The uniqueness
                      of the Great Barrier Reef, a  living
                      coral formation  that  is the habitat
                      of  a tremendous  variety  of  tropi-
                      cal fish and other marine life amply
                      justifies its  treatment as a  land mass
                      for the purpose of prohibiting totally
                      any  discharge of oil within 50 miles.
                      The  second set of  1971 amendments
                      is a first  step toward limiting the
                      volume of oil  which might escape  into
                      the sea in the event of a  stranding,
                      collision, or explosion  involving large
                      tankers.
                         The impact of these regulations will
                      be felt upon ships in the 300,000-dead-
                      weight-ton-and-above category. While
                      no ships of this size  are  registered
                      under the American flag or even un-
                      der construction in the United States,
                      there are  many in use or on order
                      worldwide.
                         In essence,  the main cargo tanks
                      would be limited to a  maximum vol-
                      ume of  50,000 cubic meters and wing
                      tanks to a  maximum  of 30,000 cubic

-------
           WATER—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                               291
meters.   Once  this  amendment be-
comes operative following ratification
by  the  requisite number of nations,
the Secretary of Transportation will
be authorized to deny entry to U.S.
ports or  offshore terminal facilities
to any  tanker which  does not con-
form to these limitations.
  This  legislation  is  an  important
step forward  in  our effort  to reduce
and  eventually eliminate  all  inten-
tional discharges of oil at sea result-
ing  from  routine  shipboard opera-
tions and to  lessen the impact of a
pollution  incident in the event of a
stranding or collision.
  There has  been  steady  growth  in
the size of  supertankers since  adop-
tion of the 1969 and 1971 amendments.
More contracts have been  signed for
the  construction  of  ships  in the
500,000-ton  category. It seems  clear
that tankers well above  that tonnage
are inevitable. This has  resulted in a
call  for  further refinements to  in-
ternational regulation  of tanker con-
struction.  I   was  privileged  earlier
this year to attend the Preparatory
Conference  for the 1973  Oil  Pollu-
tion Convention at which time a  draft
convention was hammered  out, which
hopefully will be adopted later this
year  and submitted to  the member
nations of IMCO for ratification. The
new convention  will prescribe  more
stringent standards for the construc-
tion of  these  truly immense  petro-
leum carriers.  The other  body has
given its advice and consent to the
1969  amendments  and  will  shortly
consider the  1971  amendments. Our
maritime industry  strongly supports
these internationally agreed measures
to protect the marine environment. I
therefore urge  the  passage  of this
legislation as  a much-needed step to-
ward achieving the goal  of protecting
the global marine environment  from
the toxic effects of oil.
  Mr.  MURPHY of New  York. Mr.
Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RUPPE. I yield  to the gentle-
man from New York.
  Mr.  MURPHY of New  York.  The
committee has watched  the  develop-
ment of  IMCO, and the  balanced re-
quirements  of ocean ships,  particu-
larly as very large crew carriers, be-
coming larger than very  large,  are
developed.  The committee, with  the
gentlewoman  from  Missouri  (Mrs.
SULLIVAN as  chairman, will under-
take hearings later  this  month on
the impact of balanced requirements,
as that appears to affect the Ameri-
can shipbuilding  industry.
  And, of course, the  impact is  that
there is one thing we  certainly want
to assure, and that is that certainly
this not an
                          [p. H3421]
international  standard  that  is   im-
posed only on the United States which
would,   in  effect  price  the  United
States  out of the  shipbuilding busi-
ness, whether it is  a very  large crew
carrier or whether it is  another  type
of carrier.  The  committee  will go
into in-depth hearings on this matter
later this month.
  Mr.  RUPPE. Mr. Speaker, I thank
my colleague, the  gentleman  from
New York (Mr. MURPHY). He brings
out a very good point.
  I do know, as  a result  of my at-
tendance at the last London  conven-
tion  of  IMCO,  that  the American
delegation  was very strong- in  sup-
porting  those amendments,  the  two
amendments  to  existing conventions
that would tighten up regulations on
discharges of  oil  at sea or discharges
of  chemicals or  other  toxic  sub-
stances.
  I think, however, that  we will want
to support these  measures, fully un-
derstanding that  in no  way is  this
going  to impair  the  future or  the
viability of our  American Merchant
Marine or certainly those organiza-
tions and companies engaged  in the
construction thereof.
  I think the idea  of hearings which
my colleague, the  gentleman  from

-------
292
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n
New  York  (Mr.  MURPHY)  has sug-
gested is a very  wise  one, and  I
think they  will be very helpful  in
connection with this problem.
  Mr.  DON  H.   CLAUSEN.  Mr.
Speaker,  will the  gentleman  yield?
  Mr. EUPPE. I am very happy to
yield  to the gentleman from Califor-
nia (Mr.  DON H. CLAUSEN).
   (Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
  Mr.  DON  H.   CLAUSEN.  Mr.
Speaker, I rise in  strong support of
this legislation.
  I would like to  have the attention
of  the  gentleman from  Michigan
 (Mr. DINGELL), I  would like to  di-
rect  a  couple of  questions  to the
gentleman,  representing  as   I  do  a
very  long  coastline of  California;
that  is,  northern  California.  Mr.
Speaker, the question I would like to
direct to the gentleman is  whether
or not this number  of miles will  apply
seaward from the  shoreline  or from
the territorial sea.
   Mr. DINGELL.  If  the gentleman
will yield, the answer is that it would
apply from the  coast, beginning at
the coast, to the territorial sea.
   Mr.  DON  H.   CLAUSEN.  Mr.
 Speaker, the next question will  relate
to the enforcement proceedings beyond
the territorial sea.
   Will this come under  the  Environ-
mental Protection Act?
   Mr. DINGELL.   No,  this  will be
administered  under the statute. We
are considering that  it  will be  ad-
ministered by the Coast Guard, and it
will be handled in that fashion.
   Mr.  DON  H.   CLAUSEN.  Well,
 what about on the  Continental Shelf
 itself?
   Mr. DINGELL.  This is within  the
 territorial  sea. The Federal Water
 Pollution Act will apply,  and they
 will apply  the more stringent stand-
 ards, so that we could well  have  ap-
 plication as to vessels, tank  and dry
cargo and  other vessels, both  under
                      nternational agreement and also un-
                     der this particular statute.
                        Mr. DON H.  CLAUSEN.  So for
                     the territorial sea the Environmental
                      Protection Act would control it pretty
                     much?
                        Mr. DINGELL. The Federal Water
                      Pollution  Control Act,  as  amended,
                     would apply.
                        Mr.  DON  H.  CLAUSEN.  And
                     then  seaward it would be  up to the
                     Coast Guard  to  enforce this  in con-
                     cert with other agencies?
                        Mr.  DINGELL.  Well,  the  Coast
                     Guard  will  be  the   administrative
                     agency and will carry out  the  en-
                     forcement procedures set forth in the
                     statute with regard to reporting, keep-
                     ing records, and so forth, with regard
                     to discharge. This statute requires any
                     discharge  to be  reported in a record
                     book, and failure to  report or false re-
                     ports in the record books make a per-
                     son subject to rather severe penalties.
                        Mr.  DON  H.   CLAUSEN.  Mr.
                      Speaker, may  I  ask the  gentleman
                      further:  This is going to  require in-
                     creasing  responsibilities on the part
                      of the Coast Guard to enforce this
                      kind   of  pollution  control, at  least
                      with  regard to oil pollution?
                        Mr.  DINGELL. It  is going  to in-
                      crease  the  responsibilities  of  the
                      Coast Guard.
                        The gentleman is correct.
                        Mr.  DON  H. CLAUSEN. It may
                      be that the gentleman  is  addressing
                      himself to this in  other  legislation,
                      but  will  the  Coast Guard  be ade-
                      quately funded  in order to  meet these
                      responsibilities?
                        Mr.  DINGELL. Mr.  Speaker, that
                      is a  question we will  have a chance
                      to address ourselves to in the next
                      bill,  which will be  the Coast  Guard
                      authorization bill.
                        Mr.  GROVER.  Mr.  Speaker, will
                      the gentleman yield?
                        Mr.  RUPPE.  I yield to the gentle-
                      man from New York  (Mr. GROVER),
                      the ranking member of this commit-
                      tee.

-------
           WATER—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                293
  (Mr.   GROVER  asked  and  was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
  Mr.   GROVER.  Mr.   Speaker,  I
thank the  gentleman for  yielding to
me.
  Those of us, Mr. Speaker, in mari-
time or coastal  States  are growing
more and more  sensitive  to the great ,
threat of oil pollution, not only with
regard  to  pollution  of  our beaches,
but with regard to  the  degrading of
our marine environment.             i
  As the gentleman from Michigan
 (Mr. DINGELL)  said,  this  legislation
is a step beyond the Water Pollution
Control  Act of  1972, an  act  which
has teeth in it for our territorial wa-
ters; the legislation  at  hand  applies ,
to oil  spills  and  oil  dumping in the
open seas.
  It is a very good  piece  of  legisla-
tion.
  Mr.  Speaker,  the United States has
taken  a position  of world leadership
in  the  effort to  protect the oceans
from further oil  pollution. We have
pursued this goal  on  the domestic
front and  at the international  level.
  President  Nixon   devoted  a  mes-
sage to the Congress on May  20, 1970
to  call attention  to  the  growing
threat  to  our  marine  environment
from  the   routine  spillage  of  oily
wastes  at  sea and from the  growing
number of   tanker  collisions  and
 grounding  occurring principally in
coastal waters.
  Again on  February  8, 1971, the
 President in his environment  message
called for an international effort to
 terminate  all intentional  discharges
of oil  from ships by 1975 if  possible,
 and no later  than  the  end  of this
 decade.
  Protection from the threat of mas-
 sive pollution incidents  and from the
 more  insidious  routine  discharge of
 oily wastes, principally contaminated
 ballast water, is being achieved along
 two lines;  first,  prevention  of acci-
 dents and their consequences  and de-
liberate discharges, and secondly, de-
velopment  of cleanup  techniques and
legal  remedies to insure  that those
who cause pollution will be held re-
sponsible.
  The prevention of accidental pollu-
tion involves  primarily the develop-
ment  of  techniques  to enhance  the
navigation of ships in  those congested
areas where the risk  is  greatest.  In
this regard, the  92d  Congress wit-
nessed  the enactment of  the Ports
and Waterways  Safety  Act author-
izing  the Coast Guard traffic  control
systems  and  regulation  of   vessel
movements under  appropriate  cir-
cumstances;  the   Vessel  Bridge-to-
Bridge Radio-telephone Act to insure
that ships will be able to communicate
their  intentions in passing situations
—heretofore a leading cause of colli-
sions; and the Towing Vessel  Licens-
ing Act to insure that the  operators
of  barge tows,  which have been in-
volved  in  numerous  collisions with
ships  in  the lower  Mississippi,  for
example,  are qualified to  pilot  our
inland and coastal waterways.
  These domestic laws will undoubt-
edly  contribute to a  far higher de-
gree  of vessel safety  within territor-
ial  waters of the United States. They,
of  course, apply with equal force to
U.S.  and  foreign-flag vessels which
may  enter our  jurisdiction. We  will
never, of course, totally eliminate the
possibility of a massive  pollution  in-
cident  involving a supertanker. It is,
therefore,  essential  that  we take
parallel steps to insure  that  the im-
pact  of such a maritime casualty be
minimized. Since the vast majority of
petroleum carriers entering our ports
and transiting sea lanes  of the world
fly foreign flags, unilateral action on
the part of the United  States could
only  be partially effective; hence, the
effort  at  the  international level, as
outlined  by the President to  achieve
a  much  higher standard worldwide
for tanker  construction  and  opera-
tion.

-------
294
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT 11
  As  has been  stated  here, the bill
before us today implements a series
of amendments  to  the  1954 Conven-
tion  on the  Prevention of Pollution
of the Sea by Oil. The 1969 amend-
ments to the convention deal with the
routine discharge of oil from tankers
and  other ships arising  principally
from  tank cleaning operations while
sailing in ballast. These routine ship-
board operations produce a very sig-
nificant   degree   of   oil   pollution
throughout the world. With the great
growth in size of tankers, the amount
of oil left  as  a  residue  inside  the
tanks after discharging has been  com-
pleted amounts  to  many hundreds of
tons.  Various operational measures
have  been developed to minimize the
discharge of this  oil  after  ballast
water has been taken on, including the
so-called  load-on-top  technique,   and
the establishment of shore-based waste
water discharge  facilities.  None  of
these  measures have  proven  com-
pletely satisfactory, and  due to the
highly  competitive  nature of  the  oil
transportation  industry  all of  the
principal maritime nations  must act
in consort to insure that shipowners
cannot escape their obligation to pro-
tect  the  marine environment by flag
shopping.

                          [p. H3422]
 The  1971 amendments to  the conven-
 tion  are  a  first step at the interna-
 tional level toward developing tanker
 construction  standards   which   will
 minimize the impact of a casualty by
 limiting  the  volume of oil  that may
 be carried  in each cargo cell of the
 ship. Far more stringent tanker con-
 struction  standards  are  now  being
 studied,  including segregated ballast
 tanks and  double  bottoms,  in antici-
 pation of the 1973 IMCO conference
 on marine pollution. The 1971 amend-
 ments  to the  1954 convention  may,
 therefore, be considered to be of an
 interim nature.
                        Since  ocean  pollution respects  no
                      Doundaries, it is to be hoped that the
                      solutions can be found  at the inter-
                      national  level.   We  have,  however,
                      taken steps domestically to  provide
                      for unilateral  action on the part of
                      ;he United States should these inter-
                      national efforts  not  bear meaningful
                      fruit. Title II of the Ports and Wa-
                      terways Safety Act of 1972 directs
                      the  Secretary  of  Transportation to
                      promulgate    tanker    construction
                      standards for all vessels which may
                      enter our  waters according  to a well-
                      defined timetable which gives the in-
                      ternational  community   a  reasonable
                      time within which to act.
                        These, therefore, are  the  highlights
                      of our  effort over  the past several
                      years to eliminate deliberate and ac-
                      cidental oil spills by  improving  the
                      design of  ships and  by providing for
                      greater  navigational   safety.  H.R,
                      5451  represents an  important aspect
                      of this overall effort.
                         (Mr.  GROVER   asked  and  was
                      given  permission  to revise and  ex-
                      tend his remarks.)
                         Mr. RUPPE. Mr. Speaker, I yield
                      to my colleague from New York.
                         Mr. WYDLER.   I  would  like  to
                      address a couple of questions to some-
                      body who has charge of  this bill.
                         Do I understand  under  the  terms
                      of this bill that it makes or sets legal
                      standards in effect  for the dumping
                      of oil at sea? Is that the understand-
                      ing?
                         Mr.  RUPPE. It sets  limitations.
                      There have  been no  restrictions  on
                      dumping  of oil beyond a distance of
                      50 miles. To my understanding,  this
                      set  very  tight limitations  on  the
                      amount of dumping that can be per-
                      mitted. For instance,  dumping can-
                      not exceed 16  gallons  per mile  and
                      the  total dumping cannot  exceed one
                      fifteen-thousandths  of  the cargo ca-
                      pacity  of a  ship.  In other words,
                      there are very strict limitations with
                      severe  civil and  criminal penalties

-------
           WATER—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                               295
for violation hereof and generally for
any discharge of oil in the  open sea.
  Mr. WYDLER.  I  understand that,
but what I am driving at is I under-
stand the need  for  such regulation,
but  what  I  think  I  understand  is
under the terms of  this bill  certain
types of dumping of  oil  at sea are
made legal. Is that right?
  Mr.  DINGELL.  Will the  gentle-
man yield?
  Mr. RUPPE.  I yield to the gentle-
man.
  Mr. DINGELL.  The answer to that
question is categorically no. This bill
restricts very significantly  both the
amount, that  is the quantities, and
the areas in which oil may be dumped
now. This  legislation  implements  an
international agreement to which the
United  States is a signed participant
and says for the first time  that ves-
sels which  bear the  American flag
may no longer dump oil  anywhere
in the ocean outside the 50-mile limit
of  a coast without  limitation  and it
imposes limitations as  to the amounts.
   For     example,    one    fifteen-
thousandths of  the  total amount  of
cargo capacity of  a  ship. Sixty liters
per mile is a limitation. That is the
total  limitation.  It  is  one  fifteen-
thousandths of  the  total cargo car-
rying capacity of a vessel on a voyage.
   It also restricts  it so that  there
can no  longer be any  dumping inside
the 50-mile  limit of  any  shoreline.
This  is  a  substantial  restriction.
IMCO  intends to address itself to  an
absolute zero dumping of oil  in  the
oceans  by 1980.  That is the  next step,
and this committee will be very vigor-
ous in looking into that matter when
it arises.
   Mr.   WYDLER.  I  appreciate  the
explanation of the gentleman, but if
I  understood it correctly,  it  comes
down to  this  fact. If you dump  a
certain  distance from  the land and a
set amount per square  mile—
   Mr. DINGELL.  Per  liter.
   Mr.   WYDLER.  Then  that  dump-
ing is  a  legal dumping of oil at sea.
Is that correct?
  Mr.  RUPPE. Any dumping is le-
gal beyond 50  miles  now and  you
can dump at sea whatever you want
to. This for the first time puts severe
limitations on the  discharge of oil at
sea. Recognizing the fact  that there
are possible  accidents or  small  dis-
charges  that  might occur, we have
provided that they do not exceed 16
gallons  per  mile  or  one   fifteen-
thousandths of the total cargo carry-
ing capacity of a  ship on a  voyage.
That  would  not be  considered legal
under  the legislation.  This takes the
dumping which was heretofore legal
and restricts it very severely.
  I believe  the chairman of the full
committee  has  said that we dump
over 1 million  barrels  of oil annually
now, and this will  restrict it  to under
100,000 barrels of oil.
  Mrs. SULLIVAN.  That  is  abso-
lutely correct.
  Mr.  WYDLER.  Then, where  does
the other 900,000  barrels of oil go?
  Mr.  RUPPE. That will  stay in the
vessel.
  Seriously,  they  will not be dump-
ing.  It will force people  who might
have been careless in their operations
or sloppy in the management of ves-
sels to be very careful about it. Very
definitely they will hav<5 to  adhere
to these regulations, as stringent as
they are, and  it will stop 90 percent
of any discharges of  oil in the  open
sea beyond the present  50-mile limit.
  Mr.  WYDLER. Was  any  thought
giving  to  burning? I  assume  they
have  to get rid of the oil  in some
fashion.  I make that  assumption al-
though I do not  know  about it, but
on that  assumption  of having to get
rid of the  oil in  some  fashion, was
any  thought given  to burning it in-
stead of dumping it?
  Mr.  DINGELL.  Will the  gentle-
man yield?
  Mr.  RUPPE. I  yield to the gentle-
man.

-------
296
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
  Mr. DINGELL.  The 90-percent  re-
duction  will come  about in a number
of ways. Three of them involve load-
ing the oil  on top of the ballast so
that the ballast continues to be car-
ried and the salt-water contaminated
oil  will  be run through a processing
facility  for  refining. And  the oil will
be removed in that fashion.
  In some areas they will set up  on-
shore facilities where the  ballast will
be pumped out, and the oil will be per-
mitted to separate out through  grav-
ity. Those are the  two principal ways
in which  the matter will  be handled.
  Mr. WYDLER.  I thank the gentle-
man from Michigan  for  that  expla-
nation,  but I still say that what is
bothering me is the fact  that I come
from an area  where  we have  an
ocean coastline, and from  time to time
there are oil  spills that wash  up on
our beaches,  and a great  to-do is
made of this, about the terrible  pollu-
tion that is thus created.
  But if I  understand this bill cor-
rectly then  that dumping of oil could
be  legal,  or would be legal.  Is that
correct?
  Mr. DINGELL. If  the gentleman
will yield further, the answer  is  no,
because  under the treaty there  can
be  no dumping of oil or  no pumping
out of ballast tanks whatsoever with-
in  a 50-mile  zone. The  bill and  the
treaty  provide for complete record-
keeping,  and  for severe  civil  and
criminal penalties for failure to keep
proper  records,  or for  filing false
records outside of the 50-mile zone,
and the bill for the first time imposes
restrictions on the amount of oil that
may be dumped per mile traveled, or
in  terms of total tonnage. This  bill
treats  the  American-flag vessels in
the same  fashion that  other   signa-
tory nations will  treat their own  flag
vessels. Of  course, obviously this  ap-
plies only to  our  own vessels, but in
addition the bill provides  for methods
of  reporting and penalties  for fail-
ures to tell the truth in their record-
                     keeping, and also would provide pen-
                     alties for violating new  prohibitions
                     against  dumping both as  to  where
                     and as to the amount.
                        Mr.  WYDLEE.   The  gentleman
                     from Michigan is telling me that this
                     cannot  be  done within  the  50-mile
                     zone from the  coastline, but is there
                     any magic  about that  number  of  50
                     miles?  And is oil  dumping beyond
                     the  50-mile  limit—is there anything
                     to  keep  that oil from  being washed
                     up on the coastal shorelines, and why
                     is not that  oil also covered  by this
                     bill?
                        Mr. DINGELL. If the gentleman
                     will yield further, the  answer is not
                     actually,  because the IMCO  Confer-
                     ence  could  not agree upon this sub-
                     ject,  but I  hasten to say that IMCO
                     will be  able to address itself  to  a
                     complete zero prohibition of oil dump-
                     ing within the near future.
                        Mr. RUPPE. Mr. Speaker, I  might
                     also  point  out to  my  colleague that
                     the  present  IMCO  group is  meeting
                     now to develop new restrictions such
                     as that which will  require separate
                     ballast tanks  in which to  pump the
                     oil so that  when  they do have the
                     separate  ballast tanks they will not
                     have this problem  at  all,  and there
                     will be no  discharging of  oil  of any
                     kind.
                        Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker,  will the
                     gentleman yield ?
                        Mr. RUPPE. I yield to the gentle-
                     man from Iowa.
                        Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker,  I  would
                     ask
                                               [p. H3423]
                      the gentleman from Michigan  (Mr.
                      DINGELL)  does this bill  in any way
                      add  to  or  subtract from  the terri-
                      torial rights  of  States  with  regard
                      to offshore oil drilling?
                        Mr.  DINGELL.  If  the  gentleman
                      will  yield,  the answer to  that is a
                      categorical no, I will say to the gen-
                      tleman.
                        Mr.  GROSS.  I thank the  gentle-
                      man.

-------
           WATER—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                297
  Mr.  TEAGUE  of California.  Mr.
Speaker,  Santa  Barbara,  Calif., is
associated  in  many minds with  the
disastrous  1969 offshore  oil blowout.
This  spectacular  occurrence  focused
the attention  of  the world upon  the
valiant efforts of  concerned  citizens
to clean up the sticky black crude oil
which  fouled  beaches,  marine   life,
and sea birds.
  Yet  as serious as this occurrence
was,  it  and  similar  dramatic acci-
dental petroleum spills are  not  the
most significant contributors of pollu-
ting oil to  be  discharged into  the  sea.
The gradual, but constant, and there-
fore more insidious release of  oil bilge
water, clearing of fuel bunkers,  and
other deliberate  discharges of petro-
leum  products are equally deserving
of our  attention  and concern.   The
Coast Guard estimates that there  will
be 12,000 oil spills this year.
  Thor Heyerdal, quoted in the  New
York  Times  following  his  Atlantic
voyage in  the reed boat, EA, stated
that there  is "a continuous stretch of
at least 1,400 miles of open  Atlantic
polluted by floating1 lumps of solidified
asphalt-like oil."  Scientists have ob-
served  that DDT  and other  insecti-
cides are  more  soluble in oil slicks
than water. What effect this  phenom-
ena  could have  on  the microscopic
life-forms of the sea—which renew the
oxygen  in  our  atmosphere—is  un-
clear at his  time.  I  do not believe
we can  afford to learn from experi-
ence about the possible effects of  con-
tinued pollution.
  International cooperation is essen-
tial  to curtail pollution  of  the  sea.
As one great circulating system, the
oceans  of  the world  can  carry  the
wastes of  one thoughtless nation to
opposite ends of the earth, or the oil
discharged  from  one  merchant   ship
onto the beaches of any coastal  na-
tion.
  The principle of freedom of  the high
seas is  an ancient one.  In practice,
it has  come  to  include the  freedom
to pollute. Attempts to put an end to
marine  pollution collide headon with
this  principle. The U.S.  delegations
to  the  various   Intergovernmental
Maritime Consultative  Organization
meetings  have contributed  to  world
understanding of the urgency of pol-
lution control efforts. We must there-
fore strengthen our  ability to police
infractions and apply sanctions which
are sufficient to be deterrent.
  The Committee on Merchant Marine
and Fisheries should be recognized for
its prompt and forthright action to as-
sure that the United States is a leader
in accomplishing the  environmental
protection   objective   of   the  In-
ternational  Convention  for the Pre-
vention of the Pollution of the Sea by
Oil. I urge  my colleagues to support
H.R. 5451.
  Mr.  ROGERS. Mr.  Speaker, I rise
in support of the bill, H.R. 5451, the
Oil  Pollution Act Amendments  of
1973.
  I joined in sponsorship of the origi-
nal Oil Pollution Act in 1961 in rec-
ognition  of   the  increasingly  grave
menace continued oil  pollution posed
to our   national waters  and  shore-
line.  Since  then much  progress has
been  made  in  decreasing  the inci-
dence  and  effects  of  oil  spills  and
dumping, and it is my belief that the
present legislation  will go a long way
toward  tightening-  up  the  regulation
of oil discharge on the seas.
  By   incorporating    these   latest
amendments to the Oil Pollution Con-
vention  into  our  domestic law, the
Congress can demonstrate that the
United  States intends to  remain on
the forefront of world efforts toward
environmental protection,  and take
another step forward  in the protec-
tion of  our  own  shoreline  from the
hazards of  oil  spills  on the  seas. I
urge  the Members of the  House to
join me in adoption of the bill.
  Mr.  DON  H.  CLAUSEN.  Mr.
Speaker,  I  want  to  take this time
to comment both on the Oil Pollution

-------
298
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n
Act which we now have before us and
the  Coast  Guard  authorization  bill
which will be debated later this after-
noon.
  Last  year, we went  as far as we
could go by  including  in the Water
Pollution   Control   Act  stringent
controls prohibiting the discharge of
oil  in  our territorial  waters. As  a J
matter  of jurisdiction we are limited j
to  3 miles  offshore  as the  extent
of our ability to improve water qual-
ity on a unilateral basis.             !
  During hearings  on  water pollu-
tion program, our committee received
testimony  from   Thor   Heyerdahl,
leader  of  the  Ra  expedition.  He
pointed out  that pollution from  oil
and  other sources is seriously affect-
ing the Atlantic Ocean  even hundreds
of miles from any coastline.
  At that time, I pointed out that we
would   make  as much  progress  as
we could on  our own but that in the !
face of international law, multilateral
action is required. This  is why I so
strongly support the Oil Pollution Act
we are considering today.
  This  bill  complements our efforts
to control  oil pollution within the 3-
mile territorial sea by implementing
the  International Convention for the
Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea
by Oil.
   Through the adoption  of this  mea-
sure we will be prohibiting  the  dis-
charge  of  any oil  up to 50 miles at
sea  and more stringently regulating
any discharges beyond that distance.
In  addition,  civil penalties  are pro-
vided in addition to the criminal sanc-
tions included in the bill.
   Mr.  Speaker,  this legislation con-
tinues  the long  string of efforts  we
have made to make certain  our wa-
ter  pollution  control  programs  are
both continuously  updated  and  re-
sponsive to  changing  needs. In con-
junction with  the  Water  Pollution
Control Act it will help reduce and
control pollution and I urge the House
to give it overwhelming support.
                        Mr. VANIK. Mr.  Speaker, oil pol-
                      lution of the world's waterways is a
                      serious situation that is getting worse
                      every  day.   As   a   Great  Lakes
                      Congressman,  I   am  particularly
                      shocked  that  27   percent   of  our
                      country's oil spillage occurs  on these
                      inland lakes.
                        The National Oceanic and Atmos-
                      pheric Administration  recently  sur-
                      veying the  Atlantic Ocean  reported
                      that several of its ships encountered
                      conditions  where  the nets were be-
                      fouled by  oil  clumps  so  thick  they
                      tangled through  the nets  "like  spa-
                      ghetti."  The  NOAA  research  ship,
                      Albatross  IV, reported  being  sur-
                      rounded  by globs of oily  substances
                      75 percent of the time. This oil pol-
                      lution was  not only  limited  to the
                      Atlantic  Ocean. Even in the Mediter-
                      ranean. Jacques Cousteau,  the French
                      undersea  explorer,  reports  that sea
                      life and vitality in the Mediterranean
                      has declined 30 to 50 percent in the
                      last 20 years. Oil globules  and plastic
                      debris in massive proportions are in-
                      fecting bodies of  water  throughout
                      the world.
                        In light of this  situation, today's bill
                      is so  inadequate—it is  a placebo. The
                      bill,  for  instance,  allows  a  tanker
                      to dump one/fifteen-thousandth of its
                      oil-carrying  capacity. This  does not
                      sound like  very  much, but  it works
                      out to a total of 38 million  gallons a
                      year, the equivalent of almost  4,000
                      major oils  spills as  defined by the
                      U.S.  Coast  Guard.  The   infamous
                      Santa  Barbara   oil  spill  produced
                      only  700,000  gallons  during the en-
                      tire period of spillage and leakage;
                      this bill  allows  55 equivalent  spills
                      each year.
                        And although nontanker  vessels con-
                      tribute one-fifth of the world's oil pol-
                      lution, the bill gives them even  more
                      lenient guidelines than  it  gives  to
                      tankers.  According to this bill, a ship
                      can legally dump 48,000  gallons of
                      oil in  the  course  of  a  3,000-mile
                      voyage. This is the  equivalent of five

-------
           WATER—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY       299

major  oil  spills as  defined  by the , domestic refining capability.
Coast  Guard.   Considering  that  it;   On the basis of costly but environ-
costs $420 to clean  up each barrel of ' mentally clean operations on the west
oil that is  spilled, it would cost $380 I coast,  there have been proposals  to
million  to  attempt to  clean  up the establish new refinery capacity in New
amount of  oil that  this bill allows to England.  This, in  conjunction  with
be dumped.                          j possible  deepwater  port development
  Although the  bill does represent a and possible  exploitation  of  oil and
step forward, it is a very meager step, gas reserves off the  east coast, points
and a great deal more will  have to be to  a considerable  increase  in  tanker
done in the near future if the prob-, usage.
lem of oil  pollution is ever to be ef-    I think  it is noteworthy that our
fectively contained.                   colleague from Massachusetts  (Mr.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the passage CONTE)  and  Senator  MclNTYRE,  of
of this bill today—but I hope that it New Hampshire,  have endorsed the
will be just the beginning of new and principle  of a new  refinery  in  New
major   efforts   to  develop  interna- j England.  And Governor Thomson,  of
tional agreements to end oil pollution New Hampshire, has  taken the lead
in the world's oceans  and waterways, in inviting establishment of a  refinery
Let the  Congress  take  note  of the within the State. This  offers real en-
warning that we are rapidly destroy- couragement for the solution  of  some
ing the lakes and oceans of the world, of  our region's most  pressing prob-
This legislation  today just does not lems, including gasoline and oil short-
go far enough,                       ages and high prices.
  Mr.  CLEVELAND.  Mr. Speaker, i   In any event, the tankers are getting
I rise  in support of  H.R.  5451, the ' bigger. There will be  more of them.
Oil Pollution Act Amendments of New refineries  are  coming. So  may
1973, as a  measure to maintain  U.S. offshore  exploration. The  bill before
leadership  in the worldwide effort to us   can  help  assure   that  environ-
reduce oil pollution of the seas.        mental damage from them will be kept
  By passing legislation to carry out to a minimum.
changes in the International Conven-}   New construction  standards  for
tion for the Prevention of Pollution of ! new large  tankers, governing  tank
the Sea by  Oil,  we  can help do , placement and volume, should  limit oil
much   to  reduce accidental spillage j discharge resulting  from tanker col-
from tanker mishaps,  as well  as de- lisions. These provisions, in addition
liberate dumping of oil-bearing wastes to those limiting deliberate discharges,
from ships  at sea.                    removal  of  exemptions  outside the  so-
  Furthermore,  I  regard  this  as a! called  prohibited  zones, increases  in
means  of forestalling to the maximum criminal penalties and the addition of
extent  one  potential  source  of en- civil penalties  combined to  produce a
vironmental damage which could re- measure  well  worthy  of  support. I
suit from  steps taken to  relieve the urge colleagues to  join  me  in vot-
energy shortage.                     ing for its enactment.
  As  the  President indicated  in his    Mr. RUPPE. Mr. Speaker,  I  have
energy message, he has removed cur- j no further requests for time.
rent tariffs on crude oil and products i   Mrs. SULLIVAN. Mr.  Speaker, I
as an  incentive to increase imports.! have no  further  requests  for  time.
At the same time, it is administration i   The SPEAKER.  The question is
policy                               | on the motion offered  by  the  gentle-
                          [p.  H3424] I woman from Missouri  (Mrs. SULLI-
to encourage development  of  greater VAN)  that  the  House suspend the

-------
300
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
rules and pass the bill H.E. 5451, as
amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. RUPPE. Mr. Speaker, I object
to the vote on the gound that a quorum
is not present  and make the point of
order that a quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER. Evidently a quo-
rum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will  notify
                   absent Members.
                     The vote was taken by electronic
                   device,  and  there  were—yeas  370,
                   nays 1, not voting 62, as follows:
                     *****
                     So  (two-thirds  having voted in
                   favor thereof)  the rules were  sus-
                   pended  and the bill, as amended, was
                   passed
                                          [p. H3425]
   1.3c(3) (b) Sept. 24: Considered and passed Senate, p. S17350
  OIL POLLUTION ACT AMEND-
             MENT
  The bill  (H.R. 5451) to amend the
Oil  Pollution  Act,  1961  (75  Stat.
402), as amended, to implement the
1969 and  1971  amendments  to the
International Convention for the Pre-
                   vention of the Pollution of the Sea by
                   Oil, 1954, as amended and for other
                   purposes, was considered, ordered to
                   a third reading, read the third time,
                   and passed.
                                           [S 17350]
    1.19 THE WATER RESOURCE PLANNING  ACT AS
                          AMENDED
                     42 U.S.C. 3 1962 et seq. (1973)
     SUBCHAPTER IV.—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
   §  1962d. Authorization of appropriations to the Water Resources
Council
   There are  authorized to  be appropriated to the  Water Re-
sources Council:
               Limitation for single river basin commission
       (a) not to exceed  $6,000,000 annually for the  Federal
     share of  the  expenses of  administration and  operation of
     river  basin commissions, including salaries and expenses of
     the  chairmen, but not including funds authorized  by sub-
     section (c) below: Provided, That not  more than $750,000
     annually  shall be  available under this subsection  for any
     single river basin commission;
         Limitation on the expenses of the Water Resources Council
       (b) not to exceed $1,500,000 annually for the expenses of
     the  Water Resources Council in administering this  chapter,
     not  including funds authorized by subsection (c) below;
              Limitations on the availability of funds for the
                 preparation of assessments and plans
       (c) not  to exceed  $3,500,000  annually for  fiscal years
     1974 and 1975 for preparation of assessments, and for direct-

-------
         WATER—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY      301

    ing  and coordinating the preparation of such  regional or
    river basin plans as the Council determines are necessary
    and  desirable  in  carrying  out the policy  of this  chapter:
    Provided, That not  more than $2,500,000  shall be available
    under  this  subsection for the preparation of assessments:
    Provided further, That the Council may transfer funds au-
    thorized by this  subsection to river basin commissions and
    to Federal and State agencies upon such  terms and  condi-
    tions as it determines are necessary and desirable  to carry
    out  the above functions  in  an  economical,  efficient,  and
    timely manner, and  that such commissions and agencies are
    hereby authorized to receive and expend such funds pursuant
    to this subsection.
Pub.L. 89-80,  Title  IV, §  401, July  22, 1965,  79  Stat. 253;
Pub.L. 90-547, Oct. 2, 1968, 82 Stat. 935; Pub.L. 92-27,  June 17,
1971,  85  Stat. 77;  Pub.L. 92-396,  Aug. 20, 1972,  86 Stat. 578;
Pub.L. 93-55, July  1,  1973, 87 Stat. 140.

  § 1962d-l. Rules and regulations
  The Council is authorized to make such rules and  regulations
as it may deem  necessary or appropriate for carrying out those
provisions of this chapter which are administered by it.
Pub.L.89-80, Title IV, §  402,  July  22, 1965, 79 Stat. 254.

  § 1962d-2. Delegation of functions
  The Council is authorized  to  delegate to any member or em-
ployee of the  Council  its administrative functions under section
1962a-4  of this title and  the detailed  administration of the
grant program under  subchapter III of this chapter.
Pub.L. 89-80, Title IV, §  403, July 22, 1965, 79 Stat. 254.

  § 1962d-3. Utilization of personnel
  The Council may, with the consent of the head of any other
department  or agency of the  United  States,  utilize such officers
and employees of such agency  on a reimbursable basis as are
necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter.
Pub.L. 89-80, Title IV, § 404, July 22, 1965,  79 Stat. 254.

  § 1962d-4. Northeastern United States water supply—Plans for
Federal  construction,  operation, and  maintenance of reservoir
system within certain river basins and conveyance  and  purifi-
cation facilities through cooperation of Secretary of the Army and
government agencies; financial participation of States
  (a)  Congress hereby  recognizes that assuring adequate sup-

-------
302          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n

plies of water for the great metropolitan centers of the  United
States has become a problem of such magnitude that the welfare
and prosperity of this country require the Federal  Government
to assist in the solution of water supply problems. Therefore, the
Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is
authorized  to  cooperate  with Federal, State, and local agencies
in preparing  plans in  accordance with  the Water  Resources
Planning Act  to meet the long-range water needs of the north-
eastern  United States. This  plan may provide  for the construc-
tion, operation, and maintenance by  the United States of (1)  a
system of major reservoirs to be  located within those river basins
of the Northeastern United  States which drain into the  Chesa-
peake Bay, those that drain into the  Atlantic Ocean north of the
Chesapeake Bay, those that  drain  into Lake Ontario, and those
that drain into the Saint Lawrence River, (2) major conveyance
facilities by which water may  be exchanged between these river
basins to the extent found desirable in the national interest,  and
(3)  major purification  facilities.  Such  plans  shall  provide
for appropriate financial participation by the States, political
subdivisions thereof, and other  local interests.

   Construction, operation, and maintenance of reservoirs and conveyance
                     and purification facilities
   (b) The Secretary of the  Army, acting through the Chief of
Engineers,  shall  construct,  operate,   and  maintain those reser-
voirs, conveyance  facilities, and  purification facilities, which are
recommended  in the plan prepared in accordance  with subsection
(a) of  this section, and which are specifically  authorized  by
law enacted after  October 27, 1965.
      Reservoirs as components of river  basin and water supply plans
   (c) Each reservoir included  in the plan  authorized by  this
section  shall be considered  as a component of a comprehensive
plan for the optimum development of the  river  basin in which
it is situated,  as well as  a component of the plan established in
accordance with this section.
Pub.L. 89-298, Title I, § 101,  Oct. 27, 1965, 79 Stat. 1073.

   § 1962d-5. Water resources development projects involving nav-
igation, flood control, and shore  protection—Construction, opera-
tion, and maintenance; limitation on estimated Federal first  cost
of construction;  Congressional committee approval  of projects;
reports to Congress
   (a) The  Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of

-------
         WATEK—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY     303

Engineers, is authorized to construct, operate, and maintain any
water resource development project, including single and multiple
purpose projects involving, but not limited to, navigation, flood
control, and shore protection, if the estimated Federal first cost
of constructing such project is less than  $10,000,000. No  appro-
priation  shall be made to  construct,  operate, or  maintain any
such project if such project has  not been approved by  resolu-
tions adopted by the Committees on Public Works of the  Senate
and House of ^Representatives,  respectively. For the purpose  of
securing consideration of such approval the Secretary shall trans-
mit to  Congress a report  of such proposed project, including all
relevant  data and all costs.
     Local cooperation requirements based on certain estimated Federal
                      first cost of construction
   (b) Any water resource development project authorized to be
constructed by this section shall be subject to the same require-
ments of local cooperation as it would be if the estimated Federal
first cost of such project were $10,000,000 or more.
Pub.L. 89-298, Title II, § 201, Oct. 27,1965, 79 Stat. 1073.

   § 1962d-5a. Reimbursement to  States—Combination of reim-
bursement of installation  costs and reduction in contributions;
single project limitation

   (a) The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief  of
Engineers, may, when he determines it to be in the public inter-
est, enter into agreements providing for reimbursement to States
or political subdivisions thereof for work to be performed by such
non-Federal public bodies  at water resources development proj-
ects authorized for construction under the Secretary of the Army
and the supervision  of the Chief of Engineers. Such agreements
may provide for reimbursement of installation costs incurred by
such entities or an equivalent reduction in the contributions they
would  otherwise be  required to make, or in appropriate cases,
for a combination thereof.  The amount of  Federal reimburse-
ment, including reductions in contributions, for a single  project
shall not exceed $1,000,000.

       Agreement provisions; termination of agreement for failure
                        to commence work
   (b) Agreements entered into pursuant to this section shall (1)
fully describe the work to be accomplished by  the  non-Federal
public  body, and be  accompanied by an engineering plan  if
necessary therefor;  (2) specify the manner in which such work

-------
304          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

shall be carried out;  (3) provide for necessary review of design
and plans, and inspection of the work by the Chief of Engineers
or his • designee; (4) state the basis on which the amount of
reimbursement shall  be  determined; (5) state that such reim-
bursement  shall be dependent  upon the appropriation of funds
applicable thereto or funds available therefor, and shall not take
precedence over other pending projects of higher priority for
improvements; and (6)  specify that reimbursement  or credit for
non-Federal installation  expenditures shall apply only  to work
undertaken on Federal  projects after project  authorization  and
execution of the agreement, and does not  apply retroactively to
past non-Federal work. Each  such agreement  shall expire three
years after the date on  which it  is executed if the work to be
undertaken by the non-Federal public body has not commenced
before the  expiration of that period. The time  allowed for com-
pletion of the work  will be determined  by the Secretary of the
Army, acting  through the Chief of Engineers, and stated  in the
agreement.
                    Certification of performance
   (c) No reimbursement shall be made,  and no expenditure shall
be credited, pursuant to this section, unless and until the Chief
of Engineers  or his designee, has  certified that the  work for
which reimbursement or credit is requested has been performed
in accordance with the agreement.
                   Beach erosion control projects
   (d) Reimbursement for work commenced by  non-Federal public
bodies no later than one year after August 13,  1968,  to carry
out or assist in carrying out projects for  beach erosion control,
may be made in accordance with the provisions of section 426
of Title  33. Reimbursement for such work may, as an alterna-
tive, be made in accordance with the provisions of this section,
provided that  agreement required herein shall have been executed
prior to  commencement  of the work. Expenditures for projects
for beach erosion control commenced by non-Federal public bod-
ies subsequent to one year after August 13, 1968, may be reim-
bursed by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of
Engineers, only in accordance with the provisions of this section.

   Prohibition of construction for Federal assumption of responsibilities of
       non-Federal bodies or for Federal liability for unnecessary or
                inapplicable project work of such bodies
   (e) This section shall not be construed  (1)  as authorizing the
United States to assume any responsibilities placed upon a non-

-------
         WATEK—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      305

Federal body by the condition of project  authorization,  or (2)
as committing the United States to reimburse non-Federal inter-
ests if the Federal project is not undertaken or is modified so as
to make the work performed by the non-Federal Public body no
longer applicable.
         Allotment limitation for any fiscal year; specific project
                   reimbursement authorizations
   (f)  The Secretary of the Army  is authorized to allot from
any appropriations hereafter made for civil works, not to  exceed
$10,000,000  for any one fiscal year  to carry out the  provisions
of this section.  This  limitation does not include  specific  project
authorizations providing for reimbursement.
Pub.L. 90-483, Title II, § 215, Aug. 13, 1968, 82 Stat. 747.

  § 1962d-5b. Water resources  project; written agreement require-
ment—Cooperation of non-Federal interest
   (a)  After  December 31,  1970,  the construction of any water
resources  project by  the Secretary of the Army, acting through
the Chief  of Engineers, or by  a non-Federal  interest where such
interest will be  reimbursed for such construction  under the pro-
visions of section  1962d-5a of this  title or under any  other pro-
vision of  law, shall  not be commenced  until each non-Federal
interest has entered into a written agreement with the  Secretary
of the Army to furnish its required cooperation  for the project.
                  Definition of non-Federal interest
   (b)  A non-Federal  interest shall be a legally constituted public
body with full authority and capability to perform the terms of
its agreement and to pay damages, if necessary,  in the event of
failure to perform.
                     Enforcement; jurisdiction
   (c)  Every  agreement entered into pursuant  to this  section
shall be enforcible in the appropriate district court of the United
States.
      Nonperformance of terms of agreement by non-Federal interest;
            notice; reasonable opportunity for performance;
                 performance by Chief of Engineers
   (d)  After  commencement of construction of  a project, the
Chief of Engineers may undertake performance of those items of
cooperation  necessary to the functioning of the project  for its
purposes,  if he  has first notified  the non-Federal interest of its
failure to perform the terms of its agreement and has given such
interest a reasonable time after such notification to so perform.

-------
306          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

             Inventory of agreements; report to Congress
  (e) The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of
Engineers, shall maintain a continuing inventory of agreements
and the status of their  performance, and  shall report thereon
annually to the Congress.

                         Effective date
  (f) This section shall not apply to any project the construction
of which  was  commenced before  January  1,  1972,  or to the
assurances for future demands  required by the  Water Supply
Act of 1958, as amended.
Pub.L. 91-611, Title II, § 221, Dec. 31, 1970, 84 Stat. 1831; Pub.L.
92-222, §  4, Dec. 23, 1971, 85 Stat. 799.

  § 1962d-6. Feasibility  studies; acceleration; advancement of
costs by non-Federal sources

  The Secretary may accelerate feasibility studies authorized by
law when and to the extent that the costs of such studies shall
have been advanced by non-Federal sources.
Pub.L. 89-561, § 5, Sept. 7, 1966, 80 Stat. 714.

  §  1962d-7.  Delmarva  Peninsula hydrologic study;  duties of
Secretary of Interior

  The Secretary  of the Interior  (hereinafter referred to  as the
"Secretary") is authorized and directed to make a comprehensive
study and  investigation of the water resources of the  Delmarva
Peninsula with a view to determining the availability of fresh
water supplies needed to meet the anticipated future  water re-
quirements of  the  Delmarva  Peninsula area, and with a view
to determining the most effective means  from the standpoint of
hydrologic feasibility of protecting and developing fresh water
sources so as to insure,  insofar as practicable, the availability
of adequate water  supplies in the future. In carrying out such
study and  investigation with respect to the Delmarva Peninsula,
the Secretary shall—
       (1) appraise the water use, requirements, and trends, and
     determine the availability of  water in the streams and  under-
     ground sources for the entire peninsula;
       (2) determine the  depths, thicknesses, and permeabilities,
     the perennial yield, and the recharge characteristics of major
     aquifers, and the quality  characteristics to be expected from
     each such major aquifer;

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY     307

       (3)  determine with  respect to  ground water resources
    the continuity and extent of important water-bearing forma-
    tions;
       (4) determine the yield from stream systems under natural
    flow conditions and under varying degrees of storage and the
    amounts and quality of waters available from such systems
    during drought, flood, and intermediate conditions;
       (5) determine  whether  sea water has moved inland into
    heavily pumped coastal aquifers;
       (6)  give  special consideration to  conditions  which  may
    invite the invasion of sea water into fresh-water supplies;
       (7) compile and  make available to appropriate State and
    local officials any results of this study and investigation that
    would be appropriate for  their use in long-range planning,
    development, and management of water supplies;
       (8) cooperate with State and local agencies for the  pur-
    pose of using any  information and  data available to  carry
    out the purposes of this study; and
       (9)  consider  such other matters  as  the  Secretary  may
    deem appropriate  to  the study  and  investigation  herein
    authorized.
Pub.L. 89-618, § 1, Oct. 4, 1966, 80 Stat. 870.

  § 1962d-8. Same;  reports to  President and Congress

  During the course  of the study  and investigation authorized
by sections 1962d-7 to 1962d-ll of this title, the Secretary may
submit to the President for transmission to the Congress  such
interim reports  as  the Secretary may consider desirable. The
Secretary shall submit a final  report to the President for trans-
mission to  the Congress not more than six years after October
4, 1966.
Pub.L. 89-618, § 2, Oct. 4, 1966, 80 Stat. 870.

  § 1962d-9. Same;  information from Federal agencies

  The Secretary is authorized  to secure directly from any execu-
tive department, bureau, agency,  board,  commission, office, in-
dependent  establishment,  or  instrumentality  of  the Federal
Government, information, suggestions,  estimates, and statistics
for the purpose of sections 1962d-7 to 1962d-ll of this title and
each department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, in-
dependent  establishment, or instrumentality  is  authorized and

-------
308          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

directed to furnish such information, suggestions, estimates, and
statistics, to the Secretary upon his or his designee's request.
Pub.L. 89-618, § 3, Oct. 4,1966, 80 Stat. 870.

  § 1962d-10. Same; cooperation with other agencies

  In  carrying  out the study  and  investigation authorized by
sections 1962d-7 to  1962d-ll of this title, the Secretary is au-
thorized  to cooperate with other Federal,  State, and local agen-
cies now engaged in comprehensive  planning for water resource
use and development in the Delmarva Peninsula area by  making
available to those agencies his findings and to cooperate with
those agencies in the Northeastern  United States Water Supply
Study as authorized by section 1962d-4 of this title.
Pub.L. 89-618, § 4, Oct. 4,1966, 80 Stat. 871.

  § 1962d-ll. Same; authorization  of  appropriations

  There  is hereby  authorized to be appropriated the  sum of
$500,000 to carry out the provisions of sections  1962d-7 to 1962d-
11 of this title: Provided,  That nothing  in such  sections shall
prevent  the  expenditure of  other  funds appropriated  to the
Geological Survey for studies and activities  performed under its
general authority.
Pub.L. 89-618, § 5, Oct. 4,1966, 80 Stat. 871.

  §  1962d-12. Alaskan water resources; investigations of projects
for conservation, development, and utilization; reports

  For the purpose  of encouraging  and promoting the develop-
ment of Alaska, the Secretary of  the  Interior  (hereinafter re-
ferred to as the "Secretary") is authorized to make investigations
of projects for the conservation, development, and utilization of
the water  resources of Alaska  and to report  thereon, with ap-
propriate recommendations, from time to  time, to the President
and to the Congress.
Aug.  9, 1955, c. 682, § 1, 69 Stat. 618.

  §  1962d-13. Same; solicitation of views and recommendations;
transmittal of report to Congress
  Prior  to the transmission of any  such report  to the Congress,
the Secretary shall  transmit copies thereof  for  information and
comment to  the Governor of Alaska, or  to such  representative

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY     309

as may be named by him, and to the heads of interested Federal
departments and  agencies. The  written views and recommenda-
tions  of  the aforementioned officials may be submitted  to the
Secretary within ninety days from the day of  receipt of said
proposed  report.  The  Secretary  shall immediately thereafter
transmit to the Congress, with such comments and recommenda-
tions as he deems appropriate, his report, together with copies of
the views and recommendations received from the aforementioned
officials.  The letter of transmittal and  its attachments shall  be
printed as a House or Senate document.
Aug. 9,1955, c. 682, § 2, 69 Stat. 618.

  § 1962d-l4. Same; appropriations

  There  are hereby authorized to be appropriated not more than
$250,000 in any one fiscal year.
Aug. 9,1955, c. 682, § 3, 69 Stat. 618.

1.19d  Water Resources Planning Act Continuing Appropriation
     Authorization, July 1, 1973,  P.L.  93-55, 87 Stat.  140.

                           An  Act
   To amend the Water Resources Planning Act to provide for continuing
                  authorization for appropriations.
  Be it  enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives  of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That sec-
tion 401  of the Water  Resources Planning Act (Public Law 89-
80; 79 Stat. 244; 42  U.S.C.  1962d)  is amended to delete, im-
mediately after the phrase  "(c) not to exceed  $3,500,000," the
words "in fiscal  year 1973 and such annual amounts as may
be authorized by subsequent Acts" and to insert "annually  for
fiscal years 1974 and 1975".
  Approved July 1, 1973.
                                                        [p.  1]

-------
310         LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

    1.19d(l)  SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND
                    INSULAR AFFAIRS
            S. REP. No. 93-174, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973)

  AMENDING THE WATER RESOURCES  PLANNING ACT
                MAY 23,1973.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. JACKSON, from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
                   submitted  the following

                          REPORT

                     [To accompany S. 1501]
  The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, to which was
referred the bill (S. 1501) to amend the Water Resources Plan-
ning Act to provide for continuing authorization for appropria-
tions, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with
amendments and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
  The amendments are as follows:
  On page 1, lines 6 and 7, strike the words "and  such annual
amounts as may be authorized by subsequent Acts" and on line
8, strike the words "word 'annually' " and insert in lieu thereof
insert the words "words in fiscal year 1974".
  2. Amend the title of the bill to read as follows:
  "To amend  the Water Resources  Planning Act to authorize
appropriations for Fiscal Year 1974."
                  PURPOSE OF  THE MEASURE
  The purpose of S. 1501,  which was recommended by the Ad-
ministration, is to remove the requirement for annual authoriza-
tions for a portion of the appropriations requested by the Water
Resources  Council  to carry out  certain functions  assigned to it
under the  provisions  of the Water Resources Planning Act  of
1965  (79 Stat. 244, as amended).

                        BACKGROUND
  The Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 has the following
general provisions:
  Title I established the Water Resources Council.  The Council
is composed of the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, the
Army,
                                                       [p.l]

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY     311

HEW, Transportation, and the Chairman of the Federal Power
Commission.  It is supported by an executive director and staff
which constitute  a separate agency. The Council has  important
administrative duties to maintain an assessment of the Nation's
water resources to review and establish standards and proce-
dures for Federal water resources development, and  to  review
comprehensive river basin plans.
  Title II  authorizes the establishment of  joint Federal-State
river basin commissions to  perform  comprehensive  water  re-
source development activities in the regions. Each such commis-
sion shall have a chairman appointed by the  President as Federal
representative,  and a representative from each State and each
Federal  agency  represented  and  from  each interstate agency
created by compact.  (River  basin  commissions have been estab-
lished in seven basins thus far. In the other basins ad hoc com-
mittees are performing the function.)
  Title III  provides  for a program  of grants to the  States
amounting to $5 million annually to finance not more than 50
percent of each  State's  comprehensive water resource planning
program.
  Title IV of the act includes miscellaneous provision including
the  authorization of appropriations.  The  existing  limitations
are—
  $1,500,000  annually to carry out the Council's general adminis-
trative duties under titles I and II; and
  $6,000,000  annually to carry out title II, further limited to not
more than $750,000 for any single river basin commission.
  $3,500,000  in  Fiscal Year  1973 and such annual  amounts as
may be authorized by subsequent acts  for  comprehensive river
basin planning  and national assessments  of water  resources.
  The last amount was added to the authorization by the Act of
August 20, 1972  (85 Stat. 77.) That amendment increased the
authorization of appropriations  for the operation of the Water
Resources Council to provide funds for two functions  which the
Water Resources Planning  Act of 1965 directs  the Council to
perform  but  which were previously funded  through the  appro-
priations of the member agencies of the Council.
  The 1972 amendment authorized additional appropriations to
the Council totaling  $3,500,000 in Fiscal  Year 1973. Of this
amount,  not more than  $2,500,000 is available to fund work on
the assessment of national water resources supplies and demands
required by  section  101 (c)  of the Planning Act.  The  first of
such assessments was completed in 1968. Work  on  this  assess-
ment was  supported by the  member agencies of  the  Council

-------
312          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

through contributions of personnel and services funded by their
appropriations.
  No subsequent assessments have since been made.  The 1968
report remains  the  principal  source  document  for water  re-
sources planning at  all levels of government.  A second assess-
ment is badly needed to profit from the experience gained in per-
forming  the first, largely experimental, effort;  to reflect  the
extensive public attitude and policy changes, particularly in en-
vironmental  demands  on water resources  management,  which
have evolved since 1968; and to incorporate new data which  has
become available in the intervening years.
                                                        [p. 2]

  The remaining $1  million is provided to enable the Council or
the existing  River Basin Commissions to provide direction  and
coordination  in regional comprehensive water  resource planning.
This role was previously taken by one of the member agencies
which obtained  funds through its own  appropriations process.
The assumption of direction and coordination in comprehensive
planning by the Commissions and the  Council  is  expected to
improve the  multiobjective  approach to  such planning and en-
hance the influence of the State participants.
  The Congress  in  the 1972 amendment limited  the new  au-
thority to Fiscal Year 1973 funds only. The report of the Senate
Interior Committee,  however, recognized that the funds  would
be  required  on  a continuing basis.  The  report  (Senate  report
No. 92-826, 92d Congress 2d Sess.) commented as follows:
  "The committee has amended S. 3384 to limit the authority for
the additional amounts to fiscal year 1973. The  committee  rec-
ognizes that these amounts also will be required in subsequent
years. The committee has notified the chairman  of the Council,
however, that it intends to review the Council's recently proposed
"Principles and  Standards  for  Planning  Water  and  Related
Land Resources." This review will provide an opportunity  for in
depth legislative oversight consideration  of  the  Council's  full
range of activities and their interrelationships."

                    PROPOSED LEGISLATION
  As proposed by the Administration, S. 1501 would have re-
moved the requirement for an annual authorization act to pro-
vide  these funds. It also would have  provided  continuing au-
thority for appropriations of not more than $3,500,000 for these
purposes in Fiscal Year 1974 and future fiscal years. The  Presi-
dent's budget for Fiscal Year  1974, which is now before the

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY     313

Congress, includes a request for $3,170,000 in anticipation of this
authority.

                            COST
  The funds provided under this authorization are necessary to
carry out existing duties assigned to the Water Resources Council
by law.  Funding of the  costs of these duties through appropria-
tions to the Council will be  balanced by  reductions in the ex-
penditures of the various member agencies which have formerly
supported the work.

                   COMMITTEE AMENDMENT
  The Committee amended S. 1501 to limit the extended authority
to Fiscal Year  1974, and to revise the title of  the measure ac-
cordingly.
  The  Committee has  scheduled hearings over  the  next few
months  to consider the  report of the National Water Commis-
sion. This review of fundamental Federal water resources policy
will include  consideration of  the appropriate role of the Water
Resources Council.  The ongoing work which  will  be  funded
under the authority of  this  measure must be  continued while
the review is in progress. However, further consideration of the
appropriate oversight of the Council's funding more appropriately
can be made in the next Fiscal Year.
                                                       [p. 3]
                COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
  The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs by unanimous
vote of  a quorum present in executive session on May 16,  1973,
recommends that S. 1501, as amended, be enacted.

                 EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATION
  An executive communication from the Chairman of  the Water
Resources Council, transmitting draft legislation is set forth in
full below.
                       U.S.  WATER  RESOURCES COUNCIL,
                           Washington, D.C., March 14,1973.
Hon. SPIRO T.  AGNEW,
President of  the  Senate,
Washington, D.C.
  DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: Enclosed  is a draft bill "to amend the
Water Resources  Planning Act to provide for continuing authori-
zation for appropriations."
  An amendment to Section 401 of the Water Resources Planning
Act 89-90 Int.  & Ins. Aff. is  necessary to  provide for  authoriza-

-------
314          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

tion of appropriations requested in the Council's Fiscal Year 1974
budget submission. The language of the most recent amendment
(P.L.  92-396,  August 20,  1972)  limits authorization  of ap-
propriations for preparation of assessments and for directing and
coordinating the preparation of  regional or river basin plans to
$3,500,000 for  1973 only, with  subsequent authorizations to be
established "by subsequent acts."
  This proposed amendment would delete the limiting language,
providing for the continuation of the Authority granted by the
previous amendments. No change is proposed in the present ceil-
ings for any of the Act's  separate categories.
  The Office of Management and Budget advises that the enact-
ment of  this bill would be consistent with the Administration's
objectives.
       Sincerely yours,
                                ROGERS C. B. MORTON,
                                                 Chairman.
  Enclosures.
            PROPOSED CHANGES IN AUTHORIZATION
  The attached draft bill proposes an amendment to the Water Re-
sources Planning Act to continue the authorization for appropria-
tion through the Council for the preparation  of assessments and
the direction and coordination of the preparation of regional and
river basin plans, which  was granted by the  Congress last year.
(P.L. 93-396, August 20, 1972)  The amendment is necessary be-
cause the 1972 amendment  to the Act  provided for the expira-
tion of the authority for appropriation—after Fiscal Year 1973—
with  respect to specific   funding through the Council for  the
preparation of assessments in the direction and coordination of the
preparation of  regional and river basin  plans.
                                                       [p. 4]
                 CHANGES IN  EXISTING  LAW
  In compliance with subsection (4)  of  rule XXIX of the Stand-
ing Rules of the Senate, changes  in existing  law made by  the
bill, S. 3384, as reported, are  shown as follows  (existing law
proposed to be  omitted is enclosed  in black brackets, new matter
is printed in italic,  existing law in which no  change is proposed
is shown in roman):
  Sec. 401 (c) of the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965.
  (79 Stat. 244; 42 U.S.C. 1962 et seq.)
  (c)  not  to exceed  $3,500,000 [in fiscal year 1973] in fiscal
year  1974  and such  annual amounts as  may  be authorized by

-------
         WATER—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      315

subsequent Acts for preparation of assessments, and for direct-
ing and coordinating the preparation  of such regional  or  river
basin plans as the Council determines are necessary and desir-
able in carrying out the policy  of this Act: Provided, That not
more than $2,500,000 shall be available under this subsection for
the  preparation of assessments: Provided  further, That the
Council may transfer funds authorized by this subsection to river
basin commissions and to Federal and State agencies upon such
terms and conditions as it determines are necessary and desir-
able to carry out the above functions in an economical,  efficient,
and timely manner, and that such commissions and agencies are
hereby authorized to receive  and expend such funds pursuant to
this subsection.
                                                      [p. 5]

 1.19d(2)  HOUSE COMMITTEE ON  INTERIOR AND INSU-
                      LAR AFFAIRS
           H.R. REP. No. 93-266, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973)

AMENDING THE  WATER RESOURCES  PLANNING  ACT
  TO PROVIDE FOR CONTINUING AUTHORIZATION FOR
  APPROPRIATIONS
JUNE 8, 1973.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
               of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. HALEY, from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
                   submitted the following

                          REPORT
                    [To accompany H.R. 6338]

  The Committee on Interior and Insular  Affairs, to whom was
referred  the  bill (H.R. 6338)  to amend  the  Water Resources
Planning Act to provide for continuing authorization for  appro-
priations, having considered the same, report favorably thereon
with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do
pass.
  The amendment is as follows:
  Page 1, line 8, strike out "the word  'annually' in lieu  thereof."
and insert  in  lieu thereof: "annually  for  fiscal years 1974 and
1975".
  H.R. 6338 was introduced by Mr. Johnson of California, Mr.
Saylor, Mr. Kazen, Mr. Hosmer,  Mr. Runnels, Mr. Camp, and

-------
316          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

Mr. Jones of Oklahoma. It results from an Executive Communica-
tion  from the Water  Resources Council, dated March 14,  1973.

                          PURPOSE
  The bill as introduced amends  the  Water Resources Planning
Act  (79  Stat.  244)  to  increase  by $3,500,000,  annually,  the
amount authorized to be appropriated for carrying out one part
of the Act. As reported, the increase is limited to fiscal  years
1974 and 1975.

                  DISCUSSION OF LEGISLATION
  The Water Resources Planning Act established a cabinet level
Water Resources Council responsible for:
       (1) Assessing  national and regional water supplies and
     needs,
       (2) Coordinating the  various Federal,  Regional,  State
     and river basin water programs,
                                                        [p.l]
       (3) Administering  a Federal grant program to  assist
     States in water resource planning, and
       (4) Administering  a Federal grant program to  River
     Basin Commissions to pay  the  Federal  share of the cost
     of operating the Commissions.
  For these  purposes, the Act,  as amended,  authorizes the ap-
propriation of $5,000,000 annually for ten years (ending in 1976)
for the State grant program, $6,000,000 annually for the Federal
share of the  cost of operating the River Basin Commission pro-
gram, and $1,500,000 annually for the administrative expenses
of the Council.
   The pending bill does not change the $5,000,000  and $6,000,000
appropriation authorizations. It  supplements the appropriation
authorization for the administrative expenses of the  Council.
The supplement  is $3,500,000 annually, of which $2,500,000 is
earmarked for the program to assess water resources and  needs.
The Council  has  made one assessment and is making a second
assessment during fiscal years 1974  and 1975. The Administra-
tion has included  $2,395,000  in the Fiscal Year 1974 Budget for
work in connection with this national assessment.
   The remaining  $1,000,0000 increase  in the annual appropria-
tion  authorization is needed by  the Council  to  carry  out the
Congressionally assigned function of directing and coordinating
river basin plans. The Administration has included $775,000 in
the Fiscal Year 1974 Budget for this purpose.

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      317

                            COST
  Although  the bill  involves an apparent  cost  of  $3,500,000
annually, the net cost will be much  less because the  appropria-
tion  to the Council will be offset by a  decrease in the  amounts
that  would  otherwise be  appropriated to the various Federal
agencies  which participate in the Council's program.  The na-
tional assessment of water supplies and  needs will be undertaken
in cooperation with  the participating Federal agencies,  and
approximately two-thirds  of  the  funds for making the assess-
ment will be transferred to  the cooperating agencies. If the
Council were not given the funding authority, it would be neces-
sary to increase the  budgets  of  the cooperating agencies by a
corresponding amount. The same thing is true with respect  to
directing and coordinating the regional or river basin plans.  If
the Council  were not given the  funding authority, it would be
necessary to designate one or more  of the Federal agencies  as
the lead agency, or agencies, and increase its budget by a cor-
responding amount. By authorizing the appropriation of the funds
to the Council, better controls over the programs can be ex-
ercised.

                   COMMITTEE AMENDMENT
  H.R. 6338,  as  reported, was  amended by  the  Committee  to
limit the increased  authorization  to the fiscal  years of 1974 and
1975. The bill as introduced  provided  for  continuing authoriza-
tion  without limit  as to  time. The  Committee  determined  that
the periodic water assessment is now planned to be prepared
only on five-year intervals, with the actual  preparation scheduled
for fiscal years 1974  and 1975. Accordingly, there is no actual
requirement for annually  recurring appropriations for this pur-
pose.
                                                       [p.  2]

                 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
  The Committee on Interior and  Insular Affairs believe that this
legislation is needed and, by a voice vote, recommends that the bill,
as amended, be enacted.

                  EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATION
  The Executive Communication of the  Water Resources Council,
recommending this legislation, follows:

-------
318          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

   (Attachment No. 1)
                         U.S. WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL,
                           Washington, B.C., March 14,1973.
Hon. CARL B. ALBERT,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
  DEAR MR.  SPEAKER: Enclosed is a draft bill "to amend the
Water Resources Planning Act to provide for continuing author-
ization for appropriations."
  An amendment to Section 401 of the Water Resources Planning
Act is necessary  to provide for authorization of appropriations re-
quested in the Council's Fiscal Year 1974 budget submission. The
language of the most recent amendment  (P.L. 92-396, August 20,
1972)  limits  authorization of appropriations  for preparation of
assessments and  for directing and coordinating the preparation of
regional or river basin plans to $3,500,000 for 1973 only, with
subsequent authorizations to be established "by subsequent acts."
  This proposed amendment would  delete the  limiting language,
providing for the continuation of the authority granted by the pre-
vious amendment. No change is proposed in the present ceilings for
any of the Act's seperate categories.
  The Office of Management and Budget advises that the enact-
ment of this bill would be consistent with the Administration's
objectives.
       Sincerely  yours,
                                  ROGERS C. B. MORTON,
                                                 Chairman.
  Enclosures.
             PROPOSED CHANGES IN AUTHORIZATION
   The attached draft bill proposes an amendment to the Water Re-
sources Planning Act to continue the authorization for appropria-
tion through the  Council for the preparation of assessments and the
direction and coordination of the preparation of regional and river
basin plans, which was granted by the Congress last year.  (P.L. 93-
396, August 20,  1972). The  amendment is necessary because the
1972  amendment to the  Act provided for the  expiration  of the
authority for appropriation—after Fiscal Year 1973—with respect
to specific funding through the Council for the preparation of as-
sessments in the direction and coordination of the preparation of
regional and river basin plans.
                                                       [p. 3]

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      319

    A BILL To amend the Water Resources Planning Act to provide for
             continuing authorization for appropriations.
      Be it  enacted  by the Senate  and House of Repre-
    sentatives of the  United States of America in Congress
    assembled. That  Section  401 of the Water Resources
    Planning Act  (P.L.  89-80, 79  Stat.  244,  42  U.S.C.
    1962d)  is amended to delete,  immediately  after  the
    phrase  "(c)  not  to  exceed $3,500,000," the  words
    "in fiscal year  1973 and  such annual amounts as may
    be authorized by subsequent Acts"  and to insert the
    word "annually" in lieu thereof.

                  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 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):

  ACT OF JULY 22,1965 (79 STAT. 244), AS AMENDED (42 U.S.C.
                           1962d)
    *******
  SEC. 401. There are authorized to be appropriated to the Water
Resources Council:
      (a) Not to  exceed  $6,000,000 annually for the Federal
    share of the expenses of administration  and operation of
    river basin commissions,  including salaries  and expenses
    of the chairmen,  but not including funds authorized by sub-
    section  (c)  below: Provided, That not more  than $750,000
    annually shall  be available  under this  subsection  for  any
    single river basin commission;
      (b) Not to exceed $1,500,000 annually for the expenses
    of the Water Resources Council in  administering this Act,
    not  including  funds  authorized by subsection  (c) below;
      (c)  Not to  exceed  $3,500,000  [in fiscal year  1973  and
    such annual  amounts as  may be  authorized by  subsequent
    Acts] annually for fiscal  years 1974 and 1975 for prepara-
    tion of assessments, and for directing and coordinating the
    preparation of such regional or  river  basin plans as  the
    Council determines are necessary and desirable in carrying
    out  the policy  of this Act: Provided, That not  more than
    $2,500,000 shall be available under this subsection for the pre-
    paration of assessments: Provided further, That the Council

-------
320
LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n
     may transfer funds authorized  by this subsection to  river
     basin commissions  and to  Federal  and  State agencies upon
     such  terms and conditions as it determines are necessary
     and  desirable to  carry out the  above  functions  in an eco-
     nomical, efficient, and timely manner, and that such commis-
     sions and  agencies are  hereby  authorized  to receive and
     expend such funds pursuant to this subsection.
                                                                [p-41

   1.19d(3)  CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 119  (1973):
1.19d(3)(a)  May 30:  Considered and passed Senate, pp. S 9858-
                              S  9860;
           [No relevant  discussion of  pertinent section]
1.19d(3)(b)  June 19: Considered and passed House, amended in
                 lieu of H.R. 6338, pp. H 4957-H 4959
 WATER RESOURCES PLANNING
        AUTHORIZATION
  Mr. JOHNSON of California. Mr.
Speaker, I move to suspend the rules
and  pass  the  bill  (H.R.  6338)  to
amend the Water Resources Planning
Act  to  provide for continuing au-
thorization   for  appropriations,  as
amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:
              H.R. 6338
  Be  it enacted by the Senate and  House of
 Representatives  of  the United  States  of
America in Congress assembled. That section
                        [p. H 4956]
401  of  the  Water Resources  Planning  Act
 (Public Law  89-80;  79  Stat. 244; 42 U.S.C.
1962d)  is amended  to  delete,  immediately
after the phrase "(c) not to exceed $3,500,-
000," the words "in fiscal year 1973 and such
annual amounts as  may be  authorized  by
subsequent Acts" and to insert "annually for
fiscal years 1974 and 1975".
  The SPEAKER.  Is a second  de-
manded?
  Mr.  HOSMER.  Mr.  Speaker,  I
demand a second.
  The SPEAKER. Without objection,
a second will be considered as ordered.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. JOHNSON of California. Mr.
 Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to  the chairman of the full
                     committee,   the   gentleman   from
                     Florida (Mr. HALEY).
                       (Mr. HALEY asked and was given
                     permission  to revise and extend his
                     remarks.)
                       Mr. HALEY. Mr. Speaker, I  rise
                     at this time to state my support of
                     H.R.  6338,  as  amended,  a bill to
                     amend the Water Resources Planning
                     Act to provide  additional  authoriza-
                     tion for appropriations.
                       The legislation, simply stated,  pro-
                     vides  authorization of  an  added an-
                     nual appropriation  of $3,500,000 for
                     use by the Water  Resources Council
                     for the next 2 fiscal years—1974 and
                     1975.  A  similar  authorization  was
                     provided for fiscal  year  1973 in Pub-
                     lic Law 92-396, enacted during the sec-
                     ond session of the 92d Congress.
                       The purposes of  the added authori-
                     zation are  twofold. First,  not to ex-
                     ceed $2,500,000  could be appropriated
                     in each  of the 2 fiscal years for the
                     preparation by the council  of the sec-
                     ond  national water assessment.  The
                     Water Resources  Planning Act  pro-
                     vides for  such assessments to be
                     made periodically,  and the  council
                     has  decided  as  a  matter  of  policy
                     to prepare and publish them at 5-year

-------
           WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                321
intervals.  Two  years are required to
actually compile the data and publish
the report. Accordingly,  this authori-
zation will not  be needed after  fiscal
year  1975 until  some  years hence
when it is time to start  work on the
third national assessment.
  The  second purpose of the added
authorization is  to provide funding
for the Water  Resources  Council to
coordinate and  supervise the prepara-
tion of river basin and  regional wa-
ter and related land resource plans—
$1 million is authorized  to  be appro-
priated  for this  purpose in each of
the  2  fiscal  years.  Absent  this au-
thorization, it would be necessary for
the  council to  designate one of the
water resource action agencies  to be
the lead agency;  thus, in effect, dele-
gating its coordinating  function.  A
number of river basin plans have been
prepared  in this  manner and experi-
ence has shown that coordination and
standardization suffer—and the  re-
sponsibility for keeping  on schedule
becomes obscured.
  While it appears that  this bill will
increase   Federal  costs  by  some $7
million  over the  2-year  period, this
is actually not  the case. There will be
savings  of  an   approximate  equal
amount in the budgets of the cooperat-
ing  water resource agencies and the
net  impact on  Federal  expenditures
will be negligible.
   Mr.  Speaker, Mr. JOHNSON of Cali-
fornia, chairman of the  subcommittee
handling  the legislation,  will present
additional information on this  legis-
lation. I know of no opposition to this
bill and I  urge its approval.
   Mr.   HOSMER.  Mr.   Speaker,   I
yield such time as he  may consume
to the gentleman  from  Pennsylvania
 (Mr. SAYLOR), the  ranking minority
member of the  Committee on Interior
and Insular Affairs.
   (Mr.  SAYLOR  asked  and  was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
   Mr.  SAYLOR.  Mr. Speaker, in  a
 year when  our  calendar  is  replete
 with dozens  of  examples  of poorly
 conceived  and  ineptly  administered
 programs  seeking  further  congres-
 sional authorization, I take particular
 pleasure in rising  to  support an on-
 going program of unquestioned bene-
 fit to our Nation's future.
   I  refer  to  the program  set out in
 the Water Resources Planning Act of
 1965, a program administered by the
 Water Resources Council:
   First. To  prepare  national inven-
 tories of  water supply  and demand;
   Second.   To   develop   principles,
 standards  and procedures for project
 formulation and evaluation;
   Third. To establish continuing lia-
1 ison  with  the  various  river basin
| commissions;
   Fourth.  To administer  grants-in-
 aid  to  the States for water  resource
 planning;  and
   Fifth. To foster and review  river
 basin plans.
   This  Council  is  an  interdepart-
 mental, independent agency. Its mem-
 bers are  cabinet  officers and bureau
 chiefs  with  statutory  and  adminis-
 trative  responsibility  for a  great
 variety  of  Federal  programs.  The
 Council's  Chairman is  the Secretary
 of the Interior and  its Vice Chairman
 is the Chairman of the Federal Power
 Commission.
   Under   their  direction,  real prog-
 ress has  been  made  toward a long
 overdue ordering of our approach to
 water resource  planning. Seven river
 basin commissions have been  set up:
 New England,  the Great  Lakes, the
 Pacific  Northwest,  the Souris-Red-
 Rainy, the Ohio, the Missouri and the
 Upper Missouri  Basins. Additionally,
 a series  of grants have been  made
, to the  States to augment their water
 planning abilities. Via  this program,
 the  number  of  technically  qualified
 people in  State water  planning has
 increased, State and regional water
 planning  has greatly improved, and
 State  water programs  are  farther

-------
322
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
ahead  than  they would have been
without the grants.
  The  Water Resources Council has
earned  the respect  and the admira-
tion of many  Members of Congress
and is certainly deserving  of our
further support.
  I  commend Mr. HOSMER, a  distin-
guished member of the Committee on
Interior and  Insular Affairs, who has
shown fine leadership in the  field  of
water  resource planning and develop-
ment.
  Mr.  JOHNSON of  California. Mr.
Speaker, I yield myself such  time  as
I may consume to speak on behalf of
the  bill H.R. 6338,  to amend  the
Water Resources Planning Act to pro-
vide additional authorization  for  ap-
propriations.
  The Water Resources Planning Act
is  administered  by the Water  Re-
sources Council.  Its duties, pursuant
to law, are:  First, assessing national
water supplies and  needs; second, co-
ordinating river basin  and regional
water  and  related  land  resources
plans;  and   third,   administering  a
grant program to  River Basin Com-
missions to defray  the Federal share
of operating such commissions.
   As a act now stands on the statute
books,  appropriations are authorized
in  the amount of first, $5,000,000 an-
nually for planning grants to  States;
second,  $6,000,000  annually  for  the
 Federal share of operating river basin
 commissions; and third, $1,500,000 an-
nually for administering the  Water
 Resources  Council.  There  are  no
 specific  funds authorized  to  be  ap-
 propriated for the preparation of na-
 tional assessments or for coordinating
 the preparation of basin and regional
 plans.
   Absent  specific  appropriations for
 these  purposes the Council,  in prior
 years, has relied on contributed data
 and staff resources from  the water
 resource  action  program  agencies  to
 coordinate plans  and to prepare the
 national  assessment. In the  case  of
                      river  basin  plans,  the practice  has
                      been to designate a lead agency which
                      would then, in turn, secure its own
                      appropriations  from  Congress  for
                      this   activity.   Other   contributing
                      agencies  to  overall  regional  plans
                      would likewise request funds to cover
                      their inputs.
                        This approach  to  coordination has
                      proven to  be awkward and ineffec-
                      tive. H.R. 6338 affords a mechanism
                      for improving coordination and  stand-
                      ardization of river basin planning by
                      authorizing  an annual  appropriation
                      of $1,000,000 to the  Water Resources
                      Council with  which  to finance  cen-
                      tralized management. The President's
                      budget for fiscal year 1974, in  antici-
                      pation of enactment of this legisla-
                      tion, contains a request for $775,000
                      for this activity.
                        The first  national  assessment  pre-
                      pared by the Water Resources Coun-
                      cil  was  prepared  by  personnel  de-
                      tailed  to  the Council  by the  other
                      water  resource  agencies and  relied
                      heavily on  data inputs  from  these
                      agencies.   Experience  demonstrated  .
                      that attainment of time schedules and
                      standardization of input data, as well
                      as  analyses, was virtually impossible
                      in  the absence of a  centralized con-
                      trol meachanism. H.R.  6338 will pro-
                      vide this mechanism for the  second
                      assessment  scheduled  for  prepara-
                      tion during fiscal years  1974 and 1975,
                      by authorizing appropriations  in the
                      amount of  $2,500,000 for each year.
                      The President's budget anticipates this
                      authorization by including the  sum of
                      $2,395,000  for this purpose  for fiscal
                      year 1974.
                         In  summary, Mr. Speaker, I would
                      like to emphasize  that  the Federal
                      cost of  this  legislation is  more ap-
                      parent than real. The  administrative
                      structure that will  be afforded  as a
                      result of this legislation will enhance
                      efficiency in the implementation of pro-
                      grams already
                                               [p. H 4957]
                      authorized to be conducted. The legis-

-------
           WATER—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY
                                323
lation  actually authorizes  no  new
work, no new man-days of effort, and
no activity  not already provided by
statute.  Accordingly,  it  is  probable
that the legislation will actually re-
sult  in an  overall  reduction in the
Federal cost of the programs carried
out by the Water Resources Council.
These  are the reasons  that I urge
my colleagues  to  join  with me  in
suspending the rules and passing this
legislation.
  Mr.  SNYDER.  Mr.  Speaker,  will
the gentleman yield?
  Mr.  JOHNSON  of  California.   I
yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. SNYDER. The gentleman from
California, of course, as well as serv-
ing on the Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs, is also a valued mem-
ber of the Committee on Public Works,
where  I  am also  privileged  to  serve
with the gentleman.
  I would  like to  know  if this  is
funding  for the  same  organization
that caused us so much concern last
year,  when  it  was anticipated  that
they were  going  to change certain
standards for tests for figures for the
benefit-cost ratio on public works proj-
ects, and other proposed regulations
such as  deactivating  and defunding
of projects  that  did  not  have  con-
struction  starts within 3  to  5 years?
  Mr.  JOHNSON  of  California.   I
would  say  to  the  gentleman  from
Kentucky that the  Water Resources
Council did  make  a study, and  they
have made  preliminary recommenda-
tions. The study is still under active
consideration by the Water Resources
Council.  In  the absence of a perman-
ent director of that council  they are
now  waiting, I presume, for the new
director to be appointed. It is my in-
formation that  they will go into a fur-
ther  study  of  their  recommenda-
tions, and that  the report will be ren-
dered  some  time   in  late July  and
August.
  Now, certainly  those recommenda-
tions are  going to be reviewed by the
 administration, the Office of Manage-
 ment  and  Budget,  and  the  other
 agencies that are concerned with them.
 However, I do  not think that out of
 this particular study  will come the
 actual  deauthorization of   projects
 which are already authorized in the
 backlog. I  believe that deauthoriza-
 tion  was  mentioned  by  the Water
 Quality Commission,  another commis-
 sion, and that study and report will be
 made as of June 30.
   This commission will be heard be-
 fore the Committee on  the Interior in
 the other body I do believe this week,
 or the next week, just prior to the
 other body leaving for the  4th of July
 recess.
   Both of these reports have certain
 recommendations  that  are somewhat
 difficult  and  troublesome  from  the
 standpoint of  their operations  under
 criteria  that  was laid down. As far
 as I know, the criteria that  is being
 used is the old criteria, and the dis-
 count  rate is  still used is  the rate of
 5.5 percent. They have recommended
 a much higher rate in their study. But
 that has not been accepted as yet on
 the part of the administration.
   Mr. SNYDER, If  they  make such
 recommendations, and they  are ac-
 cepted on the part of the administra-
 tion, will the  funding  of  the council
 at this point  allow those recommen-
 dations  to  be  implemented,  barring1
 any action of  the Congress?
   Mr. JOHNSON of California. That
 would have nothing  to do with it. I
 think if they do recommend them it is
 up  to  the Congress  then  to  enact
 legislation that would set policy for
 benefit considerations, and the proper
 discount  rate.  That  legislation  is
 pending, as the gentleman knows, in
 our own committee,  and it is  also
 being  considered in the other body at
 this particular time.
   Mr. SNYDER.  The gentleman will
 recall that in the Rivers and Harbors
 Bill last year, which  I believe  was
| vetoed, or did  not get called up for

-------
324
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
some reason or other, we wrote some
language  into  that bill  that  would
have prevented these new regulations
taking- effect—of  course,  as  I  say,
that did not become law.
  Now, my question is,  is the fund-
ing of  this council at this point going
to put them in  a position to make
those regulations effective if the Con-
gress  does not act on  the legislation
now pending  in  the  Committee on
Public Works, to deactivate all  those
projects, so many of which would ap-
pear to be favorable?
  Mr.  JOHNSON of California. No,
it would not have that affect.
  Mr.  SNYDER.  I thank the gentle-
man.
  Mr.  WYLIE. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
  Mr.  JOHNSON of  California.   I
yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr.  WYLIE.   Mr.  Speaker,  this
council has been in existence  since
1965.  Could the gentleman from Cal-
ifornia tell me where  the money  is
being spent?
  Mr.  JOHNSON of  California.   I
believe that the  council has been  in
existence  since  1965. It was  author-
ized in the 89th  Congress, I do be-
lieve.
  Mr.  WYLIE.  That  is the date  I
used.
  Mr.  JOHNSON of  California.   I
am sorry, I thought  the gentleman
said 1935.
  Mr.  WYLIE. I said 1965.
  I wonder if the gentleman could tell
me where the money is being spent?
  Mr.  JOHNSON of California. The
money is being  spent on the  opera-
tion of the council, the river  basin
commissions  program,  and grant-in-
aid progrants  to the various States.
There are  seven river  commissions
at the present time in operation.
  The housekeeping- for  the water re-
sources  council  has  an amount  of
$1,500,000 for  that purpose.  It au-
thorizes $5 million for the State grant
program, and  the Federal share  of
                     the river basin  commissions program
                     amounted to $6 million.
                        Mr. WYLIE.  It is my understand-
                     ing that most of the money is  being
                     spent in two States, on the Colorado
                     River in Arizona and California.
                        Mr. JOHNSON of California. No,
                     it is not. These  commissions are scat-
                     tered throughout  the  United States.
                     I  do not have the actual area, but it
                     is not  being  spent  on  the Colorado
                     River in the  States  of Arizona and
                     California.
                        Mr. WYLIE.  I have  just two more
                     questions.  Does the gentleman  know
                     how much money has  been spent  so
                     far, and how much longer it is con-
                     templated  that  this  Council will  be
                     needed?
                        Mr. JOHNSON of California. It is
                     a permanent council, and it has much
                     work to be done.  I  think throughout
                     the  United States  we  have a  very
                     real problem  dealing with  our  water
                     resources law.  They are responsible
                     for  working with  the  States within
                     the various river basins  dealing with
                     all of the problems of water resource
                     development throughout the United
                      States. I think there is  a need for this
                      Water  Resources  Council  for   some
                     time to come, because  they are  deal-
                      ing  with one  of the  essentials.  Since
                     we have enacted  the  Environmental
                      Protection Act of  1969  and the Water
                      Pollution  Control  Act  of 1972,  it
                     makes  it  mandatory  that we  carry
                      on this type  of function  if we are
                      going  to  coordinate  and  solve  our
                      water resource  problems and have  an
                      adequate supply of water  and other
                      benefits that  come  with good  basin
                      development.
                        Mr.  WYLIE. I  would agree with
                      the gentleman,  but would it be appro-
                      priate  for this  Council,  for example,
                      to make an  estimate  of  the  water
                      supply needs  for the city  of Colum-
                      bus, Ohio?
                        Mr.  JOHNSON  of  California.  I
                      presume it  would  be  an eligible
                      agency, but there  are  other agencies

-------
           WATER—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                               325
that would  do  a job much faster, I
would say.
  Mr.  WYLIE.  I am attempting to
find out the thrust of the jurisdic-
tion of the Council. The  gentleman
has been very helpful. I would like to
know how much money has been spent
so far.
  Mr. JOHNSON of California. I do
not have the total figures, but I would
say that the administration has  rec-
ognized this as being a very essential
part  of our  water resources  con-
cern.   They  have   supported    the
amounts that were included  in  the
first three  items, and  they also  have
supported  and  recommended  in  the
1974  budget  amounts  that  would
carry on the functions of the other
two programs that I have related to
the Congress here  in  the  amount of
$2,395,000,   where the bill calls  for
$2,500,000,   and   for  an  amount  of
$775,000, where  the bill  calls  for an
authorization of $1 million.
  So  I  think the amounts that are
asked for in the  legislation are  fully
supported by the administration and
the Office of Management and  Bud-
get, and also by the  Department of
the Interior.
  The  executive  communication that
came up recommended the enactment
of  this bill, and they are the  ones
who drafted the bill itself.
  Mr.  WYLIE.  I thank  the  gentle-
man very much for yielding.
  Mr.   HOSMER.   Mr.  Speaker,  I
yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr.  Speaker,  I rise in  support of
H.R. 6338,  amending the Water Re-
sources Planning Act to provide  for
continuing   authorization  for  appro-
priations.
  Mr.  Speaker, we have before  us a
proposal to augment and  strengthen
the role of the Water Resources Coun-
cil  in  coordinating  and  guiding  the
future development of regional  and
national water resources.
  Like my  colleagues from Pennsyl-
vania  (Mr. SAYLOR) and  California
(Mr.  JOHNSON),  I have  tremendous
admiration for the past work of the
Water Resources  Council  and corres-
ponding confidence
                         [p. H4958]
that a decision by the House  to  in-
crease  the  Council's  authorization
would be a wise and farsighted move.
  As  the  gentleman from California
pointed out  the  Council's  first na-
tional assessment of water needs and
supplies was completed in 1968. This
study was,  of  necessity,  based  upon
highly limited data and analysis pro-
vided by a variety of State  and Fed-
eral water  agencies. The difficulties
of assembling a  conceptually' unified
body  of  knowledge  under  such cir-
cumstances  are obvious  and it has
become  increasingly  clear  that the
accuracy  and practicality of future
assessments demand improved meth-
ods of data  gathering  and analysis.
  Passage of H.R. 6338 will aid the
council  in preparing  a  second na-
tional assessment.  This second assess-
ment  will place special emphasis on
areas not previously studied in  order
to provide a more consistent national
data base. The resulting report should
give us a more complete picture of
our national and  regional water  re-
source problems. This study will also
lead to new factors and yardsticks
for evaluating  alternative courses of
action in future water resource  plan-
ning and management.
  As  has  also been mention, this ap-
parent increase in  Council  funding
is actually illusionary.  The  previous
study was a hodge-podge of staff in-
put from  a  number of agencies. This
increase will take much  of this out-
side input and turn it into inside out-
put by centralizing many staff  func-
tions.
  Mr.  Speaker, we need this Council
for the  coordination  and  order  it
brings to a  vital field of  enormous
national  importance.  I  urge support
for this excellent proposal.
   (Mr.  HOSMER  asked  and  was

-------
326
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
given  permission  to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
         SALINE AVATEH PKOGRAM
   (Mr.  HOSMER  asked  and  was j
given  permission  to  speak  out  of
order.)
  Mr.  HOSMEE. Mr.  Speaker, ear-j
lier  in the afternoon  I  mentioned to
the membership that the bill coming
later in  the  day to authorize appro-
priations  for   the  saline   water,
program goes  140  percent over the
administration's   request   for   total j
OSW budgetary authorization and 60
percent over the administration's re-
quest for new authorizations.
  At the time the amendment is of-
fered  to make  the unwarranted in-
creases,  I  shall oppose  it vigorously,
and I  trust the membership  will un-
derstand that here involved is a very
clear issue of economy in government
and of following through on the bud-
getary recommendations.
   Mr.  Speaker, I reserve the balance
of my  time.
   Mr.    PRICE   of   Illinois.   Mr.
Speaker, I support H.R. 6338, which
would  increase   appropriation  au-
thorizations for the Water Resources
Council  for  fiscal  years  1974  and
1975.  The  increased  authorizations
amount  to $3.5 million annually for
administrative expenses of the Coun-
cil;  not more than $2.5  million for
the  preparing of the national water
assessment as required  by law, the
remaining $1 million  for administra-
tion and coordination of  river  basin
and regional plans prepared pursuant
to the Water Resources  Planning Act.
   The work of the Water Resources
Council  is important to my congress-
ional  district,  which borders on that
most important river, the Mississippi.
The funds authorized in this legisla-
tion will enable centralized  manage-
ment  of the  activities  of  the  Water
Resources  Council  on  a  continuing
basis.
   The President's  budget for  fiscal
1974 contains  $2,395,000 for work  in
                      connection with the  national  assess-
                      ment  and $775,000  for  administra-
                      tion and  coordination of river basin
                      plans.  Appropriations  for  the proj-
                      ects are  naturally  contingent upon
                      our adoption of this authorizing  leg-
                      islation today.
                        Our water resources are  important
                      not only to my congressional  district
                      but also to  the well-being of the  Na-
                      tion as  a  whole. We should  adopt  this
                      legislation to  assure that  our water
                      resources will receive the full  amount
                      of attention and development they re-
                      quire for the sake of the Nation.
                        The SPEAKER. The question is on
                      the motion  offered by  the  gentleman
                      from  California (Mr. JOHNSON)  that
                      the House suspend the rules and  pass
                      the bill  H.R. 6338,  as amended.
                        The question was taken;  and (two-
                      thirds having voted in favor thereof)
                      the  rules were  suspended and   the
                      bill, as amended, was passed.
                        A  motion to reconsider  was  laid
                      on the table.
                        Mr. JOHNSON  of California.  Mr.
                      Speaker,  I  ask  unanimous  consent
                      that  the  Committee  on Interior  and
                      Insular  Affairs be  discharged  from
                      further  consideration  of  the Senate
                      bill  (S. 1501)  to  amend the Water
                      Resources Planning  Act to authorize
                      appropriations  for  fiscal year  1974,
                      and ask  for immediate consideration
                      of the bill.
                         The Clerk read  the title of the  Sen-
                      ate bill.
                         The  SPEAKER. Is there objection
                      to the request of  the gentleman from
                      California?
                         There was no objection.
                         The  Clerk read  the Senate bill, as
                      follows:
                                      S. 1501
                      An act to  amend the Water Eesources  Plan-
                        ning Act to authorize appropriations for
                        fiscal year 1974
                        Be it enacted  by the Senate and  House of
                      Representatives  of  the  United  States  of
                      America in Congress assembled. That section
                      401 of the Water  Resources  Planning Act
                       (Public  Law  89-80; 79  Stat. 244; 42  U.S.C.
                      1962d)  is  amended  to  delete,  immediately

-------
          WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                                                   327
after the phrase  "(c)  not to exceed $3,500,-
000", the words "in fiscal year  1973" and to
insert the words  "in  fiscal year  1974"  in
lieu thereof.
  AMENDMENT OFFERED  BY MK,  JOHNSON OF
              CALIFORNIA
  Mr. JOHNSON  of California. Mr.
Speaker, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Amendment offered  by  Mr.  JOHNSON  of
California: Strike out  all after the enacting
clause of S. 1501  and insert in lieu thereof
the provisions of H.R. 6338, as passed.
  The amendment was agreed to.
                                      The Senate bill was ordered  to be
                                    read a third time, was read the third
                                    time, and passed.
                                      The title  was  amended  so as to
                                    read:    "To   amend   the    Water
                                    Resources Planning  Act to  provide
                                    for continuing authorization  for ap-
                                    propriations."
                                      A motion to reconsider was laid on
                                    the table.
                                      A  similar House  bill (H.R. 6338)
                                    was laid on the table.
                                                            [p. H4959]
1.19d(3)(c) June 21:  Senate concurred in House amendments, pp.
S 11645-S 11646
       1.34 MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH AND
                       SANCTUARIES ACT
                       33 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq. (1973)

          MARINE  PROTECTION RESEARCH  AND
                       SANCTUARIES ACT

Sec.
1401.  Congressional finding, policy, and declaration of purpose.
1402.  Definitions.
                       SUBCHAPTER I—REGULATION
1411.  Prohibited acts.
1412.
      Dumping permit program.
        (a) Environmental Protection Agency permits.
        (b) Permit categories.
        (c) Sites and times for dumping.
        (d) Pish wastes.
1413.  Dumping permit program for dredged material.
        (a) Insurance by Secretary of the Army.
        (b) Independent determination of need for dumping, other methods
              of disposal, and appropriate locations.
        (c) Disagreement of Administrator with determination of Secretary
              of the Army.
        (d) Waiver of requirements.
        (e) Federal projects dredged material.
1414.  Permit conditions.
        (a) Designated and included  conditions.
        (b) Permit processing fees; reporting requirements.
        (c) General permits.
        (d) Review.
        (e) Information for review and evaluation of applications.
        (f) Public information.
        (g) Display of issued permits.

-------
328           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n

Sec.
1415.  Penalties.
        (a) Assessment of civil penalty by Administrator; remission  or
              mitigation; court action for appropriate relief.
        (b) Criminal penalties.
        (c) Separate offenses.
        (d) Injunctive relief.
        (e) Liability of vessels in rem.
        (f) Revocation and suspension of permits.
        (g) Civil suits by private persons.
        (h) Emergencies.
1416.  Voiding of pre-existing licenses;  impairment of navigation; consistent
        State  programs; existing conservation program not affected.
1417.  Enforcement.
        (a) Utilization of other departments, agencies, and instrumentalities.
        (b) Delegation of review and evaluation authority.
        (c) Surveillance and other enforcement activity.
1418.  Regulations.
1419.  International cooperation.
1420.  Authorization of appropriations.
1421.  Annual report to Congress.
                       SUBCHAPTER II—RESEARCH
1441.  Monitoring and research program; reports to Congress
1442.  Research program respecting possible long-range effects of pollution,
        overflshing, and man-induced changes of ocean ecosystems.
        (a) Secretary of Commerce.
        (b) Action with other nations.
        (c) Annual report to Congress.
        (d) Cooperation of other  departments, agencies, and  independent
              instrumentalities.
        (e) Utilization of  personnel,  services,  and facilities;  interagency
              agreements.
1443.  Cooperation with public authorities, agencies,  and institutions, private
        agencies and institutions, and individuals.
1444.  Authorization of appropriations.

   § 1401. Congressional finding, policy,  and declaration of pur-
pose

   (a)  Unregulated  dumping of  material into ocean  waters en-
dangers  human health, welfare,  and  amenities, and the marine
environment, ecological systems, and economic potentialities.
   (b)  The Congress declares that  it is the policy of  the United
States to regulate  the  dumping of  all  types of materials into
ocean  waters and to prevent or  strictly limit the  dumping into
ocean  waters of any material which  would  adversely affect hu-
man health, welfare, or amenities, or the marine  environment,
ecological systems or economic potentialities.

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      329

  To this end, it is the purpose of this chapter to regulate the
transportation of material from the United  States for dumping
into ocean waters, and  the dumping  of  material, transported
from outside the United States, if the  dumping occurs in ocean
waters over  which the United  States  has jurisdiction  or over
which it may exercise control, under accepted principles of inter-
national law, in order to protect its territory or territorial sea.
Pub.L. 92-532, § 2, Oct. 23, 1972, 86 Stat. 1052.

  §  1402.  Definitions

  For the purposes of this chapter the term—
  (a) "Administrator" means the Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
  (b)  "Ocean waters" means  those waters of the  open seas
lying seaward of the  base line from which the  territorial sea  is
measured, as  provided for in the Convention on the Territorial
Sea and the Contiguous Zone (15 UST 1606; TIAS 5639).
  (c) "Material" means matter of any kind or description, includ-
ing, but not limited to, dredged material, solid waste, incinerator,
residue, garbage, sewage, sewage sludge, munitions, radiological,
chemical,  and  biological warfare agents,  radioactive materials,
chemicals, biological  and laboratory waste,  wreck or discarded
equipment, rock, sand, excavation debris,  and industrial, munici-
pal,  agricultural, and other  waste; but  such term does not mean
oil within the meaning of section 11 of  the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control  Act and  does not mean sewage  from vessels within
the meaning of section 13 of such Act.
  (d)  "United States" includes the several  States, the District
of  Columbia,  the  Commonwealth of  Puerto   Rico, the  Canal
Zone, the territories  and possessions of the United  States,  and
the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
  (e)  "Person" means  any private person or entity,  or  any
officer, employee, agent,  department, agency, or instrumentality
of the Federal Government, of any State or local unit of govern-
ment, or of any foreign government.
  (f)  "Dumping"  means a disposition of  material: Provided,
That it does  not mean a disposition of  any effluent from  any
outfall structure to the extent that such disposition is regulated
under the provisions  of  the Federal  Water Pollution Control
Act, under the provisions of section 407 of this title, or under the
provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, nor does it mean a
routine discharge  of  effluent incidental to the  propulsion of, or
operation  of  motor-driven  equipment  on,  vessels:  Provided

-------
330          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

further,  That it does not mean the  construction of any fixed
structure or artificial island nor the intentional placement of any
device in ocean  waters  or on  or in the submerged land beneath
such waters, for a purpose  other than disposal,  when such con-
struction or such placement is otherwise regulated by Federal or
State law or occurs pursuant to an  authorized Federal  or State
program: And provided further, That it does not include the de-
posit of  oyster  shells, or other materials when  such deposit  is
made for the purpose of developing, maintaining, or harvesting
fisheries  resources and  is  otherwise regulated  by  Federal or
State law or occurs pursuant to an  authorized Federal  or State
program.
   (g)  "District  court of the United  States" includes  the District
Court of Guam,  the District Court of the Virgin Islands, the Dis-
trict  Court  of  Puerto  Rico,  the District  Court of the Canal
Zone, and in the case of American Samoa and the Trust Territory
of the Pacific Islands, the District Court of the United States for
the District  of Hawaii, which court shall have jurisdiction over
actions arising therein.
   (h)  "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Army.
   (i)  "Dredged material"  means  any material  excavated or
dredged  from the navigable waters of the United States.
   (j)  "High-level radioactive waste" means the aqueous waste
resulting from the operation of the  first cycle solvent extraction
system,  or equivalent, and  the concentrated waste from subse-
quent  extraction cycles, or equivalent, in a facility for reproc-
essing irradiated  reactor fuels, or irradiated fuel from nuclear
power reactors.
   (k)  "Transport"  or  "transportation"  refers  to  the  carriage
and related handling of any material by a vessel, or by any other
vehicle, including aircraft.
Pub.L. 92-532, § 3, Oct. 23, 1972, 86 Stat. 1052.

                  SUBCHAPTER I—REGULATION
   § 1411. Prohibited acts
   (a)  No person shall transport from the United States any ra-
diological,  chemical, or biological  warfare  agent or any high-
level radioactive waste, or except as may be authorized  in a per-
mit issued under  this subchapter,  and subject to regulations
issued under section 1418 of this title  by the  Secretary of  the
Department in  which the Coast Guard is operating, any other
material for the purpose of dumping  it into ocean waters.
   (b) No  person shall dump any radiological, chemical, or bio-

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      331

logical warfare  agent or any high-level radioactive  waste,  or,
except as may be authorized in a permit issued under this sub-
chapter,  any other  material, transported from any  location out-
side the United States,  (1) into the territorial sea of the United
States, or  (2) into  a zone  contiguous to the territorial sea of
the United States, extending to a line twelve nautical miles sea-
ward from the base line from which the breadth of the territorial
sea is measured, to  the extent that it may affect the territorial
sea or the territory of the United States.
   (c) No officer, employee, agent, department, agency, or instru-
mentality of the United  States  shall transport from any loca-
tion outside the  United  States  any radiological, chemical, or bio-
logical warfare  agent or any high-level radioactive  waste,  or,
except as may be authorized in a permit issued under this sub-
chapter,  any other  material for the purpose of dumping it into
ocean waters.
Pub.L. 92-532, Title I, §  101, Oct. 23, 1972, 86 Stat. 1053.

   § 1412. Dumping  permit program—Environmental  Protection
Agency permits

   (a) Except in relation to dredged material, as provided for in
section 1413 of this title, and in relation to radiological, chemical,
and biological warfare  agents and  high-level radioactive  waste,
as provided for in  section 1411  of  this title, the Administrator
may issue permits,  after notice and opportunity for public hear-
ings, for the transportation from the United States or, in the case
of an agency or instrumentality  of the United States, for  the
transportation from a location outside the United States, of ma-
terial for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters, or for  the
dumping of material into the waters described in section 1411 (b)
 of this title, where the Administrator determines that such dump-
ing will  not unreasonably degrade or endanger  human health,
welfare,  or amenities, or the marine environment, ecological sys-
tems, or economic potentialities. The  Administrator shall estab-
lish and  apply criteria  for reviewing and  evaluating such per-
mit applications, and, in establishing or revising such criteria,
shall  consider, but  not be  limited  in  his consideration  to,  the
following:
    (A)  The need for the proposed dumping.
    (B)  The  effect  of such dumping on human health and wel-
   fare, including economic, esthetic, and recreational values.
    (C)  The effect of such dumping on fisheries resources, plank-
   ton, fish, shellfish, wildlife, shore lines and beaches.

-------
332          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

     (D) The effect of such dumping on marine ecosystems, par-
  ticularly with respect to—
         (i) the transfer,  concentration, and dispersion  of such
       material and its byproducts through biological, physical,
       and chemical processes,
         (ii) potential  changes in marine ecosystem  diversity,
       productivity, and stability, and
         (iii) species and community population dynamics.
     (E) The  persistence and  permanence of the  effects of the
  dumping.
     (F) The effect  of  dumping particular volumes and  concen-
  trations of such materials.
     (G) Appropriate locations and methods of disposal  or recy-
  cling, including land-based alternatives and the probable im-
  pact of  requiring use of such alternate locations or methods
  upon considerations affecting the public interest.
     (H) The effect on alternate uses  of oceans,  such as scien-
  tific study, fishing, and other living resource exploitation,  and
  nonliving resource exploitation.
     (I)  In designating recommended sites, the  Administrator
  shall utilize wherever  feasible locations  beyond the  edge of
  the Continental Shelf.
 In establishing or revising such criteria, the Administrator shall
 consult with Federal,  State, and local  officials,  and  interested
 members of the general public, as may appear appropriate to the
 Administrator. With respect to such criteria as  may affect the
 civil works program of the Department of the Army,  the  Ad-
 ministrator shall also consult  with  the Secretary. In  reviewing
 applications for permits, the Administrator shall make such pro-
 vision for consultation with interested  Federal and State agen-
 cies as he deems useful or necessary. No permit shall be issued
 for  a  dumping of  material which will violate applicable water
 quality standards.

                        Permit categories
   (b)  The Administrator may establish and issue various cate-
 gories of permits, including the general permits described in sec-
 tion 1414 (c) of this title.

                    Sites and times for dumping
   (c)  The Administrator  may, considering the  criteria  estab-
 lished pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, designate recom-
 mended sites or times  for dumping and, when he finds  it neces-
 sary to protect critical areas, shall, after consultation with the

-------
         WATER—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY      333

Secretary,  also  designate  sites or times  within which certain
materials may not be dumped.

                          Fish wastes
   (d) No permit is required  under this subchapter for the trans-
portation for dumping or the  dumping of fish  wastes,  except
when deposited in harbors or other protected or enclosed coastal
waters, or where the Administrator finds that such deposits could
endanger health,  the  environment  or ecological  systems in a
specific location.  Where the  Administrator  makes  such a find-
ing,  such material may be  deposited  only  as authorized by a
permit issued by the Administrator under this section.
Pub.L. 92-532, Title I, § 102, Oct. 23,1972, 86 Stat. 1054.

   § 1413. Dumping permit program for dredged material—Issu-
ance by Secretary of the Army

   (a) Subject to the provisions of subsections (b),  (c), and (d)
of this section, the Secretary may issue permits, after notice and
opportunity for public hearings, for the transportation of dredged
material for the purpose of dumping it into  ocean waters, where
the Secretary determines  that  the dumping will not unreason-
ably degrade or  endanger human health,  welfare, or amenities,
or the marine environment,  ecological  systems, or economic po-
tentialities.
       Independent determination of need for dumping, other methods
                 of disposal, and appropriate locations
   (b)  In making the determination  required  by subsection (a)
of this section,  the Secretary shall apply those  criteria, estab-
lished  pursuant to section 1412 (a) of  this title,  relating to the
effects of the dumping. Based upon an evaluation of the poten-
tial effect of a permit denial on navigation,  economic and indus-
trial development, and foreign and  domestic  commerce  of the
United  States, the Secretary shall make  an independent deter-
mination as to the need for the dumping. The Secretary shall also
make an independent determination as  to other possible methods
of disposal  and  as to appropriate locations for the dumping.  In
considering appropriate locations, he shall, to the extent feasible,
utilize the  recommended  sites designated by  the  Administrator
pursuant to section 1412 (c) of this title.
          Disagreement of Administrator with determination of
                      Secretary of the Army
   (c) Prior to issuing  any permit  under this  section, the Secre-
tary shall first notify the Administrator of his  intention to do so.

-------
334          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

In any case in which the Administrator disagrees with the deter-
mination of the Secretary as to compliance with the criteria es-
tablished pursuant to section 1412 (a) of this title relating to the
effects of the dumping or with the restrictions established  pur-
suant to section  1412(c)  of this title relating to  critical areas,
the determination of the Administrator shall prevail. Unless the
Administrator grants a waiver pursuant to subsection (d) of this
section, the Secretary shall not  issue a  permit which does not
comply with such criteria and with such restrictions.
                      Waiver of requirements
   (d)  If, in any case, the  Secretary finds that, in the disposition
of dredged material, there is no  economically  feasible  method or
site available  other than a dumping site the utilization of which
would  result in non-compliance with the criteria established pur-
suant to section  1412 (a)  of this title relating to  the effects of
dumping or with the restrictions established pursuant to section
1412 (c) of this title relating to critical areas,  he shall so certify
and request a waiver  from the Administrator of the specific re-
quirements  involved. Within  thirty days of the  receipt of the
waiver request,  unless the Administrator finds that the dumping
of the material will result in an  unacceptably  adverse impact on
municipal water supplies, shell-fish beds, wildlife, fisheries  (in-
cluding spawning and breeding areas), or recreational areas, he
shall grant the waiver.
              Federal project involving dredged material
   (e)  In connection  with Federal projects  involving dredged
material, the Secretary may,  in lieu of  the  permit  procedure,
issue regulations which will require the application to such  proj-
ects of the same criteria, other factors to be evaluated, the  same
procedures, and  the same requirements which apply to the  issu-
ance of permits under subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) of this
section.
Pub.L. 92-532, Title I, § 103, Oct. 23, 1972, 86 Stat. 1055.

   § 1414. Permit conditions—Designated and included conditions

   (a)  Permits  issued under this subchapter shall  designate
and include (1) the  type of  material  authorized to  be trans-
ported for dumping or to be dumped; (2) the amount of mater-
ial authorized to be transported for dumping or  to be dumped;
(3) the location where such transport for dumping will be ter-
minated  or where  such dumping will  occur;  (4)  the length of
time for which the permits are  valid and their expiration  date;

-------
         WATEE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      335

(5) any special provisions deemed necessary by the Administra-
tor or the Secretary, as the case may be, after consultation with
the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard  is
operating, for the monitoring and  surveillance  of the transpor-
tation or dumping; and (6) such other matters as the Adminis-
trator or the Secretary, as the case may be, deems appropriate.
            Permit processing fees; reporting requirements
   (b) The Administrator or the Secretary, as the case may be,
may prescribe such processing fees for permits  and such report-
ing requirements for actions  taken pursuant to  permits  issued
by him under this subchapter as he deems appropriate.
                         General permits
   (c) Consistent with the requirements  of  sections  1412  and
1413 of this title, but in  lieu  of a  requirement for specific  per-
mits in such case,  the Administrator  or  the Secretary, as the
case may be, may issue general permits for  the  transportation
for dumping, or dumping, or  both,  of specified materials or
classes of materials for which he may issue  permits, which he
determines  will  have a minimal adverse environmental impact.

                            Review
   (d) Any permit issued under this subchapter shall be reviewed
periodically and, if  appropriate, revised. The Administrator or
the Secretary, as the case may be, may limit or  deny the issu-
ance of permits,  or he may alter or revoke partially  or entirely
the terms of permits issued by him under this subchapter, for
the transportation for dumping, or for the dumping, or both, of
specified materials  or classes  of materials, where he finds  that
such materials cannot be dumped consistently with the criteria
and other factors required to be applied in evaluating  the permit
application. No action shall be taken under this  subsection unless
the affected person  or permittee shall have been given  notice
and opportunity for a hearing on such action as proposed.

          Information for review and evaluation of applications
   (e) The Administrator or the Secretary, as the case may be,
shall require an applicant for a permit under this subchapter  to
provide such information  as he may consider necessary to review
and evaluate such application.

                       Public information
   (f) Information received by the Administrator or  the  Secre-
tary, as the case may be,  as a part of any application or in  con-
nection with  any permit granted  under  this  subchapter shall

-------
336          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

be available to the  public as a matter of public record,  at every
stage of the proceeding. The final determination of the Adminis-
trator or the Secretary, as  the  case  may  be, shall  be likewise
available.
                     Display of issued permits
   (g) A copy  of any  permit issued under  this subchapter shall
be placed in a conspicuous place in the vessel which will be used
for the transportation or  dumping authorized by such permit,
and  an additional copy shall be furnished by the issuing official
to the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard
is operating, or its designee.
Pub.L. 92-532, Title I § 104, Oct. 23,1972, 86 Stat. 1056.

  § 1415. Penalties—Assessment of  civil  penalty by Administra-
tor; remission or mitigation; court  action for appropriate relief

   (a) Any person who violates any  provision of this subchapter,
or of the regulations  promulgated  under this  subchapter, or  a
permit issued  under  this  subchapter  shall be liable to a  civil
penalty of not more than $50,000 for each violation to be assessed
by the Administrator.  No penalty shall be assessed until the per-
son charged shall have been given notice and an opportunity for
a hearing of such violation.  In  determining the amount of the
penalty, the  gravity of the violation, prior  violations, and  the
demonstrated good faith of the person charged in attempting to
achieve rapid  compliance  after  notification of a violation shall
be considered by  said Administrator. For  good cause shown,
the  Administrator may remit or mitigate such penalty.  Upon
failure of the  offending party to pay  the penalty, the  Adminis-
trator may request the Attorney  General to commence  an action
in the appropriate district court of the United States for  such
relief as may be appropriate.
                        Criminal penalties
   (b) In addition to  any  action which may be brought under
subsection (a)  of this section, a person who knowingly violates
this  subchapter, regulations promulgated under this  subchapter,
or a permit issued under this subchapter shall be fined not more
 than $50,000, or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
                         Separate offenses
   (c) For the purpose of imposing civil penalties and criminal
 fines under this section, each  day of a continuing violation  shall
constitute a  separate  offense as  shall the dumping from each of
 several vessels, or other sources.

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      337

                         Injunctive relief
  (d) The Attorney General or his delegate may bring actions for
equitable relief to enjoin an imminent or continuing violation of
this  subchapter,  of  regulations  promulgated  under  this  sub-
chapter,  or of permits  issued  under this subchapter, and the
district courts of the United  States  shall have jurisdiction to
grant such relief as the equities of the case may require.
                     Liability of vessels in rent
  (e) A vessel, except a public vessel within the meaning of sec-
tion  13 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,  used in a
violation,  shall be liable  in  rem for  any civil  penalty assessed or
criminal  fine imposed and may be proceeded  against in any dis-
trict court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof; but
no vessel  shall be liable  unless it  shall appear that one or  more
of the owners, or  bareboat charterers, was  at  the time of the
violation a consenting party or privy to such violation.
                 Revocation and suspension of permits
  (f) If the provisions of any permit issued under section 1412
or 1413 of this title are violated, the Administrator or the Secre-
tary, as the case  may be, may revoke the permit or may suspend
the permit for a  specified period of time. No permit shall be  re-
voked  or  suspended unless the permittee  shall have  been given
notice and opportunity for a hearing on such violation and pro-
posed suspension  or revocation.
                    Civil suits by private persons
  (g)  (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection
any person may commence a civil suit on his own behalf to enjoin
any person, including the United States and any other govern-
mental instrumentality or agency  (to the extent permitted by the
eleventh  amendment  to the Constitution), and who is alleged to
be in violation of any prohibition, limitation,  criterion, or permit
established or issued by  or under this  subchapter. The  district
courts shall have jurisdiction, without regard to the amount in
controversy or the citizenship of the parties, to enforce such pro-
hibition, limitation, criterion, or permit, as the case may be.
  (2) No action may be commenced—
       (A) prior to sixty days after notice of the violation has
    been  given to the Administrator or to the Secretary, and to
    any  alleged violator  of the prohibition, limitation, criterion,
    or permit; or
       (B) if the Attorney General has commenced and is dili-
    gently prosecuting a civil  action in a court of  the United

-------
338          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

    States to require compliance with  the  prohibition, limita-
    tion, criterion, or permit; or
       (C) if the Administrator has commenced action to impose
    a penalty pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, or if the
    Administrator, or the Secretary, has initiated permit revoca-
    tion or suspension proceedings under  subsection (f) of this
    section; or
       (D) if the United States has commenced and is diligently
    prosecuting  a  criminal  action in a  court of the  United
    States or a State to redress a violation of this subchapter.
   (3)  (A) Any suit  under this subsection may be brought in the
judicial district in which the violation occurs.
   (B)  In any such suit under this subsection  in which the United
States is  not a  party, the Attorney  General,  at the request of
the Administrator or Secretary, may intervene on  behalf of the
United States as a matter of right.
   (4)  The court, in  issuing any final  order  in any  suit brought
pursuant  to paragraph (1)  of this subsection may award costs
of litigation  (including reasonable attorney  and expert  witness
fees)  to any party,  whenever the court determines such award
is appropriate.
   (5)  The injunctive relief provided by this  subsection shall not
restrict any right which any person (or class of persons) may
have under any statute or common law to seek enforcement of
any standard or limitation or to seek any other relief  (including
relief  against  the  Administrator,  the Secretary, or  a  State
agency).
                          Emergencies
   (h)  No person shall be subject to a civil penalty or to a crim-
inal fine or imprisonment for dumping materials from a vessel if
such materials are dumped in an emergency  to safeguard life at
sea. Any  such emergency dumping shall be  reported to the Ad-
ministrator under such conditions as he may prescribe.
Pub.L. 92-532, Title I, § 105, Oct. 23,1972, 86  Stat. 1057.

   § 1416. Voiding of pre-existing licenses; impairment of naviga-
tion;  consistent State programs; existing conservation program
not affected

   (a)  After the effective  date of this  subchapter, all  licenses,
permits, and authorizations other than those issued pursuant to
this subchapter shall be void and of no legal effect,  to the extent
that they  purport to authorize  any activity  regulated  by this

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      339

subchapter, and whether issued before or after the effective date
of this subchapter.
  (b) The provisions of subsection  (a)  of this  section shall not
apply to  actions taken  before the  effective date of this sub-
chapter under the authority of the  Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899.
  (c) Prior  to issuing any permit  under this  subchapter, if it
appears to the Administrator that  the  disposition of material,
other than dredged material,  may adversely affect navigation in
the territorial sea of the United States,  or in the approaches to
any harbor of the United States, or may create an artificial island
on  the  Outer Continental Shelf, the Administrator shall con-
sult with the Secretary  and  no permit shall  be  issued  if the
Secretary determines that navigation will  be unreasonably im-
paired.
  (d) After  the effective date of this subchapter, no State shall
adopt or enforce any rule or  regulation relating to any activity
regulated by this  subchapter. Any State may, however, propose
to the Administrator criteria relating to the dumping of  mate-
rials  into  ocean  waters  within its  jurisdiction, or into  other
ocean waters to the  extent that such dumping may affect waters
within the jurisdiction of such State, and  if the Administrator
determines, after  notice  and  opportunity for  hearing, that the
proposed  criteria are not inconsistent with the purposes of this
subchapter, may  adopt those  criteria and may  issue regulations
to implement such criteria. Such determination  shall be made by
the Administrator within one hundred  and twenty  days of re-
ceipt of the proposed  criteria.  For the purposes  of this sub-
section, the term "State" means any State,  interstate or regional
authority, Federal territory or Commonwealth or the District of
Columbia.
   (e) Nothing in this subchapter shall be deemed to affect in any
manner or to any extent any  provision of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act.
Pub.L. 92-532, Title I, § 106, Oct. 23, 1972, 86 Stat. 1058.

  § 1417. Enforcement—Utilization  of other departments, agen-
cies, and instrumentalities

   (a)  The Administrator or  the Secretary, as  the case may be,
may, whenever appropriate, utilize  by agreement, the personnel,
services and facilities  of other Federal departments, agencies,
and instrumentalities,  or State  agencies  or  instrumentalities,

-------
340          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

whether on a reimbursable or a nonreimbursable basis, in carry-
ing out his responsibilities under this subchapter.
             Delegation of review and evaluation authority
   (b) The Administrator or the Secretary may delegate respon-
sibility  and authority for reviewing and  evaluating permit  ap-
plications, including the decision as to whether a permit will be
issued, to an officer of his agency, or he may delegate, by agree-
ment, such  responsibility and authority to  the heads  of  other
Federal departments or agencies, whether on a reimbursable or
nonreimbursable basis.
              Surveillance and other enforcement activity
   (c)  The  Secretary of the  department in which the  Coast
Guard is operating shall conduct surveillance and other appropri-
ate enforcement activity to prevent unlawful transportation of
material for dumping,  or unlawful dumping. Such enforcement
activity shall include, but not be limited to, enforcement of regu-
lations  issued  by him pursuant to section  1418 of  this title,
relating to safe transportation, handling,  carriage, storage,  and
stowage.  The Secretary of the Department in which  the  Coast
Guard is  operating shall supply to the Administrator and to the
Attorney  General,  as appropriate, such information of enforce-
ment activities and such  evidentiary material assembled as they
may require in carrying out their duties relative to penalty assess-
ments, criminal prosecutions, or other actions involving litigation
pursuant  to the provisions of this subchapter.
Pub.L. 92-532, Title I, § 107, Oct. 23,1972,  86 Stat. 1059.

   § 1418. Regulations
   In carrying out the responsibilities  and  authority conferred by
this subchapter, the Administrator, the Secretary,  and the Secre-
tary of the department in which the Coast  Guard is operating
are authorized to issue such regulations as they may deem appro-
priate.
Pub.L. 92-532, Title I, § 108, Oct. 23,1972,  86 Stat. 1059.

   § 1419. International cooperation

   The Secretary of State,  in consultation with the  Administra-
tor, shall seek effective international action  and  cooperation to
insure protection of the marine environment, and may, for  this
purpose, formulate, present, or support specific proposals in the
United Nations and other competent  international organizations

-------
         WATER—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      341

for the development of appropriate international rules and regu-
lations in support of the policy of this chapter.
Pub.L. 92-532, Title I, § 109, Oct. 23,1972, 86 Stat. 1060.

  § 1420.  Authorization of appropriations

  There are hereby authorized to be appropriated not to exceed
$3,600,000 for  fiscal  year 1973, and  not  to  exceed $5,500,000
for fiscal year 1974, for the purposes and administration of this
subchapter, and for succeeding fiscal years only such sums as the
Congress may authorize by law.
Pub.L. 92-532, Title I, § 111, Oct. 23,1972, 86 Stat. 1060.

  § 1421.  Annual report to Congress

  The Administrator  shall report annually, on or before June 30
of each year, with the first report to be made on or before June
30, 1973  to  the  Congress,  on his administration of this  sub-
chapter, including recommendations for  additional legislation if
deemed necessary.
Pub.L. 92-532, Title I, § 112, Oct. 23, 1972, 86 Stat. 1060.

                  SUBCHAPTER II—RESEARCH

  § 1441. Monitoring and research program; reports to Congress

  The Secretary  of Commerce,  in coordination with the Secre-
tary of the Department in which the Coast  Guard  is operating
and with  the Administrator shall, within six months of October
23, 1972,  initiate a comprehensive and  continuing  program of
monitoring and research regarding the effects of the dumping of
material  into ocean waters or  other coastal  waters where  the
tide ebbs  and flows or into the Great Lakes  or their connecting
waters and shall report from time to time,  not  less frequently
than annually, his findings (including an evaluation of the short-
term  ecological effects and  the  social and economic factors in-
volved) to the Congress.
Pub.L. 92-532, Title II, § 201, Oct. 23, 1972, 86 Stat. 1060.

  § 1442.  Research program respecting  possible long range ef-
fects of pollution, overfishing, and man-induced changes of ocean
ecosystems—Secretary of Commerce

   (a) The Secretary of Commerce, in  consultation with other
appropriate Federal  departments, agencies,  and  instrumental!-

-------
342          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

ties shall, within six months of October 23, 1972, initiate a com-
prehensive and continuing program of research with  respect to
the possible long-range effects of pollution, overfishing, and man-
induced changes  of ocean ecosystems.  In carrying out such re-
search, the  Secretary of Commerce shall take into account such
factors as existing and proposed international policies affecting
oceanic problems, economic  considerations involved in both the
protection and the use of the  oceans, possible alternatives to
existing programs, and ways in which the health of the oceans
may best  be preserved for the benefit of succeeding generations
of mankind.

                     Action with other nations
   (b) In  carrying out his responsibilities under this section, the
Secretary of Commerce, under the foreign policy guidance of the
President and pursuant  to  international agreements  and trea-
ties made by the President  with the  advice  and consent  of the
Senate, may act alone or in conjunction with  any other nation or
group of  nations, and shall make known the results of his activi-
ties by such channels of communication as may appear appropri-
ate.

                     Annual report to Congress
   (c) In  January of each year, the Secretary of Commerce shall
report to the Congress on the  results of activities undertaken
by him pursuant to this  section during the previous fiscal year.

             Cooperation of other departments, agencies, and
                   independent instrumentalities
   (d) Each department,  agency, and independent instrumental-
ity of the Federal  Government is  authorized and directed to  co-
operate with the  Secretary of  Commerce in carrying out the
purposes  of this section and, to the extent permitted  by law, to
furnish such information as may be requested.

   Utilization of personnel, services,  and facilities; inter-agency agreements
   (e) The Secretary  of Commerce, in carrying  out his responsi-
bilities under this section, shall, to the extent feasible utilize the
personnel, services, and facilities  of other Federal departments,
agencies,  and  instrumentalities (including those  of  the Coast
Guard for monitoring purposes), and is  authorized to enter into
appropriate inter-agency agreements to accomplish this  action.
Pub.L. 92-532, Title II, § 202, Oct. 23,1972, 86 Stat. 1060.

-------
         WATER—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      343

  § 1443. Cooperation with public authorities, agencies, and in-
stitutions, private agencies and institutions,  and individuals

  The Secretary of Commerce shall conduct and encourage, coop-
erate with, and render financial  and other assistance to appropri-
ate public (whether Federal, State, interstate, or local)  authori-
ties, agencies, and institutions, private agencies and institutions,
and individuals in the conduct  of,  and to  promote the coordina-
tion of,  research, investigations, experiments, training, demon-
strations, surveys, and studies  for the  purpose of determining
means of minimizing or ending all dumping of materials within
five years of the effective date of this Act.
Pub.L. 92-532, Title II, § 203, Oct. 23,1972, 86 Stat. 1061.

  § 1444. Authorization of appropriations

  There are authorized to be  appropriated  for the first fiscal
year  after October 23, 1972, and  for the next  two fiscal years
thereafter such sums as may be necessary to carry out  this sub-
chapter, but the sums appropriated for any such fiscal year may
not exceed $6,000,000.
Pub.L. 92-532, Title II, § 204, Oct. 23, 1972, 86 Stat. 1061.

-------

-------
Executive
   Orders

-------

-------
                 WATER—EXECUTIVE ORDERS             347

2.15 E.G. 11707, CHANGE IN BOUNDARIES OF NEW
ENGLAND RIVER BASINS COMMISSION,
                   March 14,1973, 38 F.R. 6877

 CHANGE IN BOUNDARIES  OF NEW ENGLAND RIVER
                   BASINS COMMISSION

  The  Governors of the member States  of  the  New England
River Basins Commission and the Water Resources Council have
requested  that the jurisdiction  of the Commission  be extended
to include those portions of the States of Vermont and  Massachu-
setts which are  not presently included within the area of  the
Commission's jurisdiction. I have determined that  it would  be
in the public interest to comply with that request.
  NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested  in me
by Section 201 of the Water Resources Planning Act  (42 U.S.C.
1962b)  and as President of the United States, subsections  (3)
and (4) of section 2 of Executive Order No. 11371 of  September
6,1967, as amended, are hereby amended to read as follows:
  "(3) The State of Vermont,
  "(4) The State of Massachusetts,".
                                        RICHARD NIXON.
  THE WHITE HOUSE,
        March 12,1973.

2.16 E.O. 11735,  Assignment of  Functions under  Section 311 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended
                   August 7, 1973, 38 F.R. 21243
  ASSIGNMENT OF FUNCTIONS UNDER SECTION 311 OF
    THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT,
                       AS AMENDED

  By virtue of the authority vested in me by section  311  of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments  of 1972  (Public Law
92-500; 86 Stat. 816 at 862; 33 U.S.C. 1321), hereinafter referred
to as the act,  by section 301  of title 3 of the United  States
Code, and as President of the United States, it is hereby ordered
as follows:
  Section 1.  Administrator of the  Environmental  Protection
Agency. The  Administrator  of the  Environmental  Protection
Agency is hereby designated and empowered to exercise, without
the approval,  ratification,  or  other action of  the President, the
following:

-------
348          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT 11

  (1) the authority of the President under subsections (b)(3)
and  (b) (4)  of  section 311 of the act relating to the determina-
tion  of those quantities of oil and hazardous substances the dis-
charge of which, at such times, locations, circumstances, and con-
ditions, will be harmful to the public  health  or welfare  of the
United States and those which will not be harmful;
  (2)  the authority  of the  President  under subsection (c) (2)
(G)  of section 311 of  the act, relating to identification of dis-
persants and other chemicals to be used;
  (3)  the authority  of the  President under  subsection  (e)  of
section  311  of  the act, relating to  determinations of  imminent
and  substantial threat because of actual or threatened discharges
of oil  or hazardous  substances from non-transportation-related
onshore  and offshore facilities, and relating  to securing  relief
necessary to abate such actual or threatened  discharges through
court action; and
  (4)  the  authority  of the  President under  subsection  (j) (1)
(C)  of section 311 of  the act, relating to the establishment of
procedures,  methods, and equipment and other requirements for
equipment to prevent discharges of oil  and hazardous substances
from non-transportation-related onshore and  offshore facilities,
and  to contain  such discharges.

  Sec. 2. Secretary of Department  in which the Coast Guard is
Operating. The Secretary of the Department in which the Coast
Guard is operating is hereby designated and empowered to exer-
cise, without the  approval,  ratification,  or other  action  of the
President, the following:
  (1)  the  authority  of the  President under  subsection  (e)  of
section 311 of the act, relating to determinations of imminent
and  substantial threat because of actual or threatened discharges
of oil  or hazardous  substances  from transportation-related on-
shore and offshore facilities,  and relating to securing relief neces-
sary to abate such actual or  threatened discharges through court
action;
   (2)  the  authority of the President under subsection  (j)(l)
(C)  of section 311 of the act, relating to the establishment of
procedures, methods, and equipment and other requirements  for
equipment to prevent discharges of oil and hazardous substances
from  vessels   and transportation-related onshore and offshore
facilities, and to contain such  discharges;
   (3)  the  authority of the President under subsection  (j)(l)
(D) of section  311 of the act, relating to the inspection of vessels

-------
                 WATER—EXECUTIVE ORDERS               349

carrying cargoes of oil and hazardous substances and the inspec-
tion of such cargoes;
   (4) the authority to administer the revolving fund established
pursuant to subsection (k) of section 311 of the act; and
   (5) the authority under subsection (m) of section 311 of the
act, relating to the boarding and inspection of vessels, the arrest
of persons violating section 311,  and the execution  of warrants
or other process pursuant to that section.

   Sec. 3.  Federal Maritime Commission. The  Federal Maritime
Commission is designated and empowered to exercise, without the
approval, ratification, or other action of the President, the follow-
ing:
   (1) the authority  of the President under subsection  (p)(l)
of section 311 of the  act, relating to the issuance of regulations
governing evidence of financial responsibility for vessels to meet
liability to the  United States;  and
   (2) the authority under subsection (p) (2)  of  section 311 of
the act,  relating to the administration of  subsection (p).

   Sec. 4.  Council  on Environmental Quality. The Council on
Environmental Quality  is thereby designated and empowered to
exercise, without the approval, ratification, or other  action of the
President, the  authority under subsection  (c) (2)  of section 311
of the act,  providing for the  preparation, publication, revision
or amendment of a National Contingency Plan for the removal
of oil and hazardous  substance discharges (hereinafter referred
to as  the National Contingency Plan).

   Sec. 5.  Other Assignments.
   (a)  The head of each Federal department and agency having
responsibilities under the National Contingency Plan (36 FR
16215), as  now  or hereafter  amended, is  designated and em-
powered to  exercise,  without the approval, ratification, or  other
action of the President, in accordance  with that plan,  the au-
thority under subsection (c)(l) of section 311 of the act,  relat-
ing to the removal of  oil  and hazardous  substances  discharged
into or upon the navigable waters of the United States, adjoining
shorelines, or into or  upon the waters of the contiguous zone.
   (b)  The  Administrator  of the  Environmental  Protection
Agency and the Secretary of the Department in which the  Coast
Guard is operating, respectively, in and for the waters and  areas
for which each has  responsibility for  providing or furnishing
on-scene-coordinators under the National Contingency Plan, are

-------
350          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

designated and empowered to exercise, without approval, ratifi-
cation, or other action of the President, the following:
  (1)  the authority under subsection (c)(2)(C)  of  section 311
of the act,  relating to the  determination  of major ports for
establishment of emergency task forces;
  (2)  the authority under subsection (d)  of section 311 of the
act, relating to the coordination and direction of the removal or
elimination of  threats of  pollution hazards from discharges, or
imminent discharges, of oil or hazardous substances,  and the re-
moval and destruction of vessels;
  (3)  the  authority of the  President under subsection (j)(l)
(A)  of section 311 of the act, relating  to  the  establishment of
methods and procedures for the removal of discharged  oil and
hazardous substances; and
   (4) the authority  of the  President under subsection (j) (1)
(B)  of section 311 of the act, relating  to  the  establishment of
criteria for  the development and  implementation of  local and
regional oil and hazardous substance removal contingency plans.
  (c)  The  Administrator  of  the  Environmental   Protection
Agency and the Secretary of the Department in which the  Coast
Guard is  operating are designated and empowered  to exercise,
without the  approval, ratification,  or other action of the Presi-
dent, the authority of the  President under section  311 (j) (2)
with  respect to assessing and  compromising civil penalties in
connection with enforcement of  the respective  regulations is-
sued  by each pursuant to this order.
  Sec. 6.  Consultation. Authorities  and functions delegated or
assigned by  this order shall be  exercised subject to  consultation
with the Secretaries of departments and the heads of agencies with
operating or regulatory responsibilities which may be  significantly
affected.
   Sec.  7. Agency to  Receive Notices of  Discharges  of Oil or
Hazardous Substances. The Coast Guard  is hereby designated
the "appropriate agency" for the purpose of receiving the  notice
of discharge of oil or hazardous substances required by subsec-
tion  (b) (5)  of section 311 of the act. The Commandant of the
Coast Guard shall issue regulations implementing this designa-
tion.
   Sec. 8.  Without derogating from any action heretofore taken

-------
                 WATER—EXECUTIVE ORDERS              351

thereunder,  Executive Order  No. 11548  of July 20, 1970, is
hereby superseded.
                                            RICHARD NIXON
  THE WHITE HOUSE,
       August 3,1973.

2.17 E.G. 11737 Enlargement of the Upper Mississippi River
Basin Commission,
                  September 11,1973, 38 F.R. 24883

       ENLARGEMENT OF THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI
                RIVER BASIN COMMISSION

  The  Governors of the member States of the Upper Mississippi
River  Basin Commission and  of the  Souris-Red-Rainy River
Basins Commission, together with the Water Resources  Council,
have requested, or concurred in,  the enlargement  of the Upper
Mississippi River Basin  Commission to include those portions
of the  States of Minnesota and North Dakota that are drained
by the Souris-Red-Rainy Rivers  system.  The Souris-Red-Rainy
River Basins Commission terminated on  June 30, 1973, by opera-
tion of Section 7 of Executive Order No. 11359 of June 20, 1967,
as amended.  I have  determined that it would be  in the public
interest to comply with the above request.
  NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me
by Section 201 of the Water Resources Planning Act (42 U.S.C.
1962b), and as President of the United States, it  is ordered as
follows:
  Section 1.  Executive Order No. 11659  of  March 22,  1972, is
hereby amended as follows:
  (1)  Section 2 is  amended  to read  as follows:
  "Sec. 2. Jurisdiction of the Commission. It is hereby determined
that  the jurisdiction  of  the   Upper Mississippi  River Basin
Commission referred  to in Section  1 of this order shall extend
to those portions  of the States of  Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota,
Missouri, Wisconsin, and North Dakota that are located within
the Upper Mississippi, Souris,  Red, or Rainy  River drainage
basins. The Upper Mississippi River drainage basin is  defined
as the drainage  basin of the Mississippi River above the mouth
of the  Ohio River, excluding the drainage basin  of the Missouri
River above a point immediately below the mouth of  the Gasconade
River."
   (2) Section 3(3) is amended to read as follows:

-------
352          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n

  "(3) one member from each of the following  States: Illinois,
Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin, and North Dakota,".
  (3) Section 5 is amended to read as follows:
  "Sec.  5.  Consultation with  Adjoining States. The  Commis-
sion is expected to provide for procedures for  consultation with
the States of Indiana, Michigan, South Dakota, and Montana on
any  matter which might  affect the water and related land re-
sources  of the  headwater drainages  of  the Mississippi  River
Basin or the drainages of the Souris, Red, or Rainy River Basins
in those States and to give notice to those States of meetings of
the Commission."
  (4) Section 6 is hereby redesignated as Section 7 and a new
Section  6 is hereby inserted immediately  after Section  5 as  fol-
lows:
  Sec. 6. International  Coordination.  The  Chairman  of  the
Commission is hereby authorized and directed to refer to the
Council any  matters  under consideration  by the Commission
which relate  to areas of interest or jurisdiction  of the Interna-
tional Joint Commission, United States and Canada. The Council
shall consult  on these matters as appropriate  with the Depart-
ment of State  and the International Joint Commission through
its  United States Section for  the  purpose of enhancing inter-
national coordination."
  Sec. 2.  All  funds,  property, records,  employees,  assets,  and
obligations of  the Souris-Red-Rainy  River  Basins Commission
are, with  the concurrence of Governors  of  the  affected States,
transferred to  the Upper Mississippi River Basin Commission,
effective as of July 1, 1973.
  Sec. 3.  Executive  Order  No. 11359  of June  20, 1967,  and
Executive Order  No.  11635 of December  9,  1971,  are hereby
superseded.
                                             RICHARD NIXON
   THE WHITE HOUSE
       September 7,1973.

-------
                 WATER—EXECUTIVE ORDERS              353

2.18 E.G. 11738, Providing for Administration of the Clean Air
    Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act with Re-
    spect to Federal Contracts, Grants, or Loans, September 12,
    1973,38 F.R. 25161.

  PROVIDING FOR  ADMINISTRATION  OF  THE CLEAN
    AIR ACT  AND  THE  FEDERAL WATER  POLLU-
     TION  CONTROL  ACT WITH RESPECT TO FED-
        ERAL CONTRACTS,  GRANTS, OR LOANS

  By virtue of  the authority vested in me  by the  provisions of
the Clean  Air Act,  as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.),  par-
ticularly section 306  of that Act as added  by the Clean  Air
Amendments of 1970  (Public  Law 91-604), and  the  Federal
Water  Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.  1251 et seq.),  particu-
larly section 508 of that  Act as added by the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972  (Public Law  92-
500), it is hereby ordered as follows:

  Section  1. Policy.  It  is  the  policy  of  the Federal  Govern-
ment to improve and enhance environmental quality. In  further-
ance of that policy, the program prescribed in  this  Order is
instituted  to assure that each  Federal  agency empowered to
enter into contracts for the  procurement  of goods, materials, or
services and each Federal agency empowered to extend Federal
assistance by way of grant, loan,  or  contract shall  undertake
such procurement and assistance activities in a manner that will
result  in effective enforcement of the Clean  Air Act  (herein-
after  referred  to as  "the Air  Act")  and  the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Water
Act").
  Sec.  2. Designation of Facilities, (a)  The Administrator of
the Environmental  Protection Agency (hereinafter referred to
as "the Administrator") shall be responsible  for the attainment
of the purposes and objectives of this Order.

  (b)  In carrying out his responsibilities under this Order, the
Administrator shall, in conformity with  all  applicable  require-
ments  of  law,  designate facilities which have given rise  to  a
conviction for an offense under  section  113 (c) (1) of  the Air
Act or Section 309(c)  of the Water Act. The Administrator shall,
from time to time, publish and circulate to all  Federal  agencies
lists of those facilities, together with the names and addresses of
the persons who have been convicted of such  offenses. Whenever

-------
354          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

the Administrator determines that the condition which gave rise
to a conviction has been corrected, he shall promptly remove the
facility and the name and address of the person concerned from
the list.
   Sec. 3. Contracts, Grants, or Loans, (a) Except as provided in
section 8 of this  Order, no  Federal agency shall enter into any
contract for the procurement of goods, materials, or services which
is to be performed in whole or in part in a facility then designated
by the Administrator pursuant  to section 2.
   (b)  Except as  provided in section 8 of this Order, no Federal
agency authorized to extend Federal assistance by way of grant,
loan, or contract shall extend such assistance in any case in which
it is to be used to support any activity or program involving the
use of a facility then designated by the Administrator pursuant
to section 2.
   Sec. 4.  Procurement,  Grant, and  Loan  Regulations.  The
Federal Procurement Regulations,  the Armed Services Procure-
ment  Regulations, and, to the extent necessary, any supplemental
or comparable regulations issued by any agency of the Executive
Branch shall, following consultation with the Administrator, be
amended to require, as a condition of entering into, renewing,
or extending  any contract  for  the procurement of  goods, ma-
terials, or services or extending any assistance by way of grant,
loan,  or  contract, inclusion  of a provision requiring compliance
with the Air Act, the Water Act, and standards issued pursuant
thereto in the facilities in which the contract is  to be performed,
or which are involved in the activity or program to receive as-
sistance.
   Sec. 5. Rules  and Regulations. The Administrator shall  is-
sue such rules, regulations,  standards, and guidelines as  he may
deem necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this
Order.
   Sec. 6. Cooperation and  Assistance. The head of  each  Fed-
eral agency shall  take such steps as may be necessary to insure
that all officers and  employees of his agency whose duties entail
compliance or comparable  functions with  respect to contracts,
grants, and loans are familiar with the provisions of this Order.
In addition to any  other appropriate action, such officers  and
employees shall report promptly any condition in a facility which
may involve noncompliance with the Air Act or the Water Act
or any rules, regulations,  standards, or guidelines  issued pur-
suant to this Order to the head of the agency, who shall transmit
such  reports to the Administrator.
   Sec. 7. Enforcement.   The  Administrator  may  recommend

-------
                 WATERr—EXECUTIVE ORDERS              355

to the Department of Justice or other appropriate agency that le-
gal  proceedings be brought or other appropriate action be taken
whenever he becomes  aware of a  breach of any provision re-
quired, under the amendments issued pursuant to section  4  of
this Order, to be  included in  a  contract or other agreement.
  Sec. 8.  Exemptions—Reports to  Congress,  (a)  Upon  a de-
termination that the paramount interest of the United States  so
requires—
  (1) The head of  a Federal agency may exempt any contract,
grant, or  loan, and, following consultation with the Administra-
tor, any class of contracts, grants or loans from the provisions  of
this Order.  In any such case,  the  head of the Federal  agency
granting  such exemption shall (A) promptly notify the Ad-
ministrator  of such exemption and  the  justification therefor;
(B) review the necessity for  each such exemption annually; and
(C) report  to the Administrator annually all such  exemptions
in effect.  Exemptions granted  pursuant to this section shall be
for a  period not to  exceed one  year. Additional exemptions may
be granted for periods not to exceed one  year upon the making
of a new  determination by the head of the Federal agency con-
cerned.
  (2) The Administrator may, by rule  or  regulation, exempt
any or all Federal agencies from any or all of the provisions  of
this Order  with  respect to  any class or classes of contracts,
grants,  or loans, which  (A) involve  less than specified  dollar
amounts,  or (B)  have a  minimal potential impact upon the en-
vironment, or (C)  involve persons who are not  prime contrac-
tors or direct recipients of Federal  assistance by way of con-
tracts, grants, or loans.
  (b)  Federal agencies shall reconsider any exemption granted
under subsection (a) whenever requested to do  so  by the Ad-
ministrator.
  (c)  The Administrator  shall annually  notify  the President
and the Congress of all exemptions granted, or in effect, under
this Order during the preceding year.
  Sec. 9.  Related Actions. The imposition of any  sanction  or
penalty under or pursuant to  this Order shall not relieve any
person of any legal duty to  comply with any  provisions of the
Air Act or the Water Act.
  Sec. 10. Applicability. This  Order shall  not  apply  to con-
tracts, grants, or loans  involving  the use of facilities  located
outside the United States.
  Sec. 11. Uniformity.  Rules,  regulations,  standards,  and

-------
356         LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

guidelines issued pursuant to this order and section 508 of the
Water Act shall, to the maximum extent feasible, be uniform
with regulations issued  pursuant to this order, Executive Order
No. 11602 of June 29, 1971, and section 306 of the Air Act.
  Sec.  12.  Order Superseded.  Executive  Order No. 11602  of
June 29, 1971, is hereby superseded.
                                          RICHARD NIXON
  THE WHITE HOUSE
      September 10,1973.

2.19 E.O. 11742, Delegating  to  the Secretary of State Certain
    Functions with Respect to the Negotiation of International
    Agreements Relating to  the Enhancement of the Environ-
    ment, October 25, 1973, 38 F.R. 29457.
DELEGATING  TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE CERTAIN
    FUNCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE NEGOTIATION
    OF INTERNATIONAL  AGREEMENTS  RELATING  TO
    THE  ENHANCEMENT OF  THE  ENVIRONMENT
  Under  and by virtue  of the authority vested in me by section
301 of title 3 of the United States  Code and as President of the
United States, I hereby authorize and empower the Secretary of
State, in  coordination with the  Council on Environmental Qual-
ity, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other appropriate
Federal agencies, to perform, without the approval, ratification,
or other  action of the President, the  functions vested in the
President by  section 7  of the Federal  Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972  (Public Law 92-500; 86  Stat.  898)
with  respect  to international agreements  relating to the en-
hancement of the environment.
                                          RICHARD NIXON
  THE WHITE HOUSE
      October 23,1973.

2.20 E.O.  11747, Delegating  Certain Authority of the President
    under the Water Resources Planning Act, as amended, Nov-
    ember 9,1973, 38 F.R. 30993.
DELEGATING  CERTAIN  AUTHORITY  OF  THE  PRESI-
    DENT UNDER THE WATER  RESOURCES PLANNING
    ACT, AS AMENDED
  By virtue of the authority  vested in me by section 301 of title
3 of the  United States Code, and as  President of the United
States, it is hereby ordered as follows:
  Section 1.  The  Director of the  Office of Management  and

-------
                 WATER—EXECUTIVE ORDERS              357

Budget  is designated and  empowered to exercise, without the
approval, ratification, or other action of the President, the func-
tions vested in the President by (1) sections 104(b) and 204(3)
of the Water Resources Planning  Act, as amended  (42  U.S.C.
1962a-3(b)  and 1962b-3(3), respectively), with  respect to re-
viewing plans, or revisions thereof, of river basin commissions
established pursuant to  that act and transmitting  those plans  or
revisions thereto to  the Congress  with  appropriate  recommen-
dations;  and (2)  section  301(b)  of the same act  (42  U.S.C.
1962c(b)) with  respect to  approving rules, procedures, arrange-
ments, and provisions relating to coordination of  Federal plan-
ning assistance programs and utilization of Federal agencies ad-
ministering related programs.
  Sec. 2.  The  Chairman  of the  Water Resources  Council  is
designated  and  empowered to exercise, without  the approval,
ratification, or other action of the President, the approval func-
tion  for  standards  and  procedures  vested in the President  by
section 103 of the Water Resources  Planning Act, as amended
(42 U.S.C. 1962a-2).
                                            RICHARD NIXON
  THE WHITE HOUSE,
      November 7,1973.

-------

-------
Regulations

-------

-------
                        WATER—REGULATIONS                    361

3.  Regulations
   3.1  Certification  of  Facilities,  Environmental Protection Agency, 40
       C.F.R. §§ 20.1-20.10 (1971)
                 [See General 3.10  for  Subtitle  Listing]
   3.2  State and  Local  Assistance, Environmental Protection  Agency, 40
       C.P.R. §§ 35.150-35.240, 35.400-35.420,  35-551-35.955  (1973)
       3.2a Planning Grants—Subpart A
    WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANNING REQUIREMENTS
            § 35.150     Applicability
            § 35.151—1   Basin Control Plans
            § 35.151—2   Region and Metropolitan Plans
      WATER  QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING GRANTS
            § 35.200     Purpose
            § 35.201     Authority
            § 35.202     Definitions
            § 35.202—1   Administrative Expenses
            § 35.202—2   Basin
            § 35.202—3   State
            § 35.205     Grant Limitations
            § 35.210     Eligibility
            § 35.215     Application Requirements
            § 35.220     Criteria for Award
            § 35.225     Water  Pollution  Control  Comprehensive  Basin
                         Plan
            § 35.230     Reports
            § 35.230—1   Report of Project Procedures
            § 35.2301—2   Interim Plan
            § 35.240     Continuation Grant
       3.2b Program Grant—Subpart  B
            § 35.400     Purpose
            § 35.400—1   Grants May Be Awarded to Air Pollution Control
                         Agencies and Interstate Planning
            § 35.400—2   Water Pollution Control Program Grant Awards
            § 35.401     Authority
            § 35.405     Criteria for Evaluation  of Program Objective
            § 35.410     Evaluation of Program  Performances
            § 35.415     Report of Project Expeditures
            § 35.420     Payment
            § 35.558—2   Computation of Interstate Allocation
            § 35.558—3   Computation of State Allocation
            § 35.558—4   Notification of Funds
            § 35.559     Grant Amounts
            § 35.559—1   Computation of Maximum Grant
            § 35.559—2   Determination
            § 35.559—3   Reduction of Grant Amounts
            § 35.559—4   Grant Amount Limit and Duration
            § 35.559—5   Eligibility
            § 35.559—6   Limitation of Award
            § 35.559—7   Grant Conditions
            § 35.560     Program Evaluation and Reporting
            § 35.560—1   Evaluation
            § 35.560—2   Reports

-------
362
   LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
       3.2c
§ 35.560—3  Reduction of Grant Amount
§ 35.563      Grant Limitations and Duration
Grants for Construction of Waste Water Treatment Works
            § 35.800     Purpose
            § 35.801     Authority
            § 35.805     Definitions
            § 35.805—1  Construction
            § 35.805—2  Intermunicipal Agency
            § 35.805—3  Interstate Agency
            § 35.805—4  Municipality
            § 35.805—5  State
            § 35.805—6  State Water Pollution Control Agency
            § 35.805—7  Treatment Works
            § 35.810     Applicant Eligibility
            § 35.815     Allocation of Funds
            § 35.815—1  Allotments to State
            § 35.815—2  Re-allotment
            § 35.820     Grant Limitations
            § 35.820—1  Exceptions
            § 35.825     Application for Grants
            § 35.825—1  Pre-application Procedures
            § 35.825—2  Formal Application
            § 35.830     Determining the  Desirability of Projects
            § 35.835     Criteria for Award
            § 35.835—1  State Plan and Priority
            § 35.835—2  Basin Control
            § 35.835—3  Regional and Metropolitan Plan
            § 35.835—4  Adequacy of  Treatment
            § 35.835—5  Industrial Waste Treatment
            § 35.835—6  Design
            § 35.835—7  Operation and Maintenance
            § 35.835—8  Operation During Construction
            § 35.835—9  Post Construction Inspection
            § 35.840     Supplemental Grant Conditions
            § 35.845     Payments
            § 35.850     Purpose
            § 35.855     Project Eligibility
            § 35.860     Eligible Costs
            § 35.865     Applications
            § 35.870     Priority  for  Funds Appropriated by Public Law
                         92-399
            § 35.880     Grant Amount
            § 35.885     Obligation and Payment Schedule
            § 35.890     Initiation of Construction
            § 35.895     Disputes
       3.2d Grants for Construction of Treatment Works—Federal Water
            Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972—Subpart E
            § 35.900      Purpose
            § 35.901      Authority
            § 35.903      Summary of Construction Grant Program
            § 35.905      Definitions

-------
            WATER—REGULATIONS
                                                        363
§ 35.905—1
§ 35.905—2
§ 35.905—3
§ 35.905—4
§ 35.905—5
§ 35.905—6
§ 35.905—7
§ 35.905—8
§ 35.905—9
§ 35.905—10
§ 35.905—11
§ 35.905—12
§ 35.905—13
§ 35.906—14
§ 35.905—15
§ 35.908

§ 35.910
§ 35.910—1
§ 35.910—2
§ 35.915
§ 35.920
§ 35.920—1
§ 35.920—2
§ 35.920—3
§ 35.925
§ 35.925—1
§ 35.925—2
§ 35.925—3
§ 35.925—4
§ 35.925—5
§ 35.925—6
§ 35.925—7
§ 35.925—8
§ 35.925—9
§ 35.925—10
§ 35.925—11
§ 35.925—12
§ 35.925—13
§ 35.927
§ 35.928
§ 35.930
§ 35.930—1
  35.930—2
  35.930—3
  35.930—4
  35.930—5
  35.935
  35.935—1
  35.935—2
  35.935—3
§
The Act
Combined Sewer
Construction
Excessive Infiltration/Inflow
Infiltration
Inflow
Infiltration/Inflow
Interstate Agency
Municipality
Project
Sanitary Sewer
State
State Agency
Storm Sewer
Treatment Works
Advanced Technology and Excellerated Construc-
tion Techniques
Allocation of Funds
Allotment
Reallotment
State Determination and Certification of Project
Priority
Grant Application
Eligibility
Procedure
Content of Application
Limitation on Awards
Facility Planning
State Plan
Priority Certification
State Allocation
Applicants Funding Capability
Permit
Design
Environmental  Review
Civil  Rights
Operation and  Maintenance Program
User  Charge System
Sewage Collection System
Alternative  Techniques  and Technology
Sewage System Evaluation
Sewer Charger System  (RESERVED)
Grant Award
Types of Grant
Grant Amount
Grant Terms
Project Scope
Grant Percentage
Grant Conditions
Non-Restrictive Specification
Procurement
Bonding and Insurance

-------
364           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

            § 35.935—4   State and Local Laws
            § 35.935—5   Davis-Bacon and Related  Statutes
            § 35.935—6   Equal Employment Opportunity
            § 35.935—7   Access
            § 35.935—8   Supervision
            § 35.935—9   Project  Completion
            § 35.935—10  Copies of Contract Documents
            § 35.935—11  Project  Changes
            § 35.935—12  Operation and Maintenance
            § 35.940      Determination of Allowable Costs
            § 35.940—1   Allowable Costs
            § 35.940—2   Unallowable Costs
            § 35.940—3   Costs Allowable,  If Approved
            § 35.940—4   Indirect Costs
            § 35.940—5   Disputes
            § 35.945      Grant Payment
            § 35.950      Suspension or Determination of Grants
            § 35.955      Grant Amendments to Increase Grant Amounts
    3.3 Research  and Demonstration  Grants, Environmental Protection
       Agency, 40 C.F.R.  §§  40.100-40.165  (1973)
                    [See General 3.13 for sections list]
    3.4 Training  Grants and Manpower  Forecasting, Environmental
       Protection Agency  40  C.F.R.  §§ 45.100—45.155  (1973)
                    [See General 3.14 for sections list]
    3.5 Fellowships, Environmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 46.100-
       46.165 (1973)
                     [See General 3.15 for sections list]
    3.6 Public Participation in Water Pollution Control Environmental Pro-
       tection Agency, 40  C.F.R. §§ 105.1-105.9 (1973)
        § 105.1    Scope
        § 105.2    Policy and  Objectives
        § 105.3    Required Program  and Reports
        § 105.4    Guidelines for Agency  Programs
        § 105.5    Guidelines for Reporting
        § 105.6    Guidelines for Evaluation
        § 105.7    Guidelines for Public Hearings
        § 105.8    Coordination and Non-duplication
        § 105.9    Applicability
    3.7  Criteria for  State, Local and Regional  Oil  Removal  Contingency
        Plans, Environmental Protection  Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 109.1-109.6
        (1971)
        § 109.1    Applicability
        § 109.2    Definitions
        § 109.3    Purpose and Scope
        § 109.4    Relations to Federal Response Actions
        § 109.5    Development and Implementation Criteria for State,  Local
                  and Regional Oil Removal Contingency Plans
        § 109.6    Coordination
    3.8  Discharge of  Oil,  Environmental Protection Agency,   40  C.  F. R.
        §§ 110.1-110.9 (1971)
        § 110.1    Definitions

-------
                      WATER—REGULATIONS                     365

      § 110.2   Applicability
      § 110.3   Discharge Into Navigable Waters Harmful
      § 110.4   Discharge Into Contiguous Zones Harmful
      § 110.5   Discharge Prohibited
      § 110.6   Exception for  Vessel Engines
      § 110.7   Dispersants
      § 110.8   Demonstration Projects
      § 110.9   Notice
 3.9  Oil Pollution Prevention, Non-transportation  Related Onshore  and
      Offshore  Facilities, Environmental  Protection  Agency,  40 C.F.R.
      §§  112.1-112.7 (1973)
      § 112.1   General  Applicability
      § 112.2   Definitions
      § 112.3   Requirements for Preparation and Implementation of Spill
               Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plans
      § 112.4   Amendment  of Spill  Prevention  Control  and  Counter-
               measure Plans by Regional Administrator
      § 112.5   Amendment  of Spill  Prevention  Control  and  Counter-
               measure Plans by Owners or Operators
      § 112.6   Civil  Penalties
      § 112.7   Guidelines for the  Preparation and Implementation  of a
               Spill  Prevention Control and  Countermeasure  Plan
3.10  Water Quality  Standards, Environmental Protection Agency,  Title
      40  C.F.R. §§  120.1-120.10 (1972)
      § 120.1   Scope and Purpose
      § 120.2   State Adoption
      § 120.3   Availability
      § 120.10  Standards Adopted
3.11  Oil Storage Facilities, Environmental Protection  Agency, 40 C.F.R.
      §§  113.1-113.6 (1973)
      § 113.1   Purpose
      § 113.2   Applicability
      § 113.3   Definitions
      § 113.4   Size Classes and Liability Limits
      § 113.5   Exclusions
      § 113.6   Effect on Other Laws
3.12  State Certification  of Activities  Requiring a Federal  License or
      Permit
     3.12a General—Subpart A
           §  123.1   Definitions
           §  123.2   Contents of Certification
           §  123.3   Contents of Application
      3.12b Determination of  Effect on Other States—Subpart B
           §  123.11  Copies of Documents
           §  123.12  Supplemental Information
           §  123.13  Review by Regional Administrator and Notification
           |  123.14  Forwarding to Effected  State
           §  123.15  Hearings on  Objection of Effected State
           §  123.16  Waiver
      3.12c Certification by  the Administrator—Subpart C
           §  123.21  When Administrator Certifies

-------
366           LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n

             §  123.22  Application
             §  123.23  Notice of Hearings
             §  123.24  Certification
             §  123.25  Adoption  of  New  Water  Quality Standards
             §  123.26  Inspection of Facility or Activity for Operation
             §  123.27  Notification  to Licensing or Permitting  Agency
             §  123.28  Termination  of Suspension
        3.12d Consultants—Subpart  D
             §  123.30  Review and  Advice
  3.13  State Program Element Necessary for Participation in the National
        Pollution Discharge  Emission  System,  Environmental  Protection
        Agency,  40 C.F.R. §§ 124.1-124.94 (1973)
        3.13a General—Subpart A
             §  124.1   Definitions
             §  124.2   Scope and Purpose
             §  124.3   Form of Authority Cited by Attorney General
             §  124.4   Authority for State Program Procedures
        3.13b Prohibition of  Discharges  of  Pollutants—Subpart B
             §  124.10  Prohibition of Discharges in State Waters
             §  124.11  Exclusions
        3.13c Acquisition of  Data—Subpart C
             §  124.21  Application  for  NPDES Permits
             §  124.22  Receipt and  Use of Federal Data
             §  124.23  Transmission of Data to  Regional Administrator
             §  124.24  Identity of Signatories to  NPDES Forms
        3.13d Notice and Public Participation—Subpart D
              §  124.31  Formulation  of Tentative  Determinations and Draft
                        NPDES Permits
             §  124.32  Public Notice
             §  124.33  Fact Sheets
             §  124.34  Notice to Other Government Agencies
             §  124.35  Public Access to Information
             §  124.36  Public Hearings
              §  124.37   Public Notice of Public Hearings
        3.13e Terms and Conditions of NPDES Permits—Subpart E
             §  124.41  Prohibited Discharges
              §  124.42  Application  of Affluent Standards and Limitations,
                       Water Quality Standards  and  Other Requirements
              §  124.43  Affluent Limitations in Issued NPDES Permits
              §  124.44   Schedule  of  Compliance in  Issued NPDES  Permits
              §  124.45   Other  Terms  of  Conditions  of  Issued   NPDES
                        Permits
              §  124.46   Transmission to Regional  Administrator  of  Pro-
                        posed NPDES  Permits
              §  124.48   Transmission to Regional Administrator of Issued
                        NPDES  Permits
        3.13f Duration  and Review of NPDES Permits—Subpart F
              §  124.51   Duration of Issued NPDES Permits
              §  124.52   Reissuance  of  NPDES Permits
        3.13g  Monitoring,  Recording and Reporting—Subpart G
              §  124.61   Monitoring

-------
                     WATER—REGULATIONS                    367

           § 124.62  Recording of Monitoring Activities and Results
           § 124.63  Reporting of Monitoring Results
           § 124.64  NPDES Monitoring, Recording,  and Reporting Re-
                     quirements
     3.13h Enforcement Provisions—Subpart H
           § 124.71  Receipt and Follow-Up of Notification and Reports
           § 124.72  Modifications, Suspension and Revocation of NPDES
                     Permits
           § 124.73  Enforcement
     3.13i  Disposal of Pollutants Into Wells—Subpart I
           § 124.80  Control of Disposal of Pollutants Into Wells
     3.13J  Resources, Planning and Other Requirements—Subpart J
           § 124.91 Availability of Resources
           § 124.92 Inspection  and  Surveillance  Support for  NPDES
                     Permits
           § 124.93  Continuing Planning Process
           § 124.94  Agency Board Membership
     3.13k  NPDES Application and Reporting Forms (RESERVED)—
           Subpart K
           APPENDIX A—Sample Public Notice
           APPENDIX B—Sample Fact Sheet
           APPENDIX C—Sample Public Notice for Public Hearing
3.14  National Pollutant Discharge  Elimination  System,  Environmental
     Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 125.1-125.44 (1973)
     3.14a General—Subpart A
           § 125.1   Definitions
           § 125.2   Scope and Purpose
           § 125.3   Law Authorizing Permits
           § 125.4   Exclusions
           § 125.5   Delegation of  Authority
     3.14b Processing of Permits—Subpart B
           § 125.11  General Provisions
           § 125.12  Application for Permit
           § 125.13  Access to  Facilities
           § 125.14  Distribution of Application and  Permit
           § 125.15  State  Certification
     3.14c  Terms and Conditions of Permits—Subpart C
           § 125.21  Prohibitions
           § 125.22  Conditions of Permits
           § 125.23  Schedules  of Compliance
           § 125.24  Affluent Limitations in Permits
           § 125.25  Duration of Permits
           § 125.26  Special Categories for Permits
           § 125.27  Monitoring, Recording, and Reporting
     3.14d  Notice and Public Participation—Subpart D
           § 125.31  Formation of Tentative Determinations in  Draft
                     Permits
           § 125.32  Public Notice
           § 125.33  Fact Sheets
           § 125.34  Hearings and  Appeals
           § 125.35  Public Access  to Information

-------
368            LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n

       3.14e Miscellaneous—Subpart E
             § 125.41  Objections to Permits by Another State
             § 125.42  Other Legal Actions
             § 125.43  Environmental  Impact Statements
             § 125.44  Final Decision to the Regional Administrator
  3.15 Areawide  Waste   Treatment  Management  Planning  Areas  and
       Responsible Planning Agencies,  Environmental Protection Agency,
       40 C.P.R.  §§ 126.1-126.40 (1973)
       3.15a Scope and Purpose; Definitions—Subpart A
             § 126.1   Scope and Purpose
             § 126.2   Definitions
       3.15b Procedures for Designation of 208  Planning Areas and Agen-
             cies Responsible for Planning
             § 126.10  Criteria  for Determination of 208 Planning Areas
             § 126.11  Criteria  for  Designation of Agencies  Responsible
                       for Planning
             § 126.12  Procedure for Designation of Intrastate  208  Plan-
                       ning Areas and Agencies Responsible for Planning
             § 126.13  Procedure for Designation of Interstate  208  Plan-
                       ning Areas and Agencies Responsible for Planning
             § 126.14  Nondesignation  of  208  Planning  Areas  and/or
                       Agencies by Governor(s)
             § 126.15  Submissions of  208 Planning Areas and Agencies
                       Responsible  for  Planning
             § 126.16  Procedure for Designation  of 208 Planning Areas
                       and Agencies Responsible for Planning by the Chief
                       Elected  Officials  of General  Purpose — Local  Gov-
                       ernment
             § 126.17  Review  of Submissions
             § 126.18  Revisions
       3.15c  State Planning in  Nondesignated Areas—Subpart C
             § 126.20  Determination of Planning Agencies in Non-
                       designated Areas
       3.15d Public Participation—Subpart D
             § 126.30  Public  Participation Requirements  in  Designation
                       of 208 Planning Areas and Designation of Agencies
                       Responsible  for Planning
       3.15e Assistance to Designated  Agencies—Subpart E
             § 126.40  Determination of Eligibility
  3.16 Pretreatment Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R.
       §§ 128.100-128.140  (1973)
             § 128.100  Purpose
             § 128.110  Applicability
             § 128.110  State or Local Law
             § 128.120  Definitions
             § 128.121  Compatible Pollutant
             § 128.122  Incompatible Pollutant
             § 128.123  Joint Treatment Works
             § 128.124  Major  Contributing Industry
             § 128.125  Pretreatment
             § 128.130  Pretreatment  Standards

-------
                      WATER—REGULATIONS                    369

           § 128.131  Prohibited  Wastes
           § 128.132  Pretreatment for Compatible Pollutants
           § 128.133  Pretreatment for Incompatible  Pollutants
           § 128.140  Time for Compliance
3.17  State Continuing Planning  Process,  Environmental Protection Ag-
     ency, 40  C.F.R. §§  130.1-130.61  (1973)
     3.17a Scope and Purpose;  Definitions—Subpart  A
           § 130.1   Scope and Purpose
           § 130.2   Definitions
     3.17b General  Requirements—Subpart B
           § 130.10  Process Coverage
           § 130.11  Classification of  Segments
           § 130.12  Planning and Agencies
           § 130.13  Legal Authority
           § 130.14  Public Participation
           § 130.15  Separability
     3.17c Contents of Basin Plans—Subpart C
           § 130.20  Level of Complexity of Plans
           § 130.21  Establishment of Planning Areas  (Basins)
           § 130.22  Relation Between Plans and  Other Planning  Pro-
                     visions
           § 130.23  Water Quality Standards
           § 130.24  Total Maximum Daily Loads
           § 130.25  Individual  Point Source Discharge Locations; Im-
                     pact on Water Quality
           § 130.26  Schedules of Compliance
           § 130.27  Inventory of Individual Dischargers
           § 130.28  Assessment of Municipal Needs for Publicly  Owned
                     Waste Treatment Works
           § 130.29  Non-Point Sources of  Pollutants
           § 130.30  Monitoring and  Surveillance
           § 130.31  Intergovernmental Cooperation
           § 130.32  Adaptation of Plans
     3.17d Preparation  of Annual State Strategy—Subpart D
           § 130.40  State Strategy
           § 130.41  Problem Assessment and  Priority
           § 130.42  Schedule for Planned  Preparation
           § 130.43  State Municipal Discharge Inventory
           § 130.44  State Industrial Discharge Inventory
     3.17e Requirements for Approval of Planning  Process;  Reports—
           Subpart E
           § 130.50  Submission of Process
           § 130.51  Contents of Process  Submittal
           § 130.52  Planning Process Review; Approval or Disapproval
           § 130.53  Prohibition of Approval of  Certain Planning Proc-
                     esses
           § 130.54  Revisions
           § 130.55  Reports
     3.17f Relationship  of Process to  Permit and Construction Grant Pro-
           grams—Subpart F
           § 130.60  Relationship  of  Continuing  Planning  Process With

-------
370           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

                       State Participation in National Pollutant Discharge
                       Elimination System
              §  130.61  Relationship of  Continuing Planning Process With
                       Construction Grants
  3.18  Secondary Treatment Information, Environmental  Protection Agency,
        40 C.F.R.  §§ 133.100-133/104 (1973)
              §  133.100  Purpose
              §  133.101  Authority
              §  133.102  Secondary Treatment
              §  133.103  Special Considerations
              §  133.104  Sampling  and Testing  Procedures
  3.19  Guidelines Establishing  Test Procedures for the  Analysis of Pollu-
        tants,  Environmental  Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§  136.1-136.5
        (1973)
              §  136.1  Applicability
              §  136.2  Definitions
              §  136.3  Identification of  Test  Procedures
              § 136.4  Application for Alternate Test Procedures
              §  136.5  Approval of Alternate Test Procedures
  3.20  Marine  Sanitation Device  Standards,  Environmental   Protection
        Agency,  40 C.F.R. §§ 140.1-140.5  (1972)
              §  140.1  Definitions
              §  140.2  Scope  of Standard
              §  140.3  Standard
              §  140.4  Complete Prohibition
              §  140.5  Analytical Procedures
  3.21  Ocean Dumping—General,  Environmental  Protection  Agency,  40
        C.F.R. §§  220.1-220.4  (1973)
              §  220.1  Purpose and  Scope
              §  220.2  Definitions
              §  220.3  Categories of Permits
              §  220.4  Delegation of Authority
  3.22  Ocean Dumping—Application, Environmental Protection  Agency, 40
        C.F.R. §§ 221.1-221.5 (1973)
              §  221.1  Application  Forms for Special Permits
              §  221.2  Other Information
              § 221.3  Applicant
              § 221.4  Adequacy of Information
              § 221.5  Processing Fees
  3.23  Ocean Dumping—Actions  for  Application,  Environmental  Protec-
        tion Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 222.1-222.10  (1973)
              § 222.1    General
              § 222.2    Tentative Determinations
              § 222.2a  Interim Time Limits
              § 222.3    Notice  of Application
              § 222.4    Issuance of Permits Without Hearing
              § 222.5    Initiation of Hearings
              § 222.6    Time and Place of Hearings
              § 222.7    Notice  of Hearings
              § 222.8    Conduct of Hearings
              § 222.9   Recommendation of Presiding Officer
              § 222.10  Issuance of Permits After Hearing

-------
                      WATER—REGULATIONS
                                             371
3.24  Ocean  Dumping — Content  of  Permit,  Environmental  Protection
     Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 223.1-223.2 (1973)
            § 223.1  Content of Permits
            § 223.2  Generally Applicable  Conditions of Permits
3.25  Ocean  Dumping—Records,  Environmental  Protection  Agency,  40
     C.P.R.  §§  224.1-224.2  (1973)
            § 224.1  Records of Permittees
            § 224.2  Reports
3.26  Ocean  Dumping—Corps  of  Engineers Permits, Environmental  Pro-
     tection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 225.1-225.3  (1973)
            § 225.1  General
            § 225.2  Review of Corp Permit Applications
            § 225.3  Waivers
3.27  Ocean  Dumping—Enforcement, Environmental Protection Agency,
     40 C.F.R.  §§ 226.1-226.4  (1973)
            § 226.1  Civil  Penalties
            § 226.2  Enforcement Hearings
            § 226.3  Determinations
            § 226.4  Final Actions
3.28 Ocean Dumping
     C.F.R. §§ 227.1-
           §  227.1
           §  227.2
           §  227.21
           §  227.22
           §  227.30
           §  227.31
           §  227.32
           §  227.33
           §  227.34
           §  227.35
           §  227.36
           §  227.40
           §  227.41
           §  227.42
           §  227.43
           §  227.50
           §  227.51
           §  227.52
           §  227.60
           §  227.61
           §  227.62
           §  227.63
           §  227.64
           §  227.65
           §  227.70
           §  227.71
           §  227.72
           §  227.73
           §  227.74
           §  227.80
—  Criteria,  Environmental  Protection Agency,  40
-227.80 (1973)
General  Grounds for the Issuance  of  Permits
Prohibited Acts
Materials for Which No Permit Will  Be Issued
Other Prohibited Materials
Strictly  Regulated  Dumping
Materials Requiring Special Care
Hazards to Fishing or Navigation
Large Quantities of Materials
Acids  and Alkalis
Containerized Waste
Materials Containing Living Organisms
Emergency Permits and Interim Special  Permits
Emergency Permits
Interim  Special Permits
Implementation Plans
Generally Regulated Dumping and  Disposal Acts
Waste of a Non-Toxic Nature
Solid Waste of Natural Origin
Disposal of Dredged Material
Unpolluted  Dredge Material
Disposal of Unpolluted Dredge  Material
Polluted Dredge Material
Disposal of Polluted Dredge Material
Revision of Test Procedure
Definitions
Limiting Permissible Concentrations
Release  Zones
Mixing Zones
High-Level  Radioactive Waste
Amendment Criteria

-------
372           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

  3.29  Control of Pollution  By Oil and  Hazardous  Substances, Discharge
       Removal, Department of Transportation, 33 C.F.R. § 153.01-153.319
       (1971).
       3.29a General—Subpart A
             § 153.01  Definitions
             § 153.03  Delegation of Authority
       3.29b Notice of the Discharge of Oil—Subpart B
             § 153.100 Purpose
             § 153.105 Procedure for Notice of the Discharge of Oil
       3.29c RESERVED—Subpart C
       3.29d Administration of Pollution Fund—Subpart D
             § 153.301 Purpose
             § 153.303 Use of Pollution Funds
             § 153.305 District Commanders Authority
             § 153.307 Procedures; Phase II and Phase III Costs
             § 153.309 Procedures; Payment of Judgment and Compromises
             § 153.311 Procedures; Other Costs
             § 153.313 Procedures; Procurement Laws
             § 153.315 Collection of Costs
             § 153.317 Deposit of Money Into the Fund
              § 153.319 Reporting and  Accounting Data Retention Require-
                       ments
  3.30 Oil Pollution Clean-Up, Federal Maritime Commission,  46 C.F.R.  §§
       542.1-542.9 (1972)
             § 542.1   Scope
             § 542.2   Definitions
              § 542.3   Proof of Financial Responsibility, When Required
              § 542.4   Procedure for Establishing Financial Responsibility
              § 542.5   Methods  of Establishing Financial  Responsibilities;
                       Forms and Requirements
              § 542.6   Insurance of Certificate of Financial Responsibility
              § 542.7   Denial, Revocation, Suspension, or Modification of a
                       Certificate
              § 542.8   Notice
              § 542.9   Fees
  3.31 Delegation of Command to the  Coast  Guard,  Department of  Trans-
       portation, 49 C.F.R. §  1.46 (1970)

-------
Guidelines
      and
   Reports

-------

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS           375

4.1c THE ECONOMICS OF CLEAN WATER-1973, ENVIRON-
    MENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, DECEMBER 1973

Dear  Mr. President:
Dear  Mr. Speaker:
  I am pleased to transmit to the Congress, as required by Sec-
tion  516(b)  of  the  Federal  Water Pollution Control  Act,  the
sixth  of a series of reports on the Economics  of Clean Water.
  The scope of the report is broader  than previous reports. For
the first time, economic impacts—essential to a broad assessment
of control programs and policies—are  examined.  Particular at-
tention is afforded those factors that  may constrain implementa-
tion of control programs. Also  examined for  the  first  time  are
two major sources of  nonpoint pollution—agricultural  soil loss
and nitrogen fertilizer. The following material briefly  describes
the highlights of the report.
  The quality of the Nation's waters can be discussed in only
approximate  and qualitative terms, since no set of  truly repre-
sentative  water  quality monitoring  stations exists.  An  EPA
study, however,  provides preliminary information on the status
of and trends in water  quality for 22 major river  basins. The
study indicates that  bacteria and oxygen  demand,  the pollutants
receiving  the most  widespread  attention,  showed  general  im-
provements in the last five  years.  Phosphorus and nitrates,  the
primary pollutants contributing to eutrophication,  increased over
the last five years in many of the basins.
  A survey made by EPA in mid-1973 estimates  that  the costs
of municipal  treatment and collection facilities eligible  for Fed-
eral  funding  will be  $60 billion  (1973  dollars).  This  is com-
parable to the  total dollar investment made in  the  sewerage
systems of the Nation since 1855.  Of the estimated $60 billion,
$36 billion is needed for waste treatment plants and interceptor
sewers, and  $24 billion for correction of infiltration/inflow prob-
lems,  new collectors, and combined sewer overflows.
  Industry will  be required to invest about $12 billion in  treat-
ment  facilities within the next few years to meet 1977 standards
(except thermal)  set  by the Federal  Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments  of 1972. The cost  estimates suggest that in-
dustry will have to  invest an average  of about $3.5 billion  an-
nually in  order to meet the 1977 nonthermal standards. In 1972
industry was  investing at an  annual  rate of $1 billion. Thermal
costs, which  are estimated for only utility steam-electric gen-
erating plants, are expected to  range from $2.3 to  $9.5 billion,

-------
376          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

depending  primarily  on the number of  plants  exempted from
thermal standards.
  The productive capacity of the agricultural sector  is not ex-
pected to be impaired while taking measures to reduce pollution
from  erosion and use of nitrogen fertilizers. It is expected that
environmental protection measures might be designed to control
agricultural pollution with no reduction in total farm  income. It
is further  expected that such  measures  could  be  designed to
control agricultural pollutants for a cost on the order of magni-
tude of that  incurred during the  peak  of the Nation's cropland
restriction  program.
  Estimating benefits of the water pollution control program is
a difficult task. Admittedly, if a change in water use is specified,
there are several promising  procedures for  assigning monetary
values to the uses. But  there are great difficulties in tracing the
effects of an  abatement program to changes in water quality
parameters, and in relating such parameter modification to man's
use of the water or the  adjacent shoreline.
  The economic impacts  and other constraining factors  exam-
ined,  other things being equal, in  EPA's view should not signifi-
cantly retard the accelerated program  launched  by  the 1972
Amendments to control pollution  from municipal and  industrial
sources. In particular:
    • Local  governments, with  few exceptions, will  have ade-
       quate  capability  to finance their share of building  sewer-
       age  systems.  The  combination  of the State   grant/loan
       programs, the U.S. Environmental Financing  Authority
       and the  Farmers Home  Administration loan program
       should be able to assist an individual  municipality having
       a financial problem.
    • An  overview of 23  industries discharging directly  into
       the Nation's waters indicates that in most cases they will
       be able to recover the costs  of  wastewater   treatment
       through increases  in  prices. However, individual  plants
       in certain industries will experience difficulties  in meeting
       the requirements. The profitability of smaller and/or older
       plants may be so reduced that many  of them  may decide
       to close prior to  1977.
     • The results of econometric models indicate that the  con-
       struction industry should  be  able to  build the required
       facilities with real price increases  of less than 1 percent
       attributable  solely to EPA-stimulated demand, assuming
       resource transferability within the construction industry.

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS           377

      The skilled labor needed should  be available,  but there
      will be some impact on wages. In some localities, the con-
      struction industry may lack adequate short-term capacity,
      especially in  light of changes  in the Nation's economy
      that may result from the recent  devaluations and  the
      energy crisis.
    • The potential profitability of pollution  abatement equip-
      ment  industry  is  attractive  enough  to  encourage the
      growth and development of long-term supply. Production
      capacity as  estimated  in 1972 is not viewed  as  a con-
      straint. However, raw material  and skilled  labor inputs
      may be constraints in some cases.
  Other things being equal,  the economic factors examined are
not expected  to seriously constrain efforts to meet effluent stand-
ards.  (However,  the other things assumed equal  may  not be
equal. Unforeseen  events such as the energy crisis or  the recent
devaluation of the  dollar may lead to basic changes in the  eco-
nomic  system, resulting in outcomes  different than  those pre-
dicted.) Other factors,  such as budget  constraints both in the
public  and private sectors and legal and administrative steps
that must be taken in controlling wastewater discharge, could
result in delays.
  As long as there are significant nonpoint sources of  pollutants,
control of industrial and municipal sources does not mean that all
areas of the  Nation will have clean water at the same time.  A
fundamental  question remains: At what point do the additional
costs of controlling all sources of pollution exceed the additional
benefits of improved water quality? Clearly the  current societal
concern for environmental quality indicates that the  public be-
lieves there are significant benefits yet to be attained.
                                           Sincerely,
                                           Russell E. Train
TT     ui  ^   u T>  TI  j                   Administrator
Honorable Gerald R. Ford
President of the Senate
Washington,  D. C.  20510

Honorable Carl B.  Albert
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Washington,  D. C.  20510

                   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
  EPA acknowledges in the text of  the report parties  external
to the Agency who contributed major sections  of the report.

-------
378           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n

  The following EPA employees made significant  contributions
in the preparation of this report: Sherada Hobgood, Frank Lane,
Ralph Luken,  Douglas Mackay,  Hugh Maynard,  Jacob Mendels-
sohn, Ed Pechan,  Truman Price, James Speyer,  Gordon Taylor,
Robert  Thomas,   Lisa  Thorne,  and  Michele  Zarubica,  all of
EPA's Office of Planning and Evaluation,  Fred  Leutner of the
Office of Water Programs, and Robert Coughlin, EPA Region X.
  The quality  of the report was improved by the editing of Irene
Kiefer and by the comments of Toby Clark, Council on Environ-
mental  Quality, and Eric  Herr and Allan Pulsipher, Council of
Economic Advisors.

                          CONTENTS

                                                             Page
  I.  Introduction	   1
         Scope  	   1
         Summary	   1
         Conclusions	   7
  II.  Nature of and Trends in Water  Pollutants	   9
         Introduction to Pollution Problems _.	  	   9
         Status of Water Quality	 12
         Nonpoint Sources 	 17
 III.  Municipal Costs	 19
         The Status of Public Sewerage	 19
         The Needs Survey	 21
 IV.  Industrial  Costs 	  _ _ .	 29
         Nonthermal Costs		 29
         Scope  	 29
         Study Design 	 29
         Comparison with the 1972 Report	 31
         Summary  of  Industries  _.  	 34
         Capital In-Place	 35
         Capital Costs of Industrial Waste Treatment	 36
         Annual Costs of Industrial Waste Treatment	 37
         Alternative Scenarios 	  	 _ _.  	 38
         Costs of Meeting 1977 Effluent Standards-
           Existing  and Future Plants	 38
         Qualifications 	 	 47
         Impacts of  Industrial Water Pollution Control	 48
         Thermal Costs 	 50
         Sources of Industrial Thermal Pollution	 51
         Electric Utility Systems  (SIC 491) ___  _ 	 __ _._ 	 52
         Level of Control	.	 53
  V.  Nonpoint Pollution  	  		  	 61
         The Problem	  	 	  	 62
         Study  Design	 _. _ 	 62
         Soil Loss-Export Policy Models		. _ . _.	  64
         Fertilizer Limitation Policy  Models	  	 67
         Implications for Farm Programs		  69

-------
                WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS *
379
                                                                 Paste
 VI. Benefits from  Water Quality Enhancement 	   73
         Introduction 	  	-	   73
         Water Quality as an Input into Production	   74
         Water Quality when Consumed with Another Good	   76
         Water Quality as a Factor in Human Health	   77
         Bibliography	  _ _.  	   78
VII. Constraints	   87
         Fiscal Impact on Local Government	    87
         Economic Impacts on Directly Discharging Industries	   93
         Construction Industry _ _	  	  105
         Equipment Supply	 	  113

                        LIST OF  TABLES

                                                                 Pag-e
  II-l   Pollution Rankings of 22 Major U.S. Rivers	  	   13
  II-2   Water Quality Trends for 22 Major Rivers -  	   14
 III-l   Expansion  of  Public Sewerage Services  	 _ _ _	    19
 III-2   Degree of Sewage Treatment		  	   20
 III-3   Effect of Sanitary Sewage Treatment	   21
 III-4   Investment in  Public Sewerage Facilities	   22
 III-5   Estimated   Construction  Costs for New  Public  Treatment
           Facilities (from Needs Survey)  	   24
 III-6   Per  Capita Costs for Construction of  New Public Treatment
           Facilities (from Needs Survey)	   26
 III-7   Estimates   of  Construction  Requirements  for  New  Public
           Treatment Facilities, 1962-1971	   28
 IV-1   Industries  for Which Water  Pollution  Control  Costs Are
           Estimated	   30
 IV-2   Water Use Scenarios		   _.   32
 IV-3   Types of Water Treatment Modeled	   33
 IV-4   Number of Plants and Water Use In 1972 and 1973  Reports On
           Economics of Clean Water _.	   33
 IV-5   Costs for Projected Feedlots  To Meet 1977 Effluent Standards - _   35
 IV-6   Capital  In Place  for  Industrial  Water   Pollution  Control
           Equipment  	 —	   36
 IV-7   Costs for  Existing Plants To Meet 1977  Effluent Standards
           (Scenario No.  3)   	   37
 IV-8   Costs for  Existing Plants To Meet 1977  Effluent Standards
           (Scenario No.  1)	   38
 IV-9   Costs for  Existing Plants To Meet 1977  Effluent Standards
           (Scenario No.  2)   	   39
 IV-10  Costs for  Existing Plants To Meet 1977  Effluent Standards
           (Scenario No.  4)   	 	   39
 IV-11  Costs for  Existing Plants To  Meet 1977  Effluent Standards
           (Scenario No.  5)   	,	   40
 IV-12  Costs for  Existing Plants To Meet 1977  Effluent Standards
           (Scenario No.  6)   	  --   40
 IV-13  Projected Growth Rates for Selected Industries (1973-1977)  _.   41
 IV-14  Costs for Existing and Projected Plants To Meet 1977 Effluent
           Standards (Scenario No.  3) .  	  	   42

-------
380           LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

                                                                   Page
 IV-15   Costs for Existing Plants To Meet 1977 Effluent Standards, By
           Regions (Scenario No. 3)  - _	  42
 IV-16   Costs for Existing Plants To Meet 1977 Effluent Standards, By
           States  (Scenario No. 3)  	  43
 IV-17   % Distribution  (By EPA Regions) of Costs and Value Added
           (Scenario  No. 3)  	  45
 IV-18   % Distribution (By States) of Costs and Value Added (Scenario
           No. 3)  	  46
 IV-19   Actual vs. Planned Water Pollution Control Expenditures for
           Selected Industries (1971-1976)	  48
 IV-20   Cooling Water Used By Selected Industries (1968)  	  52
 IV-21   Industries Discharging  Water In  Excess  of 110°F  (EPA
           Region IV)  	  53
 IV-22   Cooling Systems of Utility Steam-Electric Generating Plants _ _  54
 IV-23   Proposed Effluent  Guidelines for  Thermal  Discharges  From
           Utility Steam-Electric Generating Plants	  54
 IV-24   Unit Costs for Utility Steam-Electric Generating Plants	  55
 IV-25   Impacts of Proposed Thermal  Effluent Limitations On Utility
           Steam-Electric Generating Plants	  56
 IV-26   Electric Power Costs for  Selected  Industries	  58
 IV-27   Impacts  of  Exemptions  To  Proposed  Thermal   Effluent
           Limitations	  	  58
  V-l   Alternative Futures for U.S. Agriculture	  63
  V-2   Soil Loss for an Agricultural Region	  64
  V—3   Erosion and Acreages  under Conservation Practices  for  Soil
           Loss-Export Policy Models 	—	  65
  V-4   Land  and Water Use for Soil Loss-Export Policy Models	  65
  V-5   Farm Prices for Selected  Crop and Livestock Products for Soil
           Loss-Export Policy Models	  66
  V-6   Farm Prices for Selected  Crop and Livestock Products for Soil
           Loss-Export Policy Models 	  67
  V-7   Resource Use for Selected Crop and Livestock Products for Soil
           Loss-Export Policy Models	 	  68
  V-8   Land and Water Use for Nitrogen  Fertilizer Policy Models	  69
  V-9   Farm Prices for  Selected  Crop  and  Livestock Products for
           Nitrogen Fertilizer Policy Models	  70
 VII-1   Projection of Capital Outlays On Public Sewerage Construction,
           1974-80 	  88
 VII-2   State and Local Capital Outlays, 1961-70	  89
 VII-3   State and Local Sewer Bond Sales, 1961-70	  91
 VII-4   Obligations for Sewerage Facility  Construction  State and Local
           Funding _ _	  91
 VII-5   Estimated Value of Sewerage Capital  In Place	  	  92
 VII-6   Total Annual Costs of Sewerage Facilities	  92
 VII-7   Per Capita Cost of Sewerage Facilities, By Size of Community _  93
 VII-8   Fiscal Characteristics of Communities, By Size  of Community._  93
 VII-9   Contractors for Microeconomic Studies of Selected Industries  . _  94
 VII-10  Potential Impact of Effluent Standards On Industry Operations  96
 VII-11   Projected EPA-Stimulated  and EPA Baseline  Capital Outlays
           for Pollution  Control Facilities		  109

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS           381

                                                           Page
VII-12  On-Site Yearlong Jobs Required for Sewage Plant Construction
          (1971)   	 111
VII-13  Estimated  Annual Shipments, 1972-80 of Pollution Abatement
          Equipment Industry 	 115
VII-14  Comparative Inflationary Impact, 1972-80, for Water Pollution
          Control Equipment	 118
VII-15  Personnel Requirements of Water Pollution Control Equipment
          Industry, 1972-80	 120
                     I.  INTRODUCTION
Scope
This report is the sixth  in the series of Clean Water Reports to
Congress  and  the first  prepared  in  accordance  with  Section
516(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972 (P.L. 92-500). The  scope of the 1973  report is broader
than previous  reports because  the U.S. Environmental  Protec-
tion  Agency (EPA)  recognizes  that  consideration of  the  costs
of controlling  pollution  from municipal and industrial  sources
is not  sufficient information  upon which  to  evaluate a national
program.  Information  about the  nature  of the  water  quality
problem, the costs of controlling all significant sources of pollu-
tion, potential benefits, and economic  and administrative factors
that influence implementation must also be  considered in order
to place the costs of controlling point sources  in perspective.
While  this year's  report addresses all these  issues, it  primarily
focuses on some of the  economic factors that will influence im-
plementation of the 1972 Amendments.
   The  first chapter, in addition to introducing the report,  sum-
marizes its content and conclusions.
   The  second chapter of the report examines the nature of and
trends  in  water quality. While  the  main  body  of  the report
focuses on the  costs of controlling only  certain  pollutants and
pollution sources,  it is important  to recognize that achievement
of water quality will require more than control  of those pollu-
tants and pollution sources.
   The  third chapter describes the status of public  sewerage  serv-
ices and the costs  of municipal facilities to meet the 1977 stand-
ards as reported in a nationwide survey of municipal sewer and
treatment plant needs.
   The  fourth chapter describes the costs of controlling industrial
nonthermal pollution for meeting the  1977 effluent standards. In
addition, it reports on the costs of controlling industrial thermal
pollution to meet both the 1977 and 1983 standards.

-------
382          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

  The fifth  chapter reports on the capacity of U.S. agriculture
to meet food and flber demand to the year 2000 under environ-
mental restrictions on soil loss and  use of nitrogen fertilizers.
The discussion of agricultural pollution control is the first in this
series of reports.
  The sixth chapter is an introduction to  benefit analysis.  The
1972 Amendments state that formal cost/benefit analysis should
be conducted and used in the decision process, although the law
does not allow such analysis to  override legislatively mandated
effluent limitations.
  The seventh chapter reviews potential problems in implement-
ing the 1972 Amendments. A national determination that water
pollution  control is in the  public interest does not  eliminate
economic  and administrative problems. The economic  problems
of concern  in this report are the financial burdens placed on
municipalities and  industries as they meet the 1977 standards
and the capacity of the construction  and  equipment supply in-
dustries to  put  in  place the required capital  without  adversely
affecting  the  levels, volume,  and prices  of  construction  and
equipment, as well  as wages  and employment in those industries.

Summary
  Nature of and Trends in  Water Pollution.  Any  practical de-
scription of the nature of water quality  can only be concerned
with  a very limited part  of all conceivable physical,  chemical,
and biological aspects of actual waterbodies. Typical water qual-
ity measurements are, in fact,  oriented toward a small group of
commonly   observed  pollution   problems—harmful  substances,
physical modification,  eutrophication,  salinity, acidity and alka-
linity, oxygen depletion,  and health hazards  and  aesthetic de-
gradation.
  A stream of seemingly clean and pure water may be polluted
due to the  presence of  hazardous substances in very low  con-
centrations. A few of  these  are  well known—heavy metals, pes-
ticides, herbicides, and  polychlorinated  biphenyls  (PCB's), for
example.
  Aquatic habitats are sensitive  to fluctuations of many physical
characteristics of water including temperature and transparency.
Temperature fluctuations  occurring  naturally  can  be  amplified
by human activities through large discharges  of industrial  cool-
ing water, such  as  from  power plants or steel mills, from release
of warm surface water held  in reservoirs, or from destruction of
shade trees along stream banks.
   Relatively stagnant waters (such as lakes and slow-moving es-
tuaries)  rich in nutrients can grow such  heavy crops of  algal

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS           383

and other aquatic plants that the decay of dead cell matter may
seriously deplete the water of oxygen. This prevents the survival
of oxygen-sensitive food species and fish, and, in extreme cases,
floating algal scum, thick bottom slimes, and odors result.
  Major changes in the salt content of water can seriously dis-
rupt aquatic communities  and decrease  the  value of water for
irrigation and water supply  purposes. Acidity changes can be
equally damaging by eliminating many desirable fish  species. Al-
kalinity creates disruptions  ranging from  reduced agricultural
production to the fouling of water pipes.
  The dissolved oxygen level is widely considered to be the single
most  important  indicator  of pollution;  actually, there  is  no
reason to consider it more or less important than indicators such
as toxicity,  salinity, and  algal  population.  Oxygen-consuming
or oxygen-demanding  substances come from  many sources—
forested and agricultural areas, industrial and municipal direct
dischargers, storm sewers and sanitary sewer overflows.
  An assessment of health hazards from polluted water involves
considerable  uncertainty because there are  unresolved  questions
about the die-off rates of  pathogens in natural waters as well
as their infectiousness for swimmers or other recreational water
users.  The evidence for waterborne toxicity  via  fish and shell-
fish is stronger, at least in  the case of relatively high concen-
trations of mercury and cadmium.
  Waterbodies can be degraded  aesthetically  by increases in
murkiness, color,  algae, scums, floating solids and oils, and odors.
Floating solids and  oils generally originate in combined  sewer
overflows, storm  sewer discharges,  and unsewered runoff.  Un-
pleasant odors can stem from many sources,  including decaying
organic matter and numerous industrial chemicals.
  Status of  22  Major Rivers.  During  1973, EPA  studied  22
major rivers to define  the  kinds of pollution requiring control
and to measure any improvement in water quality.  The rivers,
selected on  the basis of length, flow, and  proximity  to large
cities, were ranked in three groups from "cleanest" to "dirtiest."
Rivers in  the cleanest group are the Upper Missouri, Columbia,
Snake, Willamette, Upper Mississippi, Yukon, Tennessee, Sus-
quehanna, and Lower Colorado. Rivers in the dirtiest group are
the Lower Red, Hudson, Lower Ohio, Lower Mississippi, Missis-
sippi  near Minneapolis, Upper Arkansas, and Middle  Missouri.
  Detailed analysis of 1963-73 data for the 22 rivers as a whole
indicates that:
    •  The worst results relate to nutrients: Up to 54 percent of
       the reaches exceeded  EPA phosphorus guidelines  set to

-------
384          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

      protect against  eutrophication in flowing- streams. Fur-
      thermore, in up to 84 percent of the reaches, phosphorus
      levels increased in 1968-73 over the  previous 5 years. Ni-
      trogen  nutrients,  while generally not  exceeding refer-
      ence levels, increased in up to 74 percent of the reaches
      measured.
    • Other  pollutants found in high concentrations are phenols
      (industrial compounds that can taint fish flesh)  and sus-
      pended solids. These  results are not as disturbing as the
      nutrient data, because in up to 80 percent of the reaches
      for which  adequate data are  available, concentrations of
      phenols and suspended solid levels fell in the last 5 years.
    • The pollutants  most  widely controlled,  bacteria  and
      oxygen-demanding matter, generally declined in the last
      5 years. Dissolved oxygen and oxygen-demand levels im-
      proved in up to 72 percent of reaches, bacteria  in up to
      75 percent.
  In addition, the analysis  examined nonpoint source pollution,
which comes from runoff from areas  such as farmlands, city
streets,  and  mining areas,  and from  subsurface  seepage from
polluted areas. If nonpoint sources are present, runoff pollutants
will generally be more prevalent in winter  than in summer. The
seasonal analysis indicated that most rivers have higher levels of
nutrients  (ammonia, nitrates, and phosphorus) and organic loads
in winter, when runoff is heavy from rain and melting spring
snow, than in summer. High flows in winter can also resuspend
pollutants scoured from bottom sediments.
  Municipal  Costs. The sewerage systems of the U.S. have been
growing for  more than a century. The  first sanitary sewer was
begun in  Chicago in 1855, but it was not until the 1870's that
collecting  sewers were complemented by treatment plants. To-
day, about 170 million Americans are  served  by sewers; more
than 95 percent of them are also served  by sewage treatment
plants.
  While the population served by sewers has more than doubled
since 1937, the population discharging untreated wastes into our
waterways is little more than one-seventh  of what it was then.
The number  of persons whose wastes receive primary treatment
[35  percent  biological  oxygen demand (BOD) 5  removal] has
almost tripled over the period. The number whose wastes receive
secondary treatment (70 to  90 percent BOD5  removal) has in-
creased almost sevenfold; such treatment  is now provided  for
the wastes of more than  63 percent of  population served by

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS            385

sewerage systems. As a result, the amount of BOD5 removed in
1971 exceeded the total collected by sanitary sewers in 1957.
  However, the growth in sewerage facilities has brought  dis-
appointingly marginal results. While one portion of the public
sewerage system—treatment  facilities—increased by 130 percent
the amount of BOD5 diverted from our waterways, another por-
tion—sanitary  sewers—offset  this  improvement by  collecting
more BOD5.  Thus there has  been  a surprisingly small net re-
duction since 1957 in the oxygen  demand  introduced into  our
waterways by the public sanitary sewerage system.
  Between 1855 and 1971, the Nation invested an estimated  $58
billion (1972 dollars) in its public  sewerage facilities. The bulk
of  this investment  has occurred  recently:  almost 80  percent
since 1929,  60  percent  since World War II, and  more than 30
percent since 1961.  The  net investment or  replacement value
in 1971 was  estimated to  be  $32  billion. Replacing or  moderniz-
ing this capital stock has absorbed 50 percent of all capital ex-
penditures of sewerage agencies since 1961. Current replacement
costs are close to $1 billion annually.

  Needs Survey.  The estimated  total  cost of constructing  mu-
nicipal treatment and collection facilities that are eligible  for
Federal funding  under the  1972 Amendments is $60.1 billion
(1973  dollars)  according to the national survey conducted by
the States  and  EPA in  the summer of  1973. About $35.9 billion
is for treatment plants and new interceptor sewers ($16.6 billion
for  secondary  treatment required  by the  1972 Amendments,
$5.7 billion for treatment "more stringent"  than secondary to
attain water quality standards, and $13.6 billion  for new inter-
ceptor sewers), $0.7 billion for rehabilitation of sewers to correct
infiltration and inflow, $13.6 billion for new interceptor  sewers,
$10.8 billion for new collector sewers, and $12.7 billion  for  cor-
rection of  overflows from combined sewers.
  The $35.9 billion estimate for treatment plants and new inter-
ceptor sewers is considerably higher than the 1971 Needs Survey
estimate of $18.1 billion  for  a variety of reasons,  including:
     •  All  municipal plants must now  provide  secondary treat-
       ment.
     •  Changing  water quality standards require higher levels of
       secondary  treatment (higher removal  of organic  waste)
       and special processes  for removing phosphorus  and ni-
       trates.
     •  Construction costs  rose by almost 20 percent between 1971
       and 1973.

-------
386          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

    • The 1973  Survey's  coverage of municipalities and  their
      needs  was far more comprehensive than those on which
      previous estimates of needs were based.
    • More  municipalities have completed engineering studies
      upon which to base their estimate of needs,
    • States provided better data to the survey than previously
      because they realized that it would be the basis for allo-
      cating construction grant funds.

Industrial Costs.
  Nonthermal Costs. The  1972 Amendments require industries
to use "best  practicable" water  pollution control technology by
mid-1977 and "best available"  technology by  mid-1983. The em-
phasis in this report is on the costs  industry will incur in meeting
the 1977 standards.
  The highest estimate of treatment costs  indicates industry
(except  power plants) will have to invest  an additional  $11.9
billion  (1972 dollars) by  1977  to  achieve pollution abatement
standards set for that year. Total investment, including capital
now in place, will amount to $18.7 billion. At  this level of invest-
ment, total annual costs,  including operation and maintenance,
will be $4.5 billion.
  The total  investment  may  not  be  as  great  as $11.9  billion;
however, because this estimate assumes  that there will only be
moderate reduction  of wastewater flows and that all abatement
will be achieved  by  end-of-the-line treatment.  Requiring treat-
ment of wastewater may lead industry to  switch to processes
that use much less water, resulting  in lower control costs. Equally
important, industry  can  change  its raw materials, manufac-
turing processes, or products, and, as a result, achieve the same
degree  of abatement at  less cost than end-of-the-line treatment.
  The $11.9  billion  estimate is greater than the $8.1 billion in
the 1972 Economics of Clean Water because:

     • Costs are  based on the 1977 standards rather than  the
       earlier industrial wastewater guidelines.
     • The industry  sample is larger—148,000  plants using in
       excess of 1 million gallons  per year  rather  than  14,500
       plants using in excess of  10 million gallons per year.
     • The costs  of  controlling pollution from animal feedlots
       is included.
     • Growth rates  are projected  for each industry, rather than
       using the average growth rate for all industry.
     • The costs are in 1972 rather  than 1971 dollars.

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS           387

  In  1972,  industry (excluding  animal feedlots, lumber,  and
leather)  invested  about $1.0  billion  in  water pollution  control
facilities, which is much less than appears to be needed to meet
the $11.9 billion  estimate  of needed  investment.  If industry
adopts less costly control options,  of course,  the current level of
investment may be closer to what is adequate.

  Thermal Costs. Utility steam-electric power plants account for
almost 80 percent of the water used for cooling and condensing
purposes in  the United  States.  The capital expenditures required
to meet the  1977 standard for this source of pollution are  esti-
mated at $2.3 to $9.5  billion; the  1983 standard  will  require
$4.4 to $15.3  billion, depending upon water quality  exemptions
provided by  Section 316  of the 1972 Amendments.
  The estimated  increase in the price of  electricity will  be 0.8
to 3.2 percent for meeting the  1977 water quality standards and
an  additional 0.9 to 2.9 percent for meeting the 1983 water
quality standard  depending upon  the number of exemptions.
  Costs of thermal pollution control were not developed for other
industrial segments  primarily because of the difficulties of  esti-
mating the costs of controlling thermal discharges from in-house
electric power generation and a myriad of industrial processes.
  Nonpoint  Source Pollution. The agricultural sector is estimated
to have the  productive  capacity to meet  food and fiber demands
to the year  2000 while taking measures to  reduce  pollution by
soil loss from erosion and by nitrogen  fertilizers. To maintain
agricultural  production  under a program limiting soil loss,  con-
servation practices such as  contouring, strip cropping, and ter-
racing would have  to be adopted. Crop production  would  also
have  to  be  shifted  to  more productive  soils  and regions.  The
impacts  would be minor on the  use of the Nation's land and
water  resources and on farm  prices, but  soil erosion would be
reduced  considerably. Similarly, a nitrogen  fertilizer limitation
program could be implemented by substituting land  and water
for fertilizer. There would, however, be some increase in farm
prices.
  The environmental protection measures required might be the
basis  of  a new supply restriction program. The lower productiv-
ity resulting from environmental restrictions may have the same
effect on total supply as the  recently reduced Federal cropland
restriction program, and may cost  approximately the same as
payments under the recently reduced program.
  Setting limits on  soil loss and nitrogen  application  would not
reduce total  national farmer receipts if two conditions were  met.

-------
388          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

First, the level of production must  not be lower than under the
land retirement programs. Second, the farm community must re-
ceive payments equal to what it formerly received for removing
land from production. However, the environmental limits would
have greatly varying effects on  farmer receipts in different farm
regions.
  Types  of Benefits From Water Quality Enhancement. Several
sections of the  1972 Amendments require the use of formal cost/
benefit analysis. Among them is the requirement for cost/benefit
analysis  in cases where effluent limits are more stringent than
those provided for by best available technology.
  The  objective of benefit analysis is to indicate the  economic
value of the cleaner environment  resulting  from projects  that
abate water pollution. Unlike the value  of most goods and serv-
ices, the value of activities resulting from improvements in water
quality are,  for the most part,  not indicated by market prices.
Instead, the value  must be imputed indirectly by  analyzing the
effect of improved water quality on  the  costs of producing  or
consuming goods, on the  enjoyment  of water-related  activities,
or on human health.
  Water quality is important in industrial uses, municipal  (do-
mestic) water  supplies, agriculture, and  commercial  fisheries.
When the quality  of water  is  improved,  water treatment costs
of industrial and municipal users  is lower.  In agriculture and
commercial fisheries improved water quality means increased net
income resulting from the increased  production.
  Water quality  is important  in  enhancing the  enjoyment  of
recreation. The value of water is the increased willingness to pay
for the water-related recreation  experience.
  Water quality is important as a factor in human health.  At
this time there has been little research on the economic valuation
of reduced health hazards or  the  willingness to pay to  avoid
the risks associated with water pollution.
  While  the report concentrated on the  problem of assigning a
value to changes in water quality, valuation is only the last step
in estimating a particular benefit.  The procedure requires  four
sequential steps:
     •  The abatement plan must be  specified in terms of amounts
      and types of pollutants to be reduced.
     •  The impact of the controlled pollutants on water quality
      parameters must be estimated.
     •  The impact of changes  in the parameters on water uses
      must be  estimated.

-------
              WATEK—GUIDELINES  AND REPORTS           389

     •  The economic value of induced changes  in the level of
uses, the increased value of existing uses, and the cost savings
resulting from improved water quality must  be identified.
  The  greatest difficulties lie in the second step, of tracing the
effects  of pollutants on water  quality parameters,  and in the
third step, relating parameter changes to man's use of the water
or adjacent shoreline. To a large extent, improved benefit  analy-
sis  depends  on better knowledge  of how to measure these two
relationships.

Constraints
  Fiscal Impact on Local Government. The construction of mu-
nicipal sewerage systems required by the 1972 Amendments will
result  in capital expenditures by all levels of government.  A
projection has been prepared of  possible  outlays during 1974-
1980. It relies heavily on two assumptions: State and local gov-
ernments will not invest independently of Federal funding, and
the $18 billion authorized in the  1972 Amendments will  be al-
loted for use in FYs 1973-76. (The  actual rate of allotment may
be different depending on fiscal policy.)
  The  total  Federal, State  and  local cash  outlay resulting from
these assumptions, and  from previous outstanding obligations,
would  total  $33.8  billion between 1973 and 1980. Of  this total
$12.9 billion would be provided  by State and local governments.
The projected annual cash  outlay of approximately $2 billion is
almost twice the amount State and local sources supplied in 1970
to build sewerage facilities.
  Local governments will probably  finance their portion  of the
projected capital expenditures through a variety of sources, in-
cluding current general  revenues  and  the issuance of municipal
bonds. Several recent reports have indicated that State and local
governments may run surpluses  in their current general accounts
over the next several years. Such  surpluses would give  States
and localities  greater flexibility in  financing construction proj-
ects.
  Should localities  continue  to sell bonds to  finance approxi-
mately two-thirds of their  investment in sewerage construction,
sewer bonds will continue to represent just over  5 percent of the
overall municipal bond sales. Municipalities should encounter no
difficulties in selling such bonds. The  market for bonds has im-
proved  since the  late 1969 credit  gap in  spite  of  a  generally
tight credit  market. If another major  credit gap occurs, munici-
palities should be able to  temporarily substitute short-term  for
long-term bonds as they did in 1969-70. Nor do credit limitations

-------
390          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

seem  to  offer a serious constraint. Municipalities have  demon-
strated that, in most cases, they can avoid these restrictions by
such  measures as issuing revenue bonds, shifting financial re-
sponsibility to independent authorities, and using  lease  pur-
chase  arrangements. Despite this generally  optimistic  picture,
individual localities may find financing a major problem, perhaps
because of unacceptable credit ratings.  Some should  be able  to
obtain financial assistance  from  State  construction  grant  pro-
grams; others  should  be able  to  sell their bonds to the newly
created Federal Environmental Financing Authority or obtain
loans, if  they have a population under 10,000, from the Farmers
Home Administration.
  As a direct result of the projected increase in capital expendi-
tures, the annual cost for localities to provide sewerage  services
may increase by  66 percent in the next 4 years. This should  be
viewed against an expenditure on sewerage  operations amount-
ing to 1 percent of all current local expenditures in  1970. The
increase  due to capital expenditures on  sewerage would increase
the cost of sewerage operation to  1.7 percent  of the 1970 level of
expenditures.

  Economic Impact of Industry.  An overview of 23 industries
discharging directly into the Nation's waters  indicates that in
most cases they will be able to recover the costs of best practi-
cable wastewater treatment by increases in prices. However,  in-
dividual  plants in certain industries will experience difficulties in
meeting  the requirements. Generally, the profitability of smaller
and/or older plants may be so reduced  by pollution control that
many of them may  decide to  close  prior  to 1977. Secondly,
plants located  in heavily urbanized areas, especially  small  older
ones, will experience difficulties because they lack the necessary
land  to use the most cost-effective treatments. In the absence of
adequate municipal treatment  facilities the 1977 requirements
may  force many of these plants  to close, relocate elsewhere, or
be absorbed by more viable firms.
  Most  of  the industries studied are  expected  to  raise prices
 (regardless of potential  closures) with the size of the  increase
varying  among segments of an industry (Table VII-10). The  in-
dustries expected to experience price increases of less than  1.5
percent  are asbestos, dairies,  feedlots,  flat glass, leather, meat-
packing,  nonferrous metals, softwood  plywood, and  wood pre-
serving. Price increases of  1.5 to  5 percent are expected to  occur
in cement, fertilizer, fiberglass, fruits  and vegetables, and  hard-
wood plywood. Price increases higher than 5 percent are  expected

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND  REPORTS            391

in electroplating, hardboard, inorganic chemicals, organic chemi-
cals, -paper, plastics, and  synthetics. (The  industries italicized
also face significant air pollution control costs.)
  Pollution control costs that  cannot be passed on in the form
of price increases will  result in decreasing profit margins and,
in some cases, plant closings. Plant  closings are expected in all
of the industries with the exception of cement, flat glass, ferroal-
loys, fiberglass, grain milling, and rubber.
  In most of the industries  studied, closings will be due  pri-
marily to factors unrelated to water pollution control costs, but
they will be accelerated by these costs.  Dairies, feedlots, fruits
and vegetables,  and leather are examples of industries in which
plant closings will  occur unrelated to pollution  control expendi-
tures. The maximum direct unemployment would be about 50,000
or 1.5 percent of the estimated total employment in the industries
studied  of 3.3 million.

  Construction  Industry Capacity.  The increased construction
called for  by the 1972 Amendments—$8.9  billion in 1976 com-
pared to $3.0 billion  in 1971—will place additional demands on
the capacity of  the construction industry. EPA  initiated  several
studies  to assess the impact of these incremental expenditures
on the price and quantity of all construction and on each of five
sectors  of the construction industry.  In  addition,  several  of the
studies  examined the  possible existence of specific bottlenecks,
such as the supply of skilled  labor or entrepreneurs,  that would
limit the construction industry's capacity to meet these demands.
  Assuming a  generally  homogeneous  construction industry,
these studies suggest that the industry  can meet the demands.
However, specific localities may have  insufficient  capacity to carry
out large  scale  projects. The $4.9 billion  incremental increase
(1976  peak year)   over the  baseline  estimate in  wastewater
treatment  construction  would raise  overall construction  prices
by only 0.6 percent.
  According to  the models of EPA  and others, factors  such as
the  level of economic  activity, government  expenditures,  and
the rate of interest are more important  than prices  in influenc-
ing demand. In  the case of interest rates EPA found  no evidence
to  suggest that an increase,  induced by pollution-related con-
struction activity, will be as much as 1 percent of the  current
level.
  The studies indicate  that the level of  activity in other sectors
of  the construction industry  will be  reduced by an  increase in
pollution-related construction. A $4.9 billion increase in EPA-

-------
392          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT 11

stimulated demand over the baseline estimate for sewer construc-
tion is projected to decrease other construction by less than $0.3
billion. The  private residential sector will likely  absorb approxi-
mately one-third of the reduction. The public non-building sector
is likely to absorb a significant portion  as well. However, these
results may be affected by past policies of  using public works
projects to smooth the overall level of construction activity.
  The analysis did  not examine the  determinants  of price  in-
creases that are  unrelated to  changes in construction demand.
EPA  recognizes,  for example, that the recent  devaluation has
increased the demand for exports (e.g.  a larger European demand
for U.S. steel reinforcing rods) and  that this  change will  in-
crease the  domestic price of  construction and result in some
shortages. Similarly, EPA recognizes  that uncertainty about  fu-
ture prices  and deliveries  of  inputs in the construction  process
can result in significant increases in the price of construction
as supported by recent evidence.
  Equipment Supply Capacity. Industries supplying water pollu-
tion control specialty equipment and  instrumentation  appear to
have  the long-term production capacity to  meet  the projected
demand. A  1972 analysis  of capacity,  based on statements  of
equipment suppliers and secondary statistics, found that:
    • The profit margins  enjoyed by pollution  control compan-
       ies on their  pollution business have  generally exceeded
       the margins  on  their other business  in the same indus-
       trial  categories.
    • Companies in which pollution control  is a significant  ac-
       tivity (greater than 5  percent of sales) have  a  slightly
       higher return on assets  than companies in which pollution
       control is a minor activity.
     • Comparing the returns on assets, companies "in" the pollu-
       tion  control business have out-performed  those  in  closely-
       related industries.
  In  recent years, the municipal sector's demand  for pollution
abatement equipment has grown only 0.6 percent per year. This
plateau of  demand developed primarily because  municipalities
waited for promised Federal assistance. The demand  is expected
to accelerate because of expenditures  in 1974-1976, and to taper
off through 1980.  The  specialty equipment segment of  the in-
dustry is expected to grow at a higher rate—14.1 percent  per
year  in 1973-1975 and 9.5 percent per year in 1975-1980. Simil-
arly, the growth of the  instrumentation  segment is expected
to be high—17.9 percent  for  the  first  period  and 15.9  percent
for the second.

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS           393

  Demand from  the industrial sector is  expected to increase
modestly through 1977 and then drop substantially through 1980.
Again, specialty equipment expenditures will grow at a faster
rate than total expenditures, because of a trend toward advanced
treatment.
  The above analysis assumed that the raw material and skilled
labor inputs would  be  available to complement the productive
capacity. Recent evidence suggests that they might be in short
supply in some localities.

Conclusions
  The economic factors examined, other things being equal,  will
not in EPA's view  significantly constrain the  accelerated pro-
gram launched by the 1972 Amendments  to control  pollution
from municipal and industrial sources. In particular:
     • Local governments will have adequate general revenue or
      municipal bonding  capability  to  finance  their share  of
      building sewerage systems. The  combination  of the State
      grant/loan programs,  the U.S. Environmental  Financing
      Authority  and the  Farmers  Home Administration  loan
      program should be able to deal with an individual munici-
      pality with a financial problem.
     • An overview  of 23 industries discharging  directly into
      the Nation's waters  indicates that in most cases they  will
      be  able to  recover  the  costs  of best  practicable  waste-
      water treatment by increases in prices. However, individual
      plants  in  certain  industries  will experience  difficulties
      in meeting  the  requirements.  Generally,  the profitability
      of smaller and/or older plants may be so reduced by pollu-
      tion control that many of them may decide to close prior
      to 1977.
     • The results of econometric models indicate that the con-
      struction  industry  should be able to  build  the required
      facilities with real  price  increases of  less than 1 percent
      attributable solely to  EPA-stimulated demand, assuming
      resource transferability within the construction industry.
      The skilled labor needed should be available to meet peak-
      year requirements with  some  impact  on  wages. In some
      localities, the construction industry may lack  adequate
      short-term capacity, especially in light of the changing
      nature of the economy.
     • The pollution  abatement  equipment industry  is attractive

-------
394          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

      enough to encourage the growth and development of long-
      term supply. Production capacity as estimated in 1972 is
      not  viewed as a constraint. However, raw  material  and
      skilled  labor inputs may be a constraint in some  cases.
  Other things being equal, the economic factors examined  will
not be serious constraints in meeting effluent standards. (How-
ever, the other things assumed equal may not be equal. Unfore-
seen events such as the energy  crisis or devaluation of the dollar
may lead to basic changes in the system,  and, therefore  out-
comes may differ  from those predicted.) Other factors, such as
budget constraints both in  the public  and  private sectors  and
legal and administrative steps that must be  taken  in controlling
wastewater discharge could account for delays.
  As long as  there  are  significant nonpoint  sources  of  pollu-
tants, control of industrial and municipal sources does  not mean
that all areas of the Nation will have  clean water at  the same
time. A  fundamental question remains: At what  point do the
additional  costs of controlling all  sources of  pollutants exceed
the additional benefits of improved water quality? Clearly, the
current societal concern for environmental quality  indicates  that
the public believes there are  significant benefits  yet  to be at-
tained.

II.  NATURE OF AND TRENDS IN  WATER POLLUTANTS
Introduction to Pollution Problems*
No one has described completely the quality  of  a body of water.
To  do so would entail chemical analyses of  a near-infinite num-
ber of solid, liquid, and  gaseous compounds, as well  as a com-
plete identification of all biota present in the water from viruses
to vertebrates. Thus, any practical description  of  water quality
can only be concerned with a very limited subset of all conceiv-
able physical,  chemical, and biological aspects  of  actual water-
bodies. Typical water quality measurements are, in fact, oriented
toward a small group of commonly observed pollution  problems.
  Harmful Substances. A stream of seemingly clean  and pure
water may be highly polluted  due to the presence of toxic  sub-
stances in very low concentrations. For example, certain chemi-
cals in  concentrations of only several  parts per billion may be
deadly  to  the mayfly, an  important link  in  the aquatic  food
chain. Certain harmful substances may be natural such as acids
from bogs. Most,  however, are man-made such  as industrial and
 *Most of the information presented in this introductory section was prepared
 by Enviro Control, Inc.

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES  AND REPORTS           395

agricultural chemicals.  A few of these  are well  known—heavy
metals,  pesticides,  herbicides,  and polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCB's), for example.
  Toxicity effects  can be dramatic,  as in the case of large fish-
kills, or they can be  subtle, as in the case  of minute concentra-
tions  causing  decreasing fertility or changing reproductive or
predation habits  over  a long  period  of  time.  Detecting  any
chemical and tracing it back to its sources can be difficult, par-
ticularly in the case of widely  used and highly persistent sub-
stances  such as mercury, dieldrin, or PCB's. Sources can be di-
verse, ranging from  industrial  or municipal sewage discharges
to urban stormwater, agricultural runoff, or atmospheric particle
"fallout". It is therefore not safe to assume that the only major
sources of harmful substances are industrial  discharges.
  Analysis of these harmful  substances is complicated because
they do not usually remain  dissolved or suspended in water but
are taken up by sediments, plants,  and  animals.  In  the case of
DDT, concentrations  in fish will be  at least one order of magni-
tude greater than in sediments, which in  turn have concentra-
tions at least one order of magnitude greater than the overlying
waters.  Since most other important  pesticides are insoluble (and
many toxic metals form insoluble  salts),  water concentrations
by  themselves  do not  form  reliable indicators.  For the  same
reasons,  water concentrations will tend  to  be very low—on the
order of parts  per  billion—making results extremely  sensitive
to the specific  chemical  analysis methods  used.  For  instance,
older  gas chromatographic methods for DDT were unable to
distinguish  DDT  clearly from PCB's.  Since PCB's are often
found in  substantially  higher concentrations  than  DDT, these
older results are quite unreliable.

  Physical Modification. Aquatic habitats are sensitive to fluctu-
ations of many physical characteristics  of  water including tem-
perature and  transparency. Temperature fluctuations occurring
naturally can  be  amplified  by  human activities through  large
discharges of industrial cooling water, such  as from power plants
or  steel  mills,  from release of warm  surface  water held in
reservoirs, or from destruction of shade trees along stream banks.
Warm discharges do not automatically cause ecological damage—
some  increase  desirable biological activity. Large thermal  dis-
charges into small or relatively stagnant bodies of  water, how-
ever,  can cause large temperature  increases.  If  such increases
occur in critical "zones of passage" or  spawning  grounds, they
can disrupt important biological communities.

-------
396          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n

  Natural waters lose transparency due to sediment loads. Aside
from  natural sources of sediment there are human sources in-
cluding construction activities, strip mining, and farming prac-
tices.  Transparency  can also be lost  by excess  microorganism
growth stimulated  by nutrient-rich agricultural runoff,  urban
stormwater or sewer overflows, and sewage treatment plant dis-
charges. Reduced transparency  has a serious  effect other than
aesthetic degradation: It reduces the amount of light available to
underwater plants and thus decreases a primary  food source for
certain fish and birds.
  Another significant alteration  of key  aquatic  habitats results
from  physical modification of shores, banks, and channels. Arti-
ficial  draining  of  marshland to  create waterfront  property
destroys the highly productive environment necessary for spawn-
ing of certain fish species and feeding of migratory birds. Con-
struction of breakwaters  can reduce "flushing"  of bays to  the
point where  the effect of pollutant discharges to  these bays is
greatly magnified  by stagnant water conditions.  Channel and
watershed  "improvement"  destroys biological  communities  on
stream banks and, in some cases, can accelerate erosion and sedi-
ment.
  Finally, dams and their impoundments can produce  profound
changes in the physical and biological characteristics of a stream.
These changes include beneficial as well  as negative effects.
  Not all aspects of physical modifications of streams and estuar-
ies  are quantifiable. In fact, only a few simple measures  of the
extent of harmful  physical  modifications (including  suspended
solids, turbidity, color, and temperature)  are known. Some other
physical measures that would be useful are often not routinely
made; among these are sediment cores to analyze  the nature of
bottom deposit buildup, and  settleable  solids to measure the ma-
terials deposited on the bottom.

  Eutroyhication.  An adequate crop of algae is the beginning of
the food chain  for  most aquatic  communities.  However, rela-
tively stagnant waters  (such as lakes and slow-moving estuaries)
rich in nutrients can grow  such heavy crops  of  algal and other
aquatic plants that the decay of dead cell matter may seriously
deplete the bottom waters of oxygen.  This prevents the survival
of oxygen-sensitive food species and fish. In extreme cases float-
ing algal mats, thick bottom slimes, and odors result.
  There are  many waters in the nation  that are or were natur-
ally eutrophic. On the other hand,  artificial addition of any one
of the 100 or so nutrients necessary to  plant growth may stim-

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS           397

ulate algal blooms (heavy growths)  in stagnant waters  where
that nutrient is normally under-supplied. In addition to the well-
known  nutrients,  phosphorus  and  nitrogen,  there are  others
equally  essential to plants, including carbon dioxide, potassium,
magnesium, and vitamin B-12. Man adds nutrients to  water by
many means. Perhaps one of the most important sources is run-
off of agricultural  fertilizers, which yield large loads of phospho-
rus, nitrogen, and  potassium; other sources include treated muni-
cipal sewage, industrial discharges, and sewer overflows.
  The only direct measure of  eutrophication  is  a complete bio-
logical study of the waters in question. Indirect measures of eutro-
phication are biomass,  standing algal crops, chlorophyll, nutrient
uptake and benthic (that is,  stream or lake bottom) oxygen de-
mand. Unfortunately, most of these  are almost never monitored
routinely. Nutrient levels can be  useful, although not necessarily
conclusive  measures of the potential for eutrophication. Of the
100 or so nutrients essential for plant growth, only compounds
of nitrogen and phosphorus  are routinely measured, making  it
difficult to use normal monitoring evidence to specify either ni-
trogen or phosphorus as the direct cause of a bloom.

  Salinity, Acidity, and Alkalinity. Major changes in the salt
content  of  water  can seriously disrupt aquatic  communities
and decrease the value of water for  irrigation and water supply
purposes.  Where the fresh water inflow of estuaries is reduced
through upstream consumption or diversion of  freshwater, the
saline front advances upstream. This advance  decreases the low
salinity area of the estuary necessary for spawning or growth of
important  species such as  striped bass. Many  inland streams
are naturally saline, due to the salt content of solids and minerals
in their drainage  basins.  In  certain areas,  this  natural salinity
has been  substantially  increased by man's  activities. Irrigation
in saline soil areas increases stream salinity, because of increased
evaporation (both on  land  and  in reservoirs) and  leaching of
salt  from  the soil into the  irrigation return flow. In  certain
basins, mine and quarry drainage can also add  substantial salt
loads to rivers.
  Acidity changes can be equally damaging to aquatic life. The
most  important acid sources are drainage from mines and acid
rain downwind from major sulfur-polluted  air regions. The im-
portance of sulfur  air pollution  has only recently been recognized;
several small lakes have suffered such serious increases  in acidity
within only one decade as  to  almost eliminate  many desirable
fish species. Highly acidic industrial  and municipal discharges

-------
398          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

that are large  relative to  the receiving stream can also cause
damage.
  Alkalinity presents problems in many areas, particularly west
of the Mississippi River. The problems range from reduced agri-
cultural production to the fouling of water pipes. Most alkaline
pollutants are  from natural sources such as sodium carbonate
deposits. However, certain industries such as the gypsum board
industry may also contribute to an alkaline condition.
  Quantitative  analysis of salinity normally uses total dissolved
solids as an indicator of total salts; common individual salts such
as sulfates and chlorides are also sometimes measured. To some
extent,  specific  ecological damage due to salinity depends on the
composition of  the salts present.  Acidity/alkalinity measures are
considerably  more complex. pH,  the measure  of free  hydrogen
ions present,  measures the stream's capacity to neutralize or "in-
activate"  bases. Alkalinity measures the stream's capacity to
buffer acids.  Thus, if a given  stream shows little pH trend over
the last 10 years, but alkalinity has decreased markedly, one can
predict  that the stream will be considerably more vulnerable to
relatively small acid discharges.

  Oxygen Depletion.  Oxygen dissolved  in water is one of many
substances essential to sustaining aquatic animal  life. The dis-
solved  oxygen  (DO)  level  is widely  considered to be the single
most important indicator of pollution;  actually, there is  no rea-
son  to  consider it more or less  important  than indicators such
as toxicity, salinity,  and algal  population.
  Dissolved oxygen is consumed  whenever any  substance is oxi-
dized in water.  This  oxidation  can be a direct chemical process or
it can be  a biological process.  All aquatic animals, from bacteria
to  fish, consume  dissolved oxygen  in  metabolizing  food  sub-
stances. Such food substances range from  sugars and starches,
which  are consumed by microorganisms in days, to paper pulp
or  oils, which are  consumed by  microorganisms  only  after
months. Rapidly consumable  substances create oxygen  deficits
within  a  few days  of stream travel from their sources,  while
slowly consumable substances  create  deficits weeks or months of
stream  travel away from their source.
  Thus, slowly consumable  substances may not cause significant
oxygen loss in  the stream at all; instead, they may be consumed
in a downstream  lake, reservoir, estuary, or ocean  where they
may or may  not pose a problem.  Naturally, the  rate of consump-
tion for a specific food substance or waste  is highly  sensitive to
temperature; higher water temperatures greatly accelerate the

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND  REPORTS           399

growth and metabolism of the microorganisms that feed on the
waste. On the other  hand,  many toxic substances slow  this
growth and can give a misleading picture of oxygen  sufficiency.
  Oxygen-consuming or oxygen-demanding substances can be at-
tributed to many sources. There are large natural sources, includ-
ing leaves, soil organic matter, and wildlife droppings washed into
rivers by storm runoff. Agricultural areas contribute additional
runoff-carried oxygen demand from lifestock manure and topsoil
erosion. There are also the classical "point" sources: municipal
sewage treatment plant discharges and a wide variety of indus-
trial waste  discharges. However, some urbanized areas contri-
bute oxygen-demanding loads by other  routes including storm
sewers,  sewer  overflows,  intentional  treatment plant bypasses,
sewer leaks, and unsewered runoff.
  The direct quantitative measures of oxygen  content of water
are the absolute concentration of DO present, and the percent of
saturation for DO corrected for temperature and pressure (since
warm or low pressure water can dissolve less oxygen than cold or
high pressure  water). The latter measure is based on theoretical
tables of saturation values for dissolved oxygen in distilled water,
but many substances found in impure water can either raise  or
lower saturation levels of DO. Supersaturated values of up  to
140 percent are seen, particularly in waters where algae contrib-
ute substantial oxygen.
  In  describing the  oxygen-depleting characteristics  of  wastes,
5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)  and chemical oxygen
demand  (COD) are  the most common measures.  In  BOD5, the
waste or stream sample is  incubated  in  a bottle  (sometimes
inoculated with stream microorganisms) at 20°C for 5 days, and
the weight of oxygen metabolically consumed  by the  micro-
oganisms is measured.  Among the many deficiencies of the BOD5
measurement  are:  It  has very  poor repeatability;  bottle condi-
tions  are far  from stream conditions; trace toxicants can seri-
ously inhibit microorganism growth and reduce apparent oxygen
demand; and the 5-day reading gives no indication of depletion
rate over shorter or longer periods. In measurement  of COD, a
sample of water is chemically oxidized to give an approximate
upper bound on the amount of biologically  oxidizable  material
present;  COD cannot be measured in salty water, however, and it
also fails to capture volatile oxidizable substances such as organic
acids, alcohols, and ammonia.

  Health Hazards  and Aesthetic Degradation. An assessment of
health hazards from polluted water involves  considerable un-

-------
400          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

certainty. There is little doubt that human feces carry infectious
pathogens  for  a number of  intestinal  diseases, typhoid fever,
hepatitis, brucellosis, encephalitis, poliomyelitis, psittacosis, and
tuberculosis.  However,  there  are grave uncertainties  about  the
die-off rates  of pathogens  in natural waters  as  well as their
infectiousness for swimmers  or  other recreational water users.
Note that the issue of  drinking  water is not at stake, since  its
safety depends on  disinfection  treatment by  the water  supply
system. The  evidence that water polluted with fecal matter  can
transmit diseases to swimmers is sparse and uncertain, particu-
larly  since it has been discovered that swimmers in unpolluted
water also have higher incidences of common ear, eye, and nose
infections. There is some evidence that hepatitis  can be trans-
mitted via shellfish from polluted waters; unfortunately, the usual
antibacterial measure—chlorination of sewage effluents—may not
abate this problem for viral forms of hepatitis.
  The evidence for waterborne  toxicity hazards via fish, shell-
fish, and perhaps drinking water is somewhat  stronger, at least
in the  case  of relatively  high  concentrations of mercury  and
cadmium. On the other hand, considerably  less effort has been
expended on the chronic health hazards of low-level, long-term
toxicants in  drinking water  (and fish)  than  on  the infectious
disease problem. Consequently, little  can be said in  this area,
since even monitoring data are sparse.
  Despite the  paucity  of evidence regarding  waterborne  trans-
mission of diseases to  recreational users,  public health agencies
since the turn of the  century  have  assumed  that the problem
exists. Because of the expense of direct identification  of specific
pathogens in water, these agencies traditionally have used  sev-
eral indirect and nonspecific measures of bacterial populations in
water:  total coliforms, fecal coliforms, and  fecal  streptococci.
These bacteria are not pathogenic, nor do they simulate the die-
off rates of pathogens.  Fecal bacterial counts are good indicators
of the presence of undisinfected municipal  sewage,  when  runoff
sources are either low  or insignificant. Unfortunately, fecal coli-
forms are also found in runoff  from agricultural and  wilderness
lands  and from  urban areas. In fact,  it is possible  that fecal
coliforms  can  multiply significantly  in streams  under  certain
conditions.
  Water bodies  can be degraded aesthetically by  increases in
murkiness, color, algal scums, floating solids and oils,  and odors.
Murkiness is approximately  measured by  turbidity,  which has
been discussed, together with color, under Physical Modifications.
Algal growth  has  been discussed under  Eutrophication.  Float-

-------
               WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS           401

ing solids and  oils,  in areas  with properly  functioning treat-
ment plants and  oil separators,  generally come  from  combined
sewer overflows, storm sewer discharges, and unsewered runoff,
as evidenced by the major  increases in  these measures directly
after rainstorms.  Unaesthetic  odors  can  stem  from  many
sources,  including decaying organic matter in water or on the
bottom and a myriad of industrial chemicals. Among chemicals,
phenols are traditionally singled out for special attention by pol-
lution control agencies.
  In the board  area  of health hazards and aesthetic degradation
only a few measures are routinely monitored.  The ones available
for analysis are total coliform, fecal coliform, fecal streptococci,
phenols,  and odors.

Status of Water Quality
EPA's analysis  of 22 major rivers, contained in the 1978 National
Water Quality Inventory Report,  sheds some  light on  the kinds
of pollution requiring control and on recent trends. The  22 rivers,
ranked from "cleanest" to "dirtest" in Table  II-l, were selected
for study because of their length, flow, and proximity to  large
cities. This ranking of reaches on the  22 rivers is not neces-
sarily complete or fully  accurate  for all purposes. For example,
ranking  is based  only on physical modification, nutrients, eutro-
phication, acidity, salinity, oxygen, and health parameters. Effects
of metals and pesticides are not included, because data were not
complete at the time this report was prepared. The analysis  does
not incorporate biological or other measures because data are
less readily available and reference levels are not clearly  defined.
  Detailed analyses  of the  22 rivers  as a whole  show that the
worst readings  and trends were for nutrients (Table II-2). The
pollutants receiving the most widespread controls  (bacteria and

                             TABLE 11-1
                 POLLUTION RANKINGS OF 22 MAJOR U.S. RIVERS*
                            [Preliminary]
Best Third
Upper Missouri
ColumDia
Snaxe
Willamette
Upper Mississippi
YuKon
Tennessee
Susquenanna
Lower Colorado


Middle Third
Rio Grande
Alabama
Upper Ohio
Upper Red
Brazos
Potomac
Upper Colorado
Middle Mississippi
Sacramento


Worst Third
Lower Red
Hudson
Lower Ohio
Lower Mississippi
Lower Arkansas
Middle Ohio
Mississippi near
Minneapolis
Lower Missouri
Upper Arkansas
Middle Missouri
*From 1968-72 STORET data; rankings based on the number of pollutants registering median values
 higher than uniform national reference levels.
 Source: 1973 Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress. EPA.

-------
402
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT 11
                            TABLE 11-2
                 WATER QUALITY TRENDS FOR 22 MAJOR RIVERS
                             (1963-72)
                            [Preliminary]
Readers
Parameter analyzed
Suspended solids
Turbidity
Temperature
Color
Ammonia
Nitrite
Nitrate (as N)
Nitrate (as NCh)
Nitrite plus nitrate
Organic nitrogen
Total phosphorus
Dissolved phosphate
Total phosphate
Dissolved solids (105°C)
Dissolved solids (180°C)
Sulfates
Chlorides
Alkalinity
PH
Dissolved oxygen
BOD:
COD
Total coliforms (MFD)t
Total conforms (MFI)t
Total conforms (MPN)t
Fecal coliforms (MF)t
Fecal coliforms (MPN)f
Phenols
Odor
24
27
29
27
21
5
13
19
24
8
25
16
13
24
23
30
30
29
30
27
27
18
21
9
9
5
4
7
4
Trends of reaches irom %
1963-67 to 1968-72
Improved
20
21
20
7
16
2
0
5
8
4
4
8
6
16
14
16
18
12
16*
17
19
13
14
4
6
3
3
5
2
Worse '
4
6
9
20
5
3
13
14
16
4
21
8
7
8
9
14
12
17
14'
10
8
5
7
5
3
2
1
2
2
'A Improved
83
78
69
26
76
40
0
26
33
50
16
50
46
67
61
53
60
41
53
63
70
72
67
44
67
60
75
71
50
1963-67
30%
30
D
NO
14
No
0
No
0
NO
35
8
30
29
28
13
13
NO
0
0
0
NO
26
56
25
60
17
82
NO
of reaches exceeding
reference levels
1968-72
16%
32
0
reference level
4
reference level
0
reference level
0
reference level
54
25
37
21
12
13
10
reference level
0
0
0
reference level
14
30
21
21
43
69
reference level
Change
-14%
+2
0
used
-10
used
0
used
0
used
+ 19
+ 17
+7
-8
-16
0
-3
used
0
0
0
used
-12
-26
-4
-39
+ 26
-13
used
•For pH, read "less acidic" for "improved"; read "more acidic" for "worse."
fMembrane filter delayed, membrane filter immediate, most probable number, membrane filter.

oxygen demand), however, were improving. The analyses indicated
that:
    • For  nutrients, up to 54  percent  of the reaches exceeded
       EPA's phosphorus guidelines set to protect against poten-
       tial eutrophication  in flowing streams. Up to 84  percent
       of the reaches showed increased phosphorus levels in 1968-
       1972 over the previous 5 years. Nitrogen nutrients, while
       generally not  exceeding reference levels, increased in up
       to 74 percent of the reaches measured.
    • Other pollutants with high  levels  were phenols  (industrial
       compounds which can taint fish flesh and  cause taste and
       odor problems in drinking water)  and suspended solids
       (which interfere with some aquatic  life processes). These
       results are  not as disturbing  as the  nutrient  data,  be-
       cause in up to 80 percent of the reaches with data,  phenols
       and suspended solids  improved in the last 5 years.
    • The  pollutants receiving the most widespread controls,
       bacteria  and  oxygen demand,  showed  general improve-
       ments  in the  last 5 years.  Dissolved oxygen  and  oxygen-

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS           403

      demand levels  improved in up to 72 percent of reaches;
      bacteria up to 75 percent.
  Five of the rivers were studied in greater detail: the Mississi-
ppi, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, and Columbia Rivers.

  Mississippi River. Based on routine monitoring data available
to EPA  for  the years 1963-72, the most significant types of
pollution for the Mississippi River are the presence of undesirable
bacteria throughout the river (noticeably around urban centers).
Special  studies  confirmed the presence  of phenols  downstream
from  cities and industrial complexes. Phenols  cause  taste  and
odor problems in drinking water and prevent commercial  fishing
in several large  river  segments.
    • Harmful  Substances. Phenol  levels below  St.  Louis  and
      Baton  Rouge are probably major reasons that commercial
      fishing has been eliminated in these two areas.
    • Physical Modification. The upper river below Minneapolis-
      St. Paul  shows increased  levels  of  BOD5,  ammonia,  and
      nitrates;  turbidity and solids  are increased  downstream
      from the  Missouri River.
    • Eutrophication  Potential.  Limited data  are  available to
      assess  eutrophication directly. However, phosphorus levels
      have increased in the lower  river (below Ohio  River) in
      the recent  5 years while the  upper  river remains  un-
      changed. Below Minneapolis-St. Paul, there are  significant
      increases  of ammonia and nitrates. Enough phosphorus
      and nitrogen are present to support nuisance algae growths
      in this area, and levels are generally getting worse.
    • Salinity,  Acidity,  and Alkalinity.  The  only  noticeable
      changes occurred below the inflows of  the major  tribu-
      taries. For example, increases in dissolved salts, particu-
      larly sulfates,  were detected below the  Missouri River.
      Alkalinity dropped below Cairo because  of the acidic in-
      flow from the Ohio River.
    • Oxygen Depletion. Dissolved oxygen levels are satisfactory
      throughout the river except below  Minneapolis-St. Paul.
      BOD5  and  other  parameters  associated  with sewage
      and industrial  wastes indicate that urban areas are the
      primary sources of polluants.  Most of the river has im-
      proved in the  last 5 years, with a significant improve-
      ment below  Minneapolis-St. Paul  due to  secondary treat-
      ment of municipal wastes.
    • Health Hazards and Aesthetic Degradation. Fecal coli-
      form  counts  are  exceeding  recommended  standards

-------
404          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

      throughout the Mississippi River, with peaks below urban
      centers, especially below Minneapolis-St. Paul. These levels
      are considered excessive  for primary contact  recreation
      use.

  Missouri River. According to the 1963-72 data, the most signi-
ficant types of pollution in the Missouri appear to be physical
degradation (primarily  related to erosion), and potential health
hazards. Special studies confirm the presence of undesirable bac-
teria  and viruses  and  tainting of fish  flesh  downstream from
several large cities. These problems appear to come from  sewage
treatment facilities, but they are overshadowed up to 16 percent
of the time  by pollutants  that are associated with runoff during
heavy rains.
    • Physical Modification. The middle and lower portions of
      the Missouri  experience  some  of  the  heaviest sediment
      erosion in the United  States, producing high  suspended
      solids and turbidity. While much of the erosion is na-
      tural, pollutants washed from farms and cities are  carried
      with  the soil, and add  to the organic  matter  (BOD5,
      COD,   and   ammonia),   nutrients   (phosphates   and
      nitrates), and salts  (sulfates)  in  the river, particularly
      after rainfalls.
    • Eutrophiaation Potential. Limited data  are  available to
      measure the potential of eutrophication directly. However,
      enough phosphates and nitrogen are present in  the middle
      and lower Missouri  to support nuisance algae growths,
      and levels  were generally worsening  over the  1963-72
      period.
    • Salinity,  Acidity, and  Alkalinity.  Dissolved  salts, parti-
      cularly sulfates,  reach and often  exceed  national guide-
      lines for water  supply intakes in the middle  and lower
      Missouri.
    • Oxygen Depletion. Organic loadings in the Missouri are
      high,  in part due to heavy animal feedlot  runoff from
      Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa. At times these loadings have
      been sufficient to deplete dissolved oxygen below recom-
      mended levels for fish.  BOD5  and  COD improved near
      large cities in the last  5  years compared to the preceding
      5 years.
    • Health Hazards and Aesthetic Degradation. Fecal  coli-
      form levels peak well in excess  of water quality standards
      for swimming and drinking downstream from urban areas
      in both wet  and dry  periods,  as do other  measures of

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS           405

      fecal contamination and viruses. Point sources are prob-
      ably responsible  for most  of the pollution, but conditions
      also generally  worsen after rainfalls, reflecting nonpoint
      sources of pollution.

  Ohio River. Based on 1963-72 data, the most  serious problems
in the Ohio River are: elevated bacteria levels near cities; acidity
from  mines  and industries;  the potential  for eutrophication;
and suspended solids. Field studies  indicate that if industries
and municipalities  adhere to  effluent limitations,  the  Ohio can
meet standards  for fish and,  in  some areas, for  swimming by
1977. However, potential eutrophication and sediment runoff may
continue to be problems.
    • Harmful  Substances. Monitoring data show  high levels
      of iron, in  all four sections  of the river, with trends
      toward higher levels in the last 5 years. Special studies
      show industrial oil, scum,  foam, phenols,  and other chem-
      icals  affecting  areas  near  Pittsburgh, Huntington, Mari-
      etta, and  Parkersburg.  Biological studies confirm the pre-
      sence  of  toxic materials  near Pittsburgh. Downstream,
      the river shows  recovery,  and some  improvements  have
      been noted since 1970.
    • Physical  Modification.  High  levels  of  suspended solids
      occur in the lower Ohio, primarily during high flows. In
      some portions  of the river, the levels are  markedly im-
      proved compared to 5 to 10 years ago.
    • Eutrophication Potential.  Indirect  evidence suggests  that
      biological activity is  being heightened in the  presence of
      enough nitrates and phosphates to  support nuisance  algae
      growths,  although such growth has  not been  observed.
      Nutrients  have not changed significantly  in  the  last 10
      years.
    • Salinity,  Acidity,  and  Alkalinity.  At 11 of 40  stations,
      the river is occasionally more acidic than permitted by
      standards. Most  of this may  be attributed to acid  mine
      drainage from upstream tributaries.
    • Oxygen Depletion. Two stations report dissolved  oxygen
      problems.  Pittsburgh's  and  Cincinnati's municipal  dis-
      charges are known to be producing low  dissolved oxy-
      gen at times.
    • Health Hazards  and Aesthetic Degradation. In  summer,
      total and fecal coliforms exceed permissible levels at  Cin-
      cinnati and Louisville. Special studies show bacterial levels
      improving in the past 5  years near other cities.

-------
406          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

  Tennessee  River. Data from  1963-72 indicate that  the  most
serious potential problem on the Tennessee River is the increase
in nutrient levels in the nine mainstream reservoirs. Other prob-
lems are the presence of high bacteria levels in the reservoirs
near cities and low  dissolved  oxygen  levels  in dam  releases.
Nitrogen and phosphorus  concentrations  in the reservoirs are
high enough  to encourage some undesirable algae growth;  ni-
trates, in particular, are high  in  all  reservoirs and  increased
significantly  during  the last  decade.  In general, however, the
Tennessee River and  its reservoirs do not show widespread pol-
lution and are among the cleaner waters studied in the  22 rivers.
    • Eutrophication Potential.  Nitrogen and  phosphorus con-
      centrations in the mainstream  reservoirs are no longer
      limiting aquatic growth. The seasonal  pattern of nutrients
      suggests that  biological  activity is increasing,  although
      nuisance  algae has not  been  noted. Nitrate levels are
      quite high in all nine reservoirs, with  significant increases
      over the  10-year  period. Maximum concentrations occur
      primarily during  periods of high flows. Organic nitrogen
      and ammonia are also increasing.
    • Oxygen  Depletion. The water released from some reser-
      voirs during the summer months is low in dissolved oxy-
      gen due to thermal stratification.
    • Health Hazards  and Aesthetic Degradation. During sev-
      eral months each year, fecal coliforms exceed permissible
      levels  for contact recreation and  drinking water.

  Columbia River. During 1967-72, the most serious problem on
the Columbia River  was supersaturation  of atmospheric  gases
(toxic to most fish)  induced  by turbulence  at spillways. Radio-
activity levels  originate at AEC  Hanford Works. Temperature
levels reach  or exceed  desired levels in  the  summer months.
Nutrient levels (phosphorus and nitrate) exceed desirable thres-
holds primarily during the first  spring flood.
    • Harmful Substances. Supersaturation of dissolved  gases
      induced by turbulence  by spillways present toxic condi-
      tions below 13 dams along the  river. The  toxicity resulting
      in gas bubbles in the bloodstream is similar to the "bends"
      experienced by divers.  The problem is not limited to any
      particular species or age groups of fish.  Specific radionu-
      clides  that concentrate in the  food  chain  (zinc-65 and
       phosphorus-32)  continue to be  detected  at the  mouth of

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS           407

      the Columbia River and in oysters taken on the Washing-
      ton Coast.
    • Physical Modification. The general physical quality of the
      Columbia is good, but temperatures reach or exceed the
      established upper limit in August and occasionally in July
      and September. Temperature levels  are influenced by the
      many  dams  and reservoirs, and also by heat  sources
      such  as the Hanford Works.  Temperature levels  have
      shown no  observable overall change during the past 6
      years.  Other water  quality measurements  such  as solids
      pose no problem.
    • Eutrophication  Potential.  With  the  exception  of slime
      growth, sphaerotilus natens, in the lower  river,  the  bio-
      logical populations of the river are diverse and balanced—
      the  opposite  of eutrophic conditions.  Although  nitrate
      and phosphorus exceed desirable levels, particularly during
      high runoff periods, there are no  trends  suggesting  in-
      creased eutrophication.
    • Oxygen Depletion. The flow and surface characteristics of
      the river seem to be sufficient to provide dissolved oxygen
      concentrations that are very close to theoretical saturation
      limits.
    • Health Hazards and Aesthetic Degradation. From limited
      data, total and fecal coliforms levels are very low and in-
      dicate no threat to water contact and drinking water uses.

Nonpoint Sources
In addition to studying overall levels and trends, the EPA report
analyzed pollution that comes, not from specific  points  such as
sewage  treatment outfalls  or industrial  plants, but from runoff
from areas such  as  farmlands,  city  streets,  and mining areas,
and from subsurface seepage from polluted areas. While reliable
national estimates exist for point-source  pollution,  no similar
estimates exist  for nonpoint-source  pollution.  In 1971,  EPA
estimated that agriculture,  mining-, and water resource develop-
ment accounted for 31 percent of  the total pollution measured.
This estimate is not particularly useful, however, because it did
not delineate the kinds of pollutants involved, the quantity of
nonpoint source pollutants compared to point source  pollutants,
and the percent of time that nonpoint sources are active (usually
only during rainy periods).

-------
408          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

                   III. MUNICIPAL COSTS

The Status of Public Sewerage
The Nation's system of public sewerage facilities has been grow-
ing for more than a century. The first U.S. sanitary  sewer was
begun in  Chicago in 1855, only 12 years after the  world's  first
sanitary sewer system was installed in Hamburg, Germany. By
the end of that  decade  an  estimated 1  million persons  were
being served by U.S. sewers (Table III-l). The growth of sewer-
age services occurred at  a rate well  in excess of the  rate  of
population growth,  and by 1932 approximately half of the Na-
tion's  population was served  by  sanitary sewers. Today  the
sewered population is somewhat  in excess of our total urban
population.
  While the technology  of sewerage  treatment was  developed
in England during the  1840's  and 1850's, it  was  not until the
1870's that collecting  sewers in  the United States  began to  be
complemented  by  an  occasional sewerage  treatment  plant.
The number of  persons being  served  by treatment  plants ap-
parently reached  1  million in 1904, at a time  when the sewered
population  was approximately  28 million. A  great number  of
sewage treatment plants must have been installed between  1910
and 1932, for in  1932 the number of  persons  served by sewage
treatment was about  five times the number served in 1910.  By
1940, under the stimulus of "New Deal" construction programs,
the population served by  treatment facilities was almost double
that of 1932, and by  about 1957 it doubled again  to  74 million.

                            TABLE III-l
                   EXPANSION OF PUBLIC SEWERAGE SERVICES
                                               Relationships
       U.S.   Unsewered Sewered   Sewage    Sewage —
       u.o.   unacvvcicu jcticicu   .jcnagc   uciva£^	—
 Year   population populationpopulation untreated   treated Sewered population  Treated population
                                        Total population   Sewered population
(millions of persons)
1860
1870
1880
1890
1900
1904
1910
1915
1920
1930
1932
1940
1945
1948
1957
1962
1968
1973
31
39
50
63
76
82
92
99
106
123
125
133
140
145
171
186
198
210
30
34
40
47
51
54
57
57
58
62
63
66
70
72
73
68
58
47
1
5
10
16
25
28
35
42
48
61
62
67
70
73
98
118
140
163
1
5
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
27
31
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
4V
30
28
28
24
17
11
4
0
0
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
1
4
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
21
37
42
45
74
101
129
159
(expressed
3%
13
20
25
33
34
38
42
45
50
50
50
50
50
57
73
71
76
as percent)
0%
0
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
4
11
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
34
55
60
62
76
86
92
97
 Source: Based on data published  by EPA (and predecessor agencies)  in the Municipal  Waste
 Inventories.

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS           409

By 1973 approximately 159 million persons were  being served,
or more than 97 percent of the total sewered population.
  Improvements  in Waste  Treatment.  The treatment of liquid
wastes may  involve complex chemical  and biological processes.
Enormous  volumes  of  water must be  handled—SO to 600 gal-
lons per capita  per day, depending on the industrial  and com-
mercial development in a  community.  These  volumes must be
handled  under  circumstances of  radical  daily  flow  variation.
Furthermore, the materials to be removed  are  present  in minute
quantities: The "normal" concentration of BOD5 and of suspended
solids  in  sewage is about 200  milligram  per liter,  or  0.0002
pounds per pound of water.
   Given such difficulties, waste  treatment technology  developed
early in directions that featured  the acceleration  of  natural
processes in  very long-lived reactors that could function under
a  range of  operating  conditions.  These basic principles have
remained largely unchanged,  although  designs  have  been im-
proved and there has been a progressive increase in the applica-
tion of mechanical energy and chemical  processes  to  supple-
ment and accelerate natural processes.
   Our historical  knowledge  of improvements and  efficiencies of
waste  treatment methods is incomplete in  that no data on the
national distribution of waste treatment processes were gathered
prior to Engineering News  Record's 1937 survey  of  municipal-
ities. Since that  time, the Federal Government has issued inter-
mittent Mimicipal Waste Inventories, which provide data on the
distribution  of waste treatment methods and  their removal  ef-
ficiency.
   A review  of these sources  indicates that the population dis-
charging untreated  wastes into our waterways is only one-tenth
of  what it  was  in 1937  (Table  III-2).  During the 1937-73

                            TABLE 111-2
                      DEGREE OF SEWAGE TREATMENT
              No.        Primary    Intermediate    Secondary      Tertiary
Year          treatment      treatment    treatment    treatment     treatment
(millions of persons served by sanitary sewerage facilities)
1937
1940
1945
1948
1957
1962
1968
1973
Annual rate
of change,
1937-1973
35.8
29.9
27.9
28.0
23.8
17.0
10.9
3.9


-8%
16.7
15.1
17.2
18.4
25.7
32.7
36.9
46.3


+4%
2.8
3.3
3.8
3.6
5.6
7.4
5.9
5.9


+ 3%
16.3
18.9
21.7
22.7
43.3
61.2
85.6
103.9


+ 7%
. —
—
—
—
—
—
0.3
2.8


—
Sources: 1937, "Engineering News Record's" survey of municipalities 1940-73, EPA and predecessor
agencies in "Municipal Waste Inventories."

-------
410          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

period,  the number of persons whose  wastes  receive primary
treatment  (physical processes that remove roughly  90 percent
of solids and about 35 percent of BOD5)  has almost tripled.  The
population employing  secondary treatment  (biological  processes
that produce only a slight incremental reduction in  solids con-
centrations but raise removal of BOD5 to the 70 to  95 percent
level) increased more than  sixfold and  now  includes  about 63
percent of the  sewered population.
  Not only have more persons been connected to more  advanced
types of sewerage treatment facilities, but technological  modifi-
cations  have improved the removal  efficiencies of each type.  One
result is that the amount of BOD5  removed by  treatment facili-
ties  in  1973 exceeded the  total  BOD5  produced by sanitary
sewers  in 1957 (Table III-3).
  The end result of the growth in  sewerage facilities appears to
be disappointingly marginal,  however. While one  portion  of the
system, the  treatment facilities, increased by  140 percent the
amount of BOD5 diverted  from our waterways, another portion,
sanitary sewers, offset  that improvement by  delivering more
BOD5 for treatment.  These figures  may be overly pessimistic as
they  pertain to sanitary sewerage only; they do  not reflect the
net result of initiating  public treatment for  a large  (but un-
known) number of industrial facilities that previously discharged
directly into our waterways. On the other hand, they do not take
into account the increased concentration of wastes in sanitary
sewerage resulting from  such innovations as  kitchen garbage
disposals.

  Investment in Treatment Facilities. Between 1855  and 1971,
the Nation invested an  estimated $58 billion  (1972  dollars) in
its public sewerage facilities (Table III-4). This represents about
5 percent  of total State  and  local government capital expendi-
tures for all purposes since 1915 and resulted in approximately
$32 billion worth of facilities in place as of 1971.

                            TABLE 111-3
                   EFFECT OF SANITARY SEWAGE TREATMENT
Year
1957
1962
1968
1973
Collected by
sanitary
sewers*
16.4
19.8
23.3
27.1
Discharged by
Reduced by treatment
treatment** plants
(millions of pounds of BOD: per day)
7.7
10.8
15.0
18.5
8.7
9.0
8.3
8.6
 •Based on 0.167 pounds of BODs per sewered person per day.
 "Based on the distribution  of treatment facilities shown in Table 111-2 and on  estimates of re-
  moval efficiency from a variety of sources.

-------
                WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
411
                              TABLE 111-4
                   INVESTMENT IN PUBLIC SEWERAGE FACILITIES
Period

1856-69
1870-79
1880-89
1890-99
1900-09
1910-19
1920-29
1930-34
1935-39
1940-45
1946-56
1957-61
1962-67
1968-71
Totals
Gross
Investment*

$ 0.5
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.5
2.7
5.7
2.5
4.8
2.1
10.8
7.5
9.1
8.6
$58.4
Replacement!
(billions of
? 0.1
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.9
1.6
1.3
1.6
2.3
5.1
3.2
4.8
3.9
$26.1
Net
Investment
1972 dollars)
$ 0.4
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.9
1.8
4.1
1.2
3.2
('2}
5 7
4.'3
4.3
4.7
$32.3
End-of-period
capitalization

? 0.4
0.9
1.5
2.3
3.2
5.0
9.1
10.3
13.5
13.3
19.0
23.3
27.6
32.3

  •Based on data published by the Department of Commerce and by  EPA; all values converted to
   1972  dollars through  use of EPA's sewerage  construction cost indices  and the discontinued
   Associated General Contractor's Index of Construction Costs.
  tEstimated funds required to "replace" existing facilities, rather than add new  capacity. Com-
   puted at a  rate of 2  percent for sewers and 4 percent for plants, based  on estimates of the
   relative weight of each  in each period.

   Two aspects of this series of  investments stand out.  First,
the bulk of sewerage capital has  been installed very recently—
almost 80  percent since  1929,  60  percent since World War II,
and more than 30 percent since 1961. Second, the stock of capi-
tal in  place is  so large  compared to annual investments  that
replacement  of  existing  facilities  has  absorbed  approximately
50 percent  of all  capital  expenditures since  1961.  The current
level of replacement  costs  is close to $1 billion a year and rising
in proportion  to the growth of the capital stock.

The Needs Survey
The estimated cost of constructing needed public sewerage facili-
ties  is $60.1  billion, according to a survey EPA  conducted  in
mid-1973.1 The "Needs" Survey, which was required by Section
516 (b) (2)  of the  1972 Amendments, covered only those treat-
ment and  collection facilities that  are  eligible  for  Federal  assist-
ance and meet the criteria of the survey. Nevertheless, these costs
are approximately equal to the Nation's total investment in public
sewerage  facilities since  the first  sanitary sewer  was  built  in
1855.

   Conduct of the  Survey. In  mid-1973,  the  States were  asked
to distribute  survey questionnaires to all  municipal treatment
authorities that  could  be  identified within  Standard Metropoli-
tan Statistical Areas  (SMSA's), and also to all authorities out-
  1 Costs of Construction of Publicly-Owned Wastewater Treatment Works—
1973 Needs Survey.  EPA report to Congress, November 1973.

-------
412          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

side  SMSA's serving communities of  10,000  or  more. Thirty-
five States chose to sample communities of less than 10,000 out-
side  SMSA's,  in  which case the  costs reported in  the sample
were increased in proportion to the sample coverage. The remain-
ing 15  States  surveyed all  communities.  Municipal treatment
authorities sent their completed questionnaires to the States for
review and approval. After further review and editing by EPA
Regional Offices, the survey data were compiled by  State and for
the Nation as a whole.

  Costs were reported for facilities in five categories, as follows:

    • Category I—Secondary Treatment Required by 1972 Act.
      This category includes costs for  facilities that would pro-
      vide a  legally required  level  of "secondary"  treatment.
      As a minimum under the 1972  Amendments, all municipal
      treatment  facilities are  required to  reduce  BOD5, sus-
      pended solids, and fecal  coliforms  by July  1, 1977 to at
      least the level established by EPA in  its  definition  of
      "secondary" treatment. This level of treatment meets or
      exceeds the requirements of water quality standards for
      many waterways. Facilities along some waterways are re-
      quired, however, to reduce these types  of pollutants still
      further to meet water quality standards. The costs for this
      additional "secondary" treatment are also included in Cat-
      egory I.
    • Category II—Treatment "More Stringent"  than Secon-
      dary Required by Water Quality  Standards.  This category
      includes costs for facilities that would  remove pollutants
      such as  phosphorus, ammonia, nitrate,  and  organic sub-
      stances to  the extent required  by legally binding Federal,
      State,  or  local actions.  Such actions  include an  EPA-
      approved water quality  plan,  an administrative or court
      order, a license, and water quality  standards that are
      binding on the treatment facility. These costs are in addi-
      tion to those for secondary treatment reported in Category
      I.

    • Category III—Rehabilitation of Seivers to  Correct  Infil-
      tration and Inflow. Costs could  be reported in this cate-
      gory for a preliminary analysis  to determine if excessive
      infiltration and inflow exist. If such an  analysis had been
      completed  by  the  time  of the  survey  and  showed that
      infiltration/inflow did exist, the expense of a detailed eval-

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES  AND REPORTS           413

      uation of the cost of rehabilitation  of the  sewer system
      could be reported. If such  an  evaluation was already com-
      pleted at the time  of the survey, the costs of facilities
      could be reported.
    • Category IV—New  Sewers. This category consists  of the
      costs of  new collector and interceptor sewers designed  to
      correct violations caused  by  raw  discharges, seepage  to
      waters from  septic  tanks, and the  like,  or to  comply
      with legally binding Federal,  State, or local actions.  As
      provided  in the 1972  Amendments,  costs  could be  re-
      ported only if the community had sufficient existing  or
      planned  capacity to  treat adequately the collected sewage,
      and only for communities existing prior to enactment  of
      the  1972 Amendments.  (Collectors for new communities,
      new subdivisions, and  newly  developed urban areas are
      excluded.)
    • Category V—Correction of Overflows from Combined Sew-
      ers. Costs  could be  reported,  when  required by legally
      binding Federal, State, or  local action, for correcting peri-
      odic bypassing of untreated wastes from combined sanitary
      and storm sewers. The alternative methods  for correction
      must  have been evaluated,  however, and  the  reported
      costs based on  the most  economical or efficient alternative.
  The costs for facilities reported in each category were subject
to three overall constraints:
    • Costs are in June 1973 dollars.
    • Costs are estimated for  facilities  designed to  serve  no
      more than  the  1990 population projected for each State
      by the Bureau of the Census in its "series  E" projection
      published in December 1972.
    • Only those costs and facilities that could be clearly  de-
      fined and  documented  are reported. As  a result,  some
      types of facilities eligible for  Federal assistance under the
      1972 Amendments  are excluded—primarily  treatment fa-
      cilities that would  achieve  "best  practicable  treatment
      technology" and the 1985  goal of "zero discharge," and
      facilities  for prevention, control,  and treatment of pollu-
      tion from storm waters that do not flow  through com-
      bined sewers.

  Survey Results. The  costs reported  in the survey and meeting
EPA review criteria  totaled $60.1 billion (Table III-5), broken
down as  follows:

-------
414
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
Category I
Category II
Category III
Category IV
Category V
Billions of
1973 dollars
$16.6
5.6
.7
24.4
12.7
Total $60.1
TABLE 111-5
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR NEW PUBLIC TREATMENT FACILITIES
(FROM NEEDS SURVEY)*










Region 1
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Region II
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Region III
Delaware
Maryland
Virginia
West Virginia
Pennsylvania
District of Columbia
Region IV
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Region V
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Uhio
Wisconsin
Region VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Texas
Oklahoma
Region VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska



Total
costs






? 1,409
364
1,485
508
367
168

3,382
8,032
590
44

329
681
1,345
614
4,210
1,081

444
2,371
1,031
1,032
268
900
757
695

4,089
1,040
3,325
1,065
2,833
787

355
451
115
889
624

502
671
972
404
1— Im-
prove-
ment of
treat-
ment
plants to
achieve
secon-
dary
level


? 179
124
459
174
61
65

1,458
1,556
169
13

84
217
516
96
884
2

130
747
338
165
88
353
326
234

1,009
243
525
310
691
212

97
94
54
297
208

236
141
442
1Z1
II— Im-
prove-
ment
of treat- III— Cor-
ment
plants to
achieve
more
stringent
treat-
ment
levels
(millions

$ 46
1
51
13
7
16

321
731
. —
—

7
139
137
3
133
48

19
144
136
84
60
152
6
10

805
107
115
41
482
45

1
—
	
4
21

44
24
9
—
rection
of infil-
tration
/inflow
condi-
tions


of 1973

? 18
1
11
2
1
1

18
11
2
—

4
2
12
14
40
1

4
32
7
9
5
3
5
5

41
3
14
9
342
13

—
3

7
2

7
2
3
3
IVa— Eli-
gible
new in-
tercep-
tors,
force
mains,
pumping
stations

dollars)

$ 205
135
251
152
94
34

851
1,878
225
19

110
227
345
224
538
2

161
699
303
324
75
244
237
223

353
192
820
187
668
229

126
157
12
355
256

141
167
329
20

IVb— Eli-
gible
new
collec-
tors





$ 225
87
77
102
169
32

532
876
194
12

62
95
208
268
1,026
1

130
746
200
293
40
148
183
211

422
91
992
163
409
121

130
197
49
225
137

50
316
189
25
V— Reduc-
tion
of com-
bined
sewer
over-
flows




$ 736
16
636
65
35
20

202
2,880
• —
—

62
1
127
9
1,589
1,027

—
3
47
157
. — .
—
—
12

1,459
404
859
355
241
167

1
—
—
—
—

24
21
	
235

-------
               WATER—GUIDELINES AND  REPORTS
                          TABLE 111-5 (Continued)
415











Region VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Region IX
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
American Samoa
Guam
Trust Territories
wake isiana
Region X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Total




Total
costs






426
74
46
43
225
40

237
6,050
523
227
8
22
8
—

205
112
568
1,080
$60,123
1— Im-
prove-
ment of
treat-
ment
plants to
achieve
secon-
dary
level


175
34
17
31
148
20

76
2,190
222
39
4
17
4
—

80
40
140
284
$16,639
II— Im-
prove-
ment
of treat-
ment
plants to
achieve
more
stringent
treat-
ment
levels
(millions

20

	
3
. 	
—

3
1,531
4
119

. 	
. 	
—

	
3

5
$5,650

III— Cor-
rection
of infil-
tration
/inflow
condi-
tions


of 1973

20
1
	
1
1


	
6
	
	
	
	
—
—

	
2
2
2
$691
IVa— Eli-
gible
new in-
tercep-
tors
force
mains,
pumping
stations

dollars)

115
25
13
6
22
10

73
1,022
213
47
3
3
2
—

73
33
146
247
$13,621


IVb— Eli-
gible
new
collec-
tors





74
13
8
2
53
10

86
527
84
22
1
2
2
—

44
35
130
299
$10,825

V— Reduc-
tion
of com-
bined
sewer
over-
flows




22
1
8

1
—

—
774
	
_
, 	 .
^—
	
_

8
_ —
150
243
$12,697
  "Costs ineligible under the survey guidelines are  excluded. Costs are affected by limitations of
survey  design,  inconsistency in  reporting,  variations  in  planning  status  among  States,
and other variables explained in the  report. Therefore, the costs should not be considered  in-
dicative of equitable shares  for Individual  States or of total funds  required to meet "needs"
without careful review of the report's limitations.

As shown in Table III-6,  the costs reported amount to $286 per
capita on a nationwide basis.
   For a number of reasons, the reported costs are  considered to
underestimate the  actual  expenditures necessary to provide even
the kinds of facilities that meet the survey guidelines. The major
factors involved are:
     • Costs  reported in  Category  I  and  II do  not reflect the
       additional treatment that will have to be provided in  re-
       sponse  to the  revisions in water quality  standards now
       underway in many States.
     • Costs reported in Category V reflect only a fraction of the
       total  expenditures that could  have  been  justified  under
       the survey guidelines if more localities had completed the
       required  studies. By crudely extrapolating  the results of
       the few  studies  available,  EPA estimates  that facilities
       required  to reduce the major pollution concentrations in
       combined sewer overflows by 50 to 85 percent would cost
       from $40 to  $80 billion, rather  than the $12.7 billion indi-
       cated by  the survey.

-------
416
LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n
                                          TABLE  III-6
           PER CAPITA  COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF  NEW  PUBLIC TREATMENT FACILITIES
                                     (FROM NEEDS SURVEY)*
                                                         1972
                                                                                  1990
                                  Total costs
                                  (millions of
                                  1973 dollars)
                             Population
                              (OOO's)
Costs per
  capita
Projected
population    Costs per
  (OOO's)       capita
Region I
   Connecticut	$ 1,409         3,082       $457         3,946       $357
   Maine  	    364         1,029        354          1,142         319
   Massachusetts   	  1,485         5,787        257          7,052         211
   New  Hampshire  	    508           771        659           907         560
   Rhode Island  	    367           968        379          1,134         324
   Vermont  		    168           462        364           536         313

Region II
   New  Jersey  	  3,382         7,367        459          8,822         383
   New York  	  .  8,032        18,366        437         21,799         368
   Puerto  Rico  	  .   	      590           —        —           	         	
   Virgin  Islands  	     44           —        —           —         —

 Region  III
   Delaware   	  .  	    329           565        582           732         449
   Maryland   	  	    681         4,056        168          5,001         136
   Virginia   	  1,345         4,764        282          5,958         226
   West Virginia  	    614         1,781        345          1,811         339
   Pennsylvania  	  4,210        11,926        353         13,332         316
   District  of Columbia  	 __  1,081           748       1,445           764       1,415

 Region IV
   Alabama  	  	    444          3,510         126          3,850        115
   Florida  	   2,371          7,259         327          9,159        259
   Georgia  	 	   1,031          4,720         218          5,667        182
   Kentucky  	   1,032          3,299         313          3,741        276
   Mississippi	    268          2,263         118          2,359        114
   North  Carolina   ..    ..    	    900          5,214         173          5,880        153
   South  Carolina  	   .  _   __         757          2,665         284          3,023        250
   Tennessee    . 	  .  .  .    695          4,031         172          4,800        145

 Region V
   Illinois  	   4,089         11,251         363         13,177        310
   Indiana	   1,040          5,291         197         6,433        162
   Michigan  	   	 	   3,325          9,082         366        10,961        303
   Minnesota        .          ._--_.   1,065          3,896         273         4,577        233
   Ohio        .               	   2,833         10,783         263         13,202        215
   Wisconsin     	  ...	     787          4,520         174         5,218        151

 Region VI
   Arkansas  	  	  	     355          1,978         179         2,068        172
   Louisiana   	     451          3,720         121         4,159        108
   New Mexico                _-.   -.     115          1,063         108         1,232          93
   Texas  	  ..  _.    .    	  -     889         11,649          76         13,666          65
   Oklahoma  	  	 	     624          2,634         236         2,942        212

 Region VII
   Iowa                       ...   .     502          2,883         174         3,053        164
   Kansas                     _-.   _-    671          2,258        297         2,509        267
   Missouri               .    	    972         4,753        205         5,488         177
   Nebraska   .  	 	    404         1,525        265          1,562        257


   "Colorado              -    	    426         2,357        181         2,848         150
   Montana   .:	     74           719        103            714         104
   North  Dakota  	     46           632         73            606          76
   South  Dakota  	-.     43           679         63            643          67
   Utah                             -     225          1,126        200          1,293         174
   Wyoming  	     40           345        116            348         115

  Region  IX
    Arizona  	    237          1,945        122          2,500          95
    California  	   6,050        20,468        296         26,601         227
    Hawaii  	    523           809        646            962         544
    Nevada  	    227           527        431            829         274
    American Samoa  	      8           —        —            —         —
    Guam	     22           —        	            	         —
    Trust  Territories  __ 	      8           —        	            	         	
    Wake  Island    	      0           —        —            —         —


                                         205           325        631            408         502
    Idaho  	    112           756         148            758         148

-------
                WATER—GUIDELINES AND  REPORTS             417

                          TABLE 111-6 (Continued)


Oregon
Washington . .
Total


Total costs
(millions of
1973 dollars)
568
1,080
$60,123

19
Population
(000 's)
2 182
3,443
208,232

72
Costs per
capita
260
314
$286

199i
Projected
population
(OOO's)
2,493
4,194
246,859

0
Costs per
capita
228
258
$241t

  'Costs ineligible under the survey guidelines are excluded. Costs  are  affected by limitations of
survey design, inconsistency in  reporting, variations in planning status  among States,  and other
variables explained in the  report. Therefore, the costs should  not be considered indicative of
equitable shares for individual  States or of total  funds required  to  meet "needs" without careful
review of report's limitations.
  fExcluding  Puerto Rico and Territories.

It is possible that, had all the required studies been completed, the
total  costs in all five categories would have been  roughly  double
the amount actually  reported.

   Comparisons to  Previous Surveys. Local estimates of the cost
of needed municipal  treatment  facilities have been consolidated
into overall  national totals almost every year  since  1959. The
Conference of State Sanitary Engineers made  estimates from 1959
to 1966 in its annual report. The  Federal Water  Pollution Control
Adminisrtation and EPA have made annual estimates since 1969.
The Federal estimates are based on information about existing
facilities and pending needs, much of it assembled by State water
pollution control agencies. EPA  supplemented  this information
in 1970 and in 1971 with  surveys of cities with the largest anti-
cipated needs.  These various estimates show an  incessant growth
in estimated "needs" (Table III-7). Unfortunately, it is difficult
to compare these individual estimates, for several reasons:
     • Most  surveys have focused on only  those projects eligible
       for  Federal financial assistance. The  1972  Amendments
       expanded the categories of eligbile projects to include col-
       lection sewers,  infiltration/inflow, and  separation of com-
       bined sewers. In  addition, previous  surveys  focused  on
       the "backlog of unmet needs," while the  costs included in
       the  1973 survey presumably provide for  future growth in
       service and replacement of existing  facilities as well.

                               TABLE 111-7
          ESTIMATES OF CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW PUBLIC TREATMENT
                           FACILITIES, 1962-1971
                                                            Estimate
             Source                             Year        (billions of dollars)
Conference of  State Sanitary Engineers 	  1962            $ 2.0
Conference of  State Sanitary Engineers . ___ 	 ___  1966             2.6
Federal Water  Pollution Control Administration ..  	   1969            10.0
Environmental  Protection Agency  	  1970            12.6
Environmental  Protection Agency	 	  1971            18.1

-------
418          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

    • The characteristics  of water quality to be measured and
      the level of treatment intensity to be  attained have con-
      tinued to increase.

    • Inflation—as  measured by the EPA indices  of sewerage
      construction  costs—has  continued, amounting to 22 per-
      cent between 1970 and 1972, and averaging approximately
      8 percent a year between 1967 and 1972.

    • As more Federal funds have become available,  local offi-
      cials have  been encouraged to refine and update their es-
      timates. The  1973 survey, in particular, was intended  to
      serve as the sole basis for allocating Federal  funds among
      the States.
    • The 1973 survey covered far more localities  than  did the
      previous estimates. Also, more  engineering studies, which
      have generally proven higher than rule-of-thumb estimates,
      were available as a basis for detailed cost estimates.
    • EPA's  1970 survey covered a 43-month future investment
      period,  the 1971 survey a 60-month period. The  1973 sur-
      vey did not specify  a period, but localities  are faced with
      the requirement of  meeting effluent limitations based on
      secondary  treatment by mid-1977, thereby accelerating de-
      sired construction schedules.

  Validity  of  the Survey Approach. The primary advantage  of
surveys such  as  the  ones  discussed is that they can provide a
means for  acquiring cost data  from the local level, where spe-
cific costs can best be identified and calculated. However,  there
are a number of limitations to this approach,  in addition  to
the lack of comparability,  A recent study pointed out that indi-
vidual estimates  of  needs  may  be  based upon varying rules-of-
thumb or upon engineering studies,  and that costs may be ex-
pressed in current  or constant dollars.2 Surveys may reflect the
summation of individual estimates  of desired construction  activ-
ity, rather than  the activities  that  are actually anticipated  to
occur. For reasons such as these, EPA has  generally constructed
alternative cost estimates based upon overall statistical functions
for unit costs, growth, and capital  replacement. Such alternative
cost estimates are currently under development.
  * Frumkin, Norman. Capital Investment for Water Pollution Control at the
State and Local Level. EPA contract no. 68-01-0164. August 1972.

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS           419

                  IV. INDUSTRIAL COSTS

  The emphasis  of  this chapter  is  on the costs  industry will
incur in meeting  1977 effluent standards set by the 1972 Amend-
ments. The Amendments require industries to use  "best practic-
able" water  pollution control  technology  by mid-1977 and the
"best available" by mid-1983.
  The examination of industrial costs is divided into two parts.
The first  is  a very  broad analysis and discussion of the costs
associated with meeting the  1977 standards,  excluding those re-
lated to utility steam-electric  generating  plants. The costs are
developed  for 15 industrial  groupings that  encompass virtually
all  industrial water-polluting  activity. The  second section  ex-
amines the  costs and impacts  associated  with utility  steam-
electric generating plants. This control problem is  discussed sep-
arately, primarly because of its distinct nature.

Nonthermal  Costs
While municipal  sources  are generally the  largest contributors
of water pollutants, industrial wastes frequently present the most
difficult control problems. Municipal waste water does not, as  a
rule, vary greatly in pollutant  content and concentration. In con-
trast,  content and concentration  vary widely in  the  industrial
sector, depending on the type of industry and the  specific manu-
facturing  process used. The  wide  variations present problems  of
data  collection and analysis, making- a definitive  assessment  of
costs virtually impossible at this time. The results,  therefore,
should be  viewed only as improvements over earlier assessments
of industrial pollution costs.

Scope
The cost  estimates  presented are based  upon  best  practicable
technology,  which industry  must  be using by  1977.  Estimates
based on best available technology and zero  discharge were not
made for  this report.  In certain cases, however, best  practicable
technology will require zero  discharge.
  Estimates  are  developed  for a total of 15  major  industrial
groups defined   by  Standard Industrial  Classifications  (SIC)
(Table IV-1). Animal feedlot operations,  while  not involving
manufacturing,  are included  because  their  discharges may  be
controlled on a point-source  basis.
  While a number of alternatives are available to industries to
control wastewater, the report assumes that industries will treat
the  wastes  it produces  on-site. Other alternatives, such as in-

-------
420           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
                              TABLE IV-1
          INDUSTRIES FOR WHICH WATER POLLUTION CONTROL COSTS ARE ESTIMATED
   SIC Code no.                        Definition
      02                 Animal feedlots
      20                 Food and kindred products
      22                 Textile mill products
      24                 Lumber and wood products
      26                 Paper and allied products
      28                 Chemicals and allied products
      29                 Petroleum refining and related industries
      30                 Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products
      31                 Leather and leather products
      32                 Stone, clay, glass, and concrete products
      33                 Primary metals
      34                 Fabricated metals products
      35                 Nonelectrical machinery
      36                 Electrical and electronic machinery
      37                 Transportation equipment

creased  recycling and modification of the manufacturing process
to use less water, would probably not be as costly as on-site treat-
ment. Joint  industrial-municipal treatment  is  another  alterna-
tive.  However, data  are not available to cost out these options.
   The type of cost information  developed on  the  15 industries
includes: the dollar value  of capital  investment in water pollu-
tion  control  facilities currently in place, the  additional  capital
investment required,  and  the  distribution of these investments
by industries, States, and regions.

Study Design
In developing  the industrial  cost  model, the  following  ground
rules were  established for data collection and use:
     • The most recent data on water use,  industrial  plants,
       and  costs of control alternatives were to be used.
     • Existing data  would  be used, rather  than developing in-
       dependent data.
     • Compatibility  would  be maintained  where possible with
       the  data developed  for  prior reports on  the  economics of
       clean water.
   The  actual industrial cost model was developed  in  the 1972
Economics  of Clean Water.1 It is best summarized by an informa-
tional flow chart (Figure IV-1):
     • Aggregate data from Water Use  in Manufacturing were
       converted to indicate total water use for each manufac-
       turing employee  by SIC code and  17 water use regions.2
       For this  analysis,  the following regions  are combined:
   1 Economics of Clean Water, 1972. EPA. Vol. 2.
   21967 Census of Manufacturers:  Water Use  in Manufacturing. Bureau of
the Census. Report No. MC67(l)-7.  1971. Data are for 1968.

-------
               WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS            421

      Cumberland and Tennessee, Alaska and Pacific Northwest,
      and Hawaii  and California. Six water use scenarios were
      developed based upon different assumptions  about  water
      use efficiencies (Table IV-2). The 1968 data  indicate a
      large difference in industrial water use per employee based
      on  geographical   location.  Additionally, the geographic
      areas with  low water use per employee were areas with
      little available water or with low quality water. This use
      pattern  indicates  either  that  different  specific processes
      are used in different areas or that  water  is  used  more
      economically in certain areas. Since economizing on water
      is an alternative to treatment and may be less costly, this
      report identifies and simulates a series of possible water-
      use scenarios that might more realistically represent water
      use today than the 1968 water-use data.
       Model  computations were  made to  determine the total
      annual water use  for each  manufacturing sector listed in
      an extract of  the  Dun's  Market Identifiers  (DMI)  file of
      nearly 250,000 plants.3 Totals  were computed taking into
       consideration  employment,  SIC, and  water-use  region. A
       plant was  eliminated  from further  consideration  if its
       annual  water  use was less than  1  million  gallons. For
       plants using more, capital and operation and maintenance
       (O&M)  costs  were  computed  for  each of  the required
  3 Dun's Market Identifiers (DMI),  Computer file  maintained by  Dun  &
Bradstreet, Inc., and available to EPA under contract (extract of June 1973
file used).
                              TABLE IV-2
                          WATER USE SCENARIOS
Scenario
number
1
2
3t
Description
Water-use efficiencies not changed from 1968
efficiencies *
Efficiency of the least efficient water-use region
increased to that of the next to the least efficient -
Efficiencies of the eipht least efficient regions
1972
Report
Used
- Used

1973
Report
Used
Used

         (nearly half of the regions) increased to half way
         between their 1968 efficiency and the median regional
         efficiency in 1968  -  	 - Not used         Used
         Efficiencies of the eight  least efficient regions in-
         creased to the efficiency of the 1968  median  region  ._  Used            Used
         Efficiencies of the 10 least efficient regions  in-
         creased to the efficiency of the least efficient of
         the remaining regions  	  	 Used            Used
         Efficiencies of all 17 regions increased to that of the
         most efficient region in 1968 	 -- Used            Used
  •Efficiencies pertain to water use per employee within an industrial classification.
  •(•Considered in this report to be the most likely to occur.

-------
422
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
                           FIGURE  IV-1
 COMPUTATION OF INDUSTRIAL COSTS OF WATER POLLUTION  CONTROL
    Data from
   Water Use in
  Manufacturing
  (Water Use
  Scenarios)
                               Dun's
                               Market
                              Identifiers
    Cost
Requirements
   Model
                             Output by
                             SIC, State,
                               Region
                               Output
                             Information
  Control
 Costs and
   Other
Cost Factors

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS           423

      treatment  types. The  costs,  along with descriptive data,
      were saved for use in the various summaries.
    • Cost data were converted to equations that relate  the
      daily water  use or  flow requiring treatment  to  each of
      the 12 treatment types listed in Table IV-3. For each SIC,
      one  or more of the treatment processes was assumed to
      be required for a certain percentage of plant flow.
    • An  output program was  developed that  aggregated  the
      individual  plant data  by  SIC (2-, 3-, or 4-digit), EPA
      Region, State,  and  water-use region.  Summaries of this
      information constituted the outputs of the  modelling proc-
      ess.

Comparison With The 1972 Report
The methods used to compute the industrial costs of water pollu-
tion control were modified somewhat from those used in the 1972
report. The most  significant modifications were made in the com-
putational  procedures  and  the  input data files:
    • Efficiency  of water  use scenarios. Water Use Scenario 3,
      (the eight least efficient regions  move closer  to  the me-
      dian regional efficiency in 1968)  was added. It appears the
      most likely scenario for 1972-77  because  it represents  a
      realistic adjustment in water use by older plants.
    • Dun's  Market Identifier. The most recent (1973) DMI file
      was  used, and the method  of plant selection was  changed
      from the 1972  analysis. In the  1972  report, the largest
      14,499 plants were selected from the  file  on the  basis of
      employment.   This  subset,  generally  corresponding  to
      water  use  greater than  10 million gallons per year, was
      then used for all scenarios.  In this year's assessment, water
      use  was  calculated for all plants, and those plants that
      used water in  excess of 1 million gallons per year were
      retained. This produced a total of 148,074 plants  for Sce-
      nario  1.  Somewhat  fewer plants were modeled  for  the
      other five scenarios, since  fewer plants passed the 1 mil-
      lion  gallons per year criterion. (A use  of 1 million gallons
      per year corresponds to the average annual use of only 30
      people. Plants using less than this amount are  most likely
      using  municipal treatment facilities,  or  applying their
      discharges to land.)  Table IV-4 compares the number of
      plants included  in the two reports and the corresponding
      water  used.
    • Cost curves.  The cost curves were prepared especially for

-------
424
LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n
                               TABLE IV-3

                      TYPES OF WATER TREATMENT MODELED
            Treatment code
                                    Treatment process
                 1
                 2
                 3
                 4
                 5
                 6
                 7
                 8
                 9
                10
                11
                12
                     Oil separation
                     Equalization
                     Coagulation
                     Neutralization
                     Air flotation
                     Sedimentation
                     Aeration
                     Natural stabilization
                     Chlorination
                     Evaporation
                     Incineration
                     Activated sludge
                               TABLE IV-4

NUMBER OF PLANTS AND WATER USE IN  1972 AND 1973  REPORTS ON ECONOMICS OF CLEAN WATER*
SIC
code no.
20
22
24
26
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Number of plants
Industry
Food and kindred products
Textile mill products

Paper and allied products 	
Chemicals and allied products ..
Petroleum refining and
Rubber and miscellaneous
plastics products 	 ...
Leather and leather products ___
Stone, clay, glass, and
concrete products
Primary metals
Fabricated metal products
Nonelectrical machinery 	
Electrical and electronic
machinery - 	 	
Transportation equipment
Total

1972 report
4,494
1,021
405
862
1,421
334
459
215
945
1,137
1,037
790
817
562
14,499
1973 report
23,034
7,439
18,439
5,451
12,426
1,825
6,234
3,345
14,865
6,251
17,487
14,479
8,304
4,976
144,555
Water use (mgy)f
1972 report
743,829
193,383
89,627
2,111,424
1,235,840
313,161
48,037
51,027
190,163
1,358,716
79,555
70,995
109,859
82,337
6,677,953
1973 report
973,741
323,727
408,493
3,059,948
2,125,533
337,377
90,481
127,090
619,374
1,251,163
213,376
146,502
161,153
169,379
10,007,337
  'Excluding feedlots.
  tMilhon gallons per year.
        this  study by Associated  Water  and  Air  Resource  En-
        gineers, Inc.4  The costs were adjusted to 1972 dollars. The
        cost  curves in the 1972 reports were distilled from indus-
        trial  wastewater guidelines prepared  for  EPA  and its
        predecessor agencies.

        Industry coverage. Animal feedlots,  SIC 02, were included
        in this series of reports for the first time.

        Costs  incurred by new plants. The costs incurred by  new
        plants were based on  national projected growth rates for
        each industry. The rates  were obtained from the National
        Planning  Association's   National  Economic  Projections
   4 Analysis of National Industrial Water Pollution Control Costs. Associated

 Water and Air  Resources Engineers, Inc., Nashville,  Tenn.  EPA Contract

 No. 67-01-1536. May 1973.

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS           425

      Series.5 The 1972 report assumed that all  industries ex-
      panded at 7.8 percent over the period 1972-1977.

Summary of Industries
The final  cost figures are presented in terms of broad industry
groups.  In many cases, however, the treatment procedure within
a group had  to be modified  to  accommodate internal industry
variations. Not only  were the water use  ratios varied,  but the
actual treatment process  had to be changed for different types
of plants within the same basic industry.
  Animal Feedlots, SIC 02. The primary reason  for including
animal feedlots is the specific  language  of the 1972 Amendments,
which require feedlots—along with the more conventional  cate-
gories of  industry—to  conform to effluent standards and to  be
subject  to waste discharge permits.
  A feedlot can generally  be  defined as a high concentration of
animals held in a  small area  for extended periods  of time for
agricultural production purposes  and  fed  specially  transported
foods. The following are the major subcategories requiring  efflu-
ent controls:

             SIC  Code             Subcategories
             0211                  Beef cattle
             0213                  Hogs
             0214                  Sheep
             0241                  Dairy farms
             0251, 0252            Chickens and eggs
             0253                  Turkeys
             0259                  Ducks
             0272                  Horses

  Of these  eight categories, beef cattle, hogs, and dairy farms
were selected for detailed analysis. Chickens, turkeys, sheep, and
horses were not studied in detail because their current produc-
tion does  not  present as  great a  pollution potential. Data  were
not available to support analysis of duck feedlots.
  The  results of  the analysis  are shown in Table IV-5. The
values  were derived from data covering lots of various  capaci-
ties. The incidence of rain was used in the analysis rather than
water use, since the pollution controlled is runoff  as opposed to
process  water. Thus,  the methodology for  cost calculation is dif-
  5 Scott, Graham C.  U.S. Economic and Demographic  Projections: 1972-
1981.  National  Economic Projections  (Report  No.  72-N-2).  National
Planning Association,  Washington, D.C. January 1973.

-------
426           LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
                            TABLE IV-5
          COSTS FOR PROJECTED FEEDLOTS TO MEET 1977 EFFLUENT STANDARDS

Number of lots
Capital costs, 1972 plants . . . .. .
O&M costs, 1972 plants
Total annual cost, 1972 plants
Capital in place, 1972
Additional capital required, 1972 plants
Capital costs, 1977 plants
O&M costs, 1977 plants .- 	
Additional capital required, 1977 plants
Total annual cost, 1977 plants

Beef cattle
100,000
. - . 286
38
71
146
140
300
	 39
. „ . 154
	 74

Hogs*
330,000
(millions of
423
36
92
183
240
545
46
362
118

Dairy cattle
240 000
1972 dollars)
416
27
52
130
286
429
28
299
55

Total
670,000
1,125
101
215
459
666
1,274
113
815
247

  *1969 Department of Agriculture data include feedlots with a gross income greater than $2,500.
  Source: Economic  Analysis of Proposed  Effluent Guidelines,  Feedlots  Industry.  Development
Planning and Research Associates, Inc. Manhattan, Kansas. EPA-230/1-73-008. August 1973.
  NOTE: Costs are based on all feedlots meeting 1977 effluent standards.

ferent from that  previously described and  applied  to the other
industries.
  Food and Kindred  Products, SIC 20. While wastes from food
industries generally require biological treatment, differences in
raw waste BOD5 concentrations and other treatment  requirements
specific to each segment of  the industry  required that several of
the segments  be separately  analyzed.
  Textile Mill Products, SIC 22. Segments of the textile industry
engaged  in   dyeing  and  finishing   of  textile  products  were
analyzed  together.  Separate designs  were made for  cotton and
synthetics plants,  and  for  wood processing.  Plants engaged in
scouring  and topping of wool  were  not included primarily be-
cause of data deficiencies.
  Lumber and Wood  Products, SIC 24.  The major  categories in
the industry  are  involved in  the manufacture of assorted  wood
products  such as plywood and flooring. One treatment configura-
tion was used based on representative  requirements.
  Paper  and Allied Products, SIC 26. Several  different designs
were necessary for adequate  treatment of the  paper industry.
Because water use information was available for only the entire
category  of pulp  mills, a single waste treatment sequence was
developed based on average raw waste  characteristics. In  addi-
tion, because  pulp mills are frequently integrated into complexes
manufacturing  both pulp and paper, one design was done for
these two segments  of the industry. Additional designs  were
included for paperboard mills and for building board  mills.
  Chemicals  and Allied Products,  SIC  28. Because  of the in-
dustry's great diversity, no standard treatment  procedure  could
be  assigned  to all  4-digit  SIC  codes involved in  the  chemical

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS           427

industry. The industry was divided into 15 subclasses that en-
compass the major sections of the industry.
  Petroleum Refining and Related Industries, SIC 29. The great-
est waste volumes in the petroleum industry stem from  the re-
fining of petroleum,  SIC 2911. A  separate treatment procedure
was used for the remainder of the  industry.
  Rubber and Miscellaneous  Plastics Products, SIC 30. One
treatment configuration was used to handle wastewater from the
rubber and plastics classification.
  Leather and Leather Products, SIC 31. All  significant waste-
water volumes from this industry result from the  tanning and
finishing of leather, SIC 3111. Treatment provided this category
was based on plants that  process skins of cattle, pigs, and sheep.
  Stone, Clay,  Glass, and Concrete Products, SIC 32. The most
significant quantities of  wastes in stone, clay,  glass,  and con-
crete products  stem  from the production  of cement,  SIC 3241.
A total containment treatment  scheme was developed for this
segment of the industry.  Wastes produced in other  parts of the
industry are  generally amenable to the same type of treatment,
so that only one treatment  design was used.
  Primary Metals, SIC 33. The  major source of wastewater for
the primary metals industry is the  production of steel, SIC 3311.
Treatment of wastewaters arising from seven different steel pro-
duction  processes were included. Treatment schemes  were pre-
pared for the primary aluminum industry, SIC 3334,  as  well as
the smelting and refining of several other metals.
  Fabricated Metal Products,  SIC 34; Nonelectrical Machinery,
SIC 35; and Electrical and Electronic Machinery, SIC 36.  Wastes
originating from  fabricated metals and the  machinery industry
can generally be handled by one of  two treatment schemes. Four-
digit SIC categories producing  significant waste volumes were
identified and assigned to one of the two schemes.
  Transportation Equipment,  SIC 37. Treatment of wastes in
the  transportation equipment industry poses a difficult problem
because of the integration of  many manufacturing  facilities.
Treatment of wastes from the  motor vehicle  industry was de-
veloped based on  average waste flows identified in  recent EPA
reports.

Capital In-Place
The amount of water pollution abatement equipment in use was
determined in order to compute  the amount  of additional invest-
ment  required  to meet the 1977 effluent  standards. The deter-

-------
428          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
                            TABLE IV-6
         CAPITAL IN PLACE FOR INDUSTRIAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT
SIC
code no. Industry
02
20
22
24
26
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Animal feedlots t - -
Food and kindred products 	
Textile mill products
Lumber and wood products f ...
Paper and allied products
Chemical and allied products
Petroleum refining and
related industries
Rubber and miscellaneous
plastics products
Leather and leather products t --
Stone, clay, glass, and
concrete products
Primary metals
Fabricated metal products 	
Nonelectrical machinery
Electrical and electronic
machinery
Transportation equipment 	
Total _. .. 	

Total
initial
1968
155
42
11
219
733
291
5
11
21
260
290
20
44
29
2,131
1969*
1970*
1971*
1972*
(millions of 1972 dollars)
459
28 40 50 52
6 7 13 6
79 73 113 114
37 84 151 189
133 155 190 123
4 22 25 29
31 28 26 39
138 148 124 93
24 27 17 35
25 44 33 49
19 30 34 32
45 60 34 43
569 718 810 1,263
Total
459
325
74
11
598
1,194
892
85
11
145
763
393
171
159
211
5,491
  •Based on Annual McGraw-Hill Survey of Pollution Control Expenditures, 4th, 5th and 6th editions.
  •fNot covered by the McGraw-Hill Survey.

mination of capital in-place was made by modifying the method
used in the 1972 Economics of  Clean Water. Data on water use
per employee and  the number of plants in  each industry group
using a specific treatment process were obtained from Water Use
in Manufacturing. This  information  was  combined with  new
capital cost  curves  for  each treatment process to  yield  cost
estimates of the  capital  in place.  These costs, based  on  1968
values, were then  updated with figures from McGraw Hill's an-
nual surveys of pollution  control expenditures.6 The resulting es-
timates of pollution control capital in-place are presented in Table
IV-6. The total for all industrial groups is $5.5 billion.

Capital Costs of Industrial Waste Treatment
The total capital  investment  required of the existing industrial
structure to provide waste treatment consistent with 1977 effluent
guidelines  is estimated to be $13.5 billion  (Table  IV-7). Thus
the net capital requirement is the  difference  between the $13.5
billion and the  capital in-place, $5.5 billion, or $8.0 billion.
  The estimate is based upon Scenario 3  in  which plant  effi-
ciencies  are moderately increased over 1968 levels.  The estimate
includes the  value of waste treatment facilities  already in-place.
It does  not  include  allowances  for in-plant  modifications  that
may provide equivalent control for less  cost, nor  does it impose
  6 McGraw Hill Publications. 4th, 5th, and 6th Annual McGraw-Hill Survey
of Pollution Control Expenditures. New York.

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND  REPORTS            429
                            TABLE IV-7
           COSTS FOR EXISTING PLANTS TO MEET 1977 EFFLUENT STANDARDS
                          (Scenario No. 3)
SIC code no. Industry
02
20
22
24
26
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Animal feedlots -
Food and kindred products
Textile mill products
Lumber and wood products
Paper and allied products
Chemicals and allied products
Petroleum refining and related industries _._
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products -
Leather and leather products
Stone, clay, glass, and concrete products - -
Primary metals
Fabricated metal products 	 	
Nonelectrical machinery
Electrical and electronic machinery
Transportation equipment
Total -_ - - ------

Total
capital costs
(milli
1,125
1,210
581
780
1,399
1,943
1,422
311
192
945
1,590
705
524
427
346
- 13,500

Total
O&M costs
Total
annual costs
ons of 1972 dollars)
101 215
354 508
122 196
277 376
165 343
165 412
149 207
118 157
39 63
19 139
67 269
40 129
34 101
19 73
12 56
1,681 3,244
the conditions that require any theoretical  or arbitrary  modifi-
cation of existing practice.  Instead, it represents  a reasonable
extension of practices currently employed in  substantial segments
of each industry.
  Capital requirements are distributed  through the  various man-
ufacturing sectors in  a manner that strongly reflects the sector's
water use characteristics  (Table IV-4). The requirements have a
loose  correlation with output values.

Annual Costs of Industrial  Waste Treatment
The total annual cost associated with  Scenario 3 is $3.2 billion
(Table  IV-7).  The annual costs consist of O&M,  debt  service,
and replacement. The usual preoccupation with initial capitaliza-
tion of waste  treatment  works tends to overshadow the  im-
portance of continuing annual costs.  Once installed, facilities in-
cur annual costs that over a 20-year period may amount to  five
times the cost of the initial  facilities.  At current rates,  interest
accounts  for a  large,  if not  the  largest, share of the  annual
charges. Nearly  40 percent of  the  annual  costs  of the waste
treatment system modelled  can be  attributed  to  interest pay-
ments on the outstanding debt.  O&M  costs account for 35 per-
cent of the annual cost. Major and minor replacements account
for the remaining 25 percent.
  Unfortunately, there is little evidence available upon which to
gauge the rate  at which industrial waste treatment works  are
actually replaced. A  5 percent figure was  assumed,  the same
rate as used in the  analysis for the  1972  Economics of Clean
Water.  It is considered reasonable in  that it takes into account
the rated  operating  life  of components  and  the  demonstrated

-------
430          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  11

industrial preference for short-term  application of capital. An
interest rate of 7.7 percent was assumed, the same rate used in
the 1972 analysis.

Alternative Scenarios
Although the cost analysis and most of the discussion presented
here pertain to Scenario 3, which is believed to be most likely to
occur,  it is  important to review results  of  the other five  water
use scenarios (Tables IV-8 through IV-12).
  The tables reveal that industrial  costs in the six scenarios
vary considerably. For example, the cost difference between Scen-
arios  1 and 6 for transportation  equipment is 290 percent; for
nonelectrical machinery,  it is 270  percent.  Conversely, textiles
show little  difference—only 12 percent.  The  variations  may be
attributed primarily to the  regional  distribution of subindus-
trial categories and to  differences in  industrial processes within
these categories.

Costs  of Meeting 1977 Effluent Standards—Existing and Future
Plants
The discussion to this point has been  confined to existing plants.
Of major concern, however,  are  the  total costs  of  meeting the
1977 standards, including the costs for plants to  be  constructed
between now and 1977.
  An initial step in the development  of the costs  was to expand
the capital  requirements of existing  plants by industry growth
and equipment replacement rates. In making the expansion, that
water use and  industrial growth are assumed to be proportional.
In the long run, this linear relationship might not be true, but it

                            TABLE IV-8
            COSTS FOR EXISTING PLANTS TO MEET 1977 EFFLUENT STANDARDS
                           (Scenario No. 1)
SIC code no. Industry

02
20
22
24
26
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37


Animal feedlots
Food and kindred products
Textile mill products
Lumber and wood products
Paper and allied products
Chemicals and allied products
Petroleum refining and related industries
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products
Leather and leather products
Stone, clay, glass, and concrete products
Primary metals
Fabricated metal products
Nonelectrical machinery
Electrical and electronic machinery
Transportation equipment
Total
Total Total
capital costs O&M costs

1,125
1,273
597
916
1,530
2,291
1,683
353
192
1,031
1,773
779
583
452
417
14,995
(millions of 1972
101
359
125
287
175
175
164
123
39
19
70
42
37
19
13
1,748
Total
annual costs
dollars)
215
521
201
403
369
466
234
168
63
150
295
140
111
77
66
3,479

-------
   WATER—GUIDELINES  AND REPORTS
431
                  TABLE IV-9
COSTS FOR EXISTING PLANTS TO MEET 1977 EFFLUENT STANDARDS
                 (Scenario No. 2)

SIC code
Total
no. Industry capital costs
Total Total
O&M costs annual costs
(millions of 1972 dollars)
02
20
22
24
26
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37





SIC code
Animal feedlots 1,125
Food and kindred products 1,271
Textile mill products 595
Lumber and wood products 840
Paper and allied products 1,495
Chemicals and allied products 1,916
Petroleum refining and related industries
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products 341
Leather and leather products 192
Stone, clay, glass, and concrete products 1,013
Primary metals 1,753
Fabricated metal products 776
Nonelectrical machinery 581
Electrical and electronic machinery 444
Transportation equipment 405
Total 14,359
TABLE IV-10
COSTS FOR EXISTING PLANTS TO MEET 1977 EFFLUENT
(Scenario No. 4)
Total
no. Industry capital costs
101 215
359 520
125 201
284 390
172 362
164 407

122 165
39 63
20 148
70 293
41 140
37 110
19 76
13 64
1,726 3,380

STANDARDS

Total Total
O&M costs annual costs
(millions of 1972 dollars)
02
20
22
24
26
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37





SIC code
Animal feedlots 1,125
Food and kindred products 1,142
Textile mill products 560
Lumber and wood products 619
Paper and allied products 1,255
Chemicals and allied products 1,549
Petroleum refining and related industries 1,157
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products 262
Leather and leather products 191
Stone, clay, glass, and concrete products 855
Primary metals 1,403
Fabricated metal products 627
Nonelectrical machinery 460
Electrical and electronic machinery 400
Transportation equipment 271
Total 11,876
TABLE IV-11
COSTS FOR EXISTING PLANTS TO MEET 1977 EFFLUENT
(Scenario No. 5)
Total
no. Industry capital costs
101 215
347 492
120 191
259 337
154 314
154 351
133 ISO
108 141
39 63
19 128
64 242
37 117
31 89
18 69
11 45
1,595 2,974

STANDARDS

Total Total
O&M costs annual costs
(millions of 1972 dollars)
02
20
22
24
26
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

Animal feedlots 1,125
Food and kindred products 922
Textile mill products 520
Lumber and wood products 509
Paper and allied products 1,046
Chemicals and allied products 1,146
Petroleum refining and related industries 966
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products 197
Leather and leather products 165
Stone, clay, glass, and concrete products 637
Primary metals 958
Fabricated metal products 515
Nonelectrical machinery 273
Electrical and electronic machinery 321
Transportation equipment 168
Total 9,468
101 215
320 437
114 180
240 305
140 273
140 285
120 160
92 117
37 58
19 100
55 177
34 99
20 55
16 57
8 30
1,456 2,548

-------
432           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
                            TABLE IV-12
            COSTS FOR EXISTING PLANTS TO MEET 1977 EFFLUENT STANDARDS
                           (Scenario No. 6)
Total Total Total
SIC code no. Industry capital costs O&M costs annual costs

02
20
22
24
26
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

Animal feedlots
Food and kindred products
Textile mill products
Lumber and wood products
Paper and allied products
Chemicals and allied products
Petroleum refining and related industries
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products
Leather and leather products
Stone, clay, glass, and concrete products
Primary metals
Fabricated metal products
Nonelectrical machinery
Electrical and electronic machinery
Transportation equipment

1,125
782
487
447
721
902
515
117
115
370
481
471
217
238
143
(millions of 1972 dollars)
101
298
109
227
116
127
93
65
34
17
42
31
16
14
8

215
397
171
284
207
242
117
79
48
64
103
91
44
44
26
              Total                     7,131        1,298       2,132

should  hold for the  fairly short 1973-77 period. The national
projected growth rates for each industry were obtained from the
National  Planning Association's National Economic Projections
Series  (Table IV-13). Replacement expenditures  are based  on
an assumed 20-year life with straight equipment renewal.
  The capital investment that must be made by 1977 to meet the
effluent standards totals  $18.7 billion (Table  IV-14).  The  capi-
tal to be  added  (the  difference between  the total and the capital
in-place)  is $11.8  billion, of which  about  40  percent is expected
to be in  new plants.  The total annual  costs,  including  interest
and replacement, is estimated  to be  $4.5 billion.
  The capital requirements were assumed to  be invested evenly
over the  1973-77 period. While some industries invested in 1972
a  greater  percentage of the  capital  needed,  none  is spending
the  average  amount needed  to achieve 1977  standards  (Table
IV-14).
                             TABLE IV-13
            PROJECTED GROWTH RATES FOR SELECTED INDUSTRIES (1973-1977)*
SIC code no.
02
20
22
24
26
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Industry
Animal feedlots
Food and kindred products
Textile mill products
Lumber and wood products
Paper and allied products
Chemicals and allied products
Petroleum refining and related industries
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products
Leather and leather products
Stone, clay, glass, and concrete products
Primary metals
Fabricated metals
Nonelectrical machinery
Electrical and electronic machinery
Transportation equipment
% increase,
1973-1977
10.0
18.3
23.3
20.3
19.5
18.4
16.7
18.1
11.2
11.9
11.8
17.5
23.1
23.1
18.3
 *Scott, Graham  C. U.S.  Economic  and Demographic Projections:  1972-1981.  National Economic
 Projections (Report No. 72-N-2). National Planning Association, Washington,  D.C. January 1973.

-------
                  WATER—GUIDELINES  AND REPORTS              433
                                 TABLE  IV-14

         COSTS FOR EXISTING AND PROJECTED PLANTS TO MEET 1977 EFFLUENT STANDARDS

                                (Scenario No. 3)*


SIC
code no. Industry


Total
capital
needed
by 1977


Total
O&M
costs


Total
annual
costs

Capital
in
place
1972
Total
capital
to be
added
by
1977
Aver-
capital
expendi-
tures
needed
per year

Capital
expendi-
tures
1972f
1972
expendi-
tures
as % or
average
annual
needs
                                          (millions of 1972 dollars)
  02    Animal  feedlots             1,274   113  247   459    815    204     n.a.  n.a.
  20    Food and kindred products     1,718   503  721   325   1,393    348     68  24
  22    Textile  mill products          860   181  290    74    786    196     10   5
  24    Lumber and wood products    1,123   399  541   n.a.    n.a.    n.a.     n.a.  n.a.
  26    Paper and  allied products    2,006   237  492   597   1,409    352     149  42
  28    Chemicals and allied products   2,761   234  585  1,194   1,567    392     214  55
  29    Petroleum refining and
        related industries          1,991   209  290   892   1,099    275     189  69
  30    Rubber and  miscellaneous
        plastic products            441   167  223    86    355     89     31  35
  31    Leather and leather products    259    53   85   n.a.    n.a.     n.a.     n.a.  n.a.
  32    Stone, clay,  glass, and
        concrete  products         1,269    26  187   146   1,123    281     43  15
  33    Primary metals             2,133    90  361   763   1,370    342     119  35
  34    Fabricated metal products      994    56  182   392    602    105     42  40
  35    Nonelectrical machinery        774    50  149   171    603    151     53  35
  36    Electrical and electronic
        machinery                631    23  108   159    472    118     36  31
  37    Transportation  equipment       491    17   79   211    280     70     62  89

                Total           18,725  2,363 4,540  5,469  11,874   2,923   1,016  33

  * Including capital  needed for treatment facilities at new plants as well as existing plants.
  t Based on Annual  McGraw-Hill Survey of Pollution Control Expenditures, 5th and 6th editions.


  State  and  Regional  Distribution of  Treatment  Cost.  Costs to

industry  of  meeting  the  1977  effluent standards for  existing

plants are  summarized  by  EPA  Regions and  States  in  Tables

IV-15 and IV-16. Feedlots are not included in the  tables because

geographical  breakdown is not  available.  The Regional summary

shows considerable variation. For  instance, the costs  for  Region

V (see  Figure  IV-2)  are more than  11  times  those  of  Region

VIII. These variations are understandable, given the uneven dis-

tribution of industrial  activity throughout the Nation. Similarly,

there is great  variation in  costs  among  the States—New York

has  projected annual  costs  75  times  those of  Nevada or South

Dakota.

                                 TABLE IV-15
          COSTS FOR EXISTING PLANTS  TO MEET 1977 EFFLUENT STANDARDS, BY REGIONS
                                (Scenario No. 3)*

EPA Region

1
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
Total
capital costs

665
1,271
1,391
1,722
3,095
1,730
442
261
1,041
754
12,372
Total
O&M costs
(millions of 1972 dollars)
99
192
150
211
352
169
69
41
174
.122
1,579
Total
annual costs

188
356
319
438
768
343
124
68
196
218
3,018
* Excluding feedlots.

-------
434
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
       d
   u

   tu
   C3




   O


   U
   LU
   OL

   _l
   <
   O
 LU CC

 II
 U.
   O

   (/]
   LU
   O
   o
   LJ

-------
               WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
435
                             TABLE IV-16
         COSTS FOR EXISTING PLANTS TO MEET 1977 EFFLUENT STANDARDS, BY STATES
                            (Scenario No. 3)*
state

Alabama
Aiasxa
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 fork
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totalf
Total
capital costs

217
29
50
102
936
87
136
47
4
270
290
40
66
800
351
116
77
138
402
118
123
269
604
162
127
204
60
45
15
60
519
33
755
305
13
856
81
300
968
59
168
9
207
1,113
62
24
172
359
86
324
30
12,388
Total
O&M costs
(millions of 1972 dollars)
24
8
7
13
160
13
19
5
1
32
36
4
10
91
38
16
12
18
39
14
18
44
71
27
15
32
11
9
2
8
67
4
126
41
3
80
13
48
96
10
18
2
25
98
8
3
22
58
10
47
4
1,580
Total
annual costs

53
12
7
28
172
24
36
10
1
68
74
9
18
187
80
32
22
34
86
29
33
79
148
48
31
59
18
16
3
16
130
9
223
80
6
189
24
88
216
18
40
3
52
207
16
7
44
103
23
90
8
3,009
  •Excluding feedlots.
  tTotals differ slightly from those in Table IV-15 due to rounding.

  The percentage breakdowns of the national totals for indus-
trial wastewater  treatment capital costs, total industrial  capital
costs, industrial  wastewater treatment annual costs and value
added by manufacturer  are shown in Table  IV-17 by EPA Re-
gions and in Table IV-18 by States.
  While no direct relationship necessarily exists, those areas with
a larger share of capital requirements for pollution control than
of capital expenses in general might encounter a greater burden
in diverting capital to the construction of pollution control facili-

-------
436
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
                           TABLE IV-17
           % DISTRIBUTION (BY EPA REGIONS) OF COSTS AND VALUE ADDED
                          (Scenario No. 3)
EPA
Region
1
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIM
IX .- _._
X __-

indusrial waste-
water treatment
capital costs*
5.5%
10.3
11.3
14.0
24.9
13.9
3.5
2.1
8.4
6.0

Total industrial
capital costsf
54%
11.4
11.2
15.1
30.5
10.3
3.4
1.1
8.4
2.8

Industrial waste-
water treatment
annual costs*
6.1%
11.7
11.0
14.1
24.6
11.7
4.3
2.5
6.3
7.3

Value added by
manufacturer)-
6.9%
14.0
11.6
12.5
30.1
6.6
4.7
1.3
9.5
2.7

  •Derived from Table IV-15.
  fStatistical Abstract of the United States, Department of Commerce. 1972.

ties. Examples of areas with this characteristic are Regions VIII
and X, as well as the following States:
           Alaska
           Hawaii
           Idaho
           Maine
           Montana
                             New Mexico
                             Oregon
                             South Dakota
                             Vermont
                             Washington
  Other areas might encounter  less of a  burden  of diverting
capital  to  construction of pollution  control facilities, given  the
capital  cost and overall  level of investment. Regions II, IV, and
V fall into this category,  as well as the following States:
           Arizona
           Connecticut
           Indiana
           Iowa
           Kentucky
           Maryland
                             Michigan
                             New York
                             North Carolina
                             Ohio
                             Tennessee
                             Virginia
   A similar comparison can be made between annual costs of pol-
lution control and value added by industry. In those  areas with
relatively higher annual pollution control costs than value added,
there may be  greater changes in wages, prices, and dividends
than in other areas. Areas with relatively high annual pollution
control in comparison with value added are Regions VI, VIII,
and X, as well as the following States:
           Alaska
           Hawaii
           Idaho
           Louisiana
           Maine
                              Montana
                              New Mexico
                              Oregon
                              Washington
                              Wyoming

-------
               WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
                               437
Those with relatively high value added  in comparison with an-
nual  costs are  Regions  II, V,  and IX, as well as  the following
States:
            Arizona
            California
            Connecticut
            Delaware
            Indiana
            Kentucky
             Maryland
             Massachusetts
             Michigan
             New York
             Ohio
             Tennessee
                             TABLE IV-18
              % DISTRIBUTION (BY STATES) OF COSTS AND VALUE ADDED
                            (Scenario No. 3)

state

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 	 __
Pennsylvania 	
Rhode Island ... 	
South Carolina ._ 	 -
South Dakota 	 -
Tennessee __ . 	 . _
Texas 	
Utah 	
Vermont 	
Virginia 	
Washington 	 - 	
West Virginia . 	
Wisconsin 	 ... ..
Wyoming _ --....
Industrial waste-
water treatment
capital costs*
	 1.8%
	 .2
	 A
	 .8
	 7.6
	 .7
	 1.1
	 .4
.0
	 2.2
	 2.3
	 .3
	 .5
_ 	 6.4
	 2.8
	 .9
	 .6
	 1.1
	 3.2
	 . 1.0
	 1.0
. 	 2.2
4.9
	 1.3
-.. 1.0
	 1.6
.5
	 .4
	 .1
_. ... .5
	 4.2
	 .3
	 6.1
	 2.5
.1
--- 6.9
.6
	 7.8
- - .5
	 1.4
.1
. _ _ . . 1.7
	 9.0
	 .5
	 .2
	 1.4
	 2.9
.. _-- .7
	 2.6
.2
Total
industrial capital
costst
1.7%
.1
.5
.8
7.7
.7
1.7
.3
.0
1.4
2.3
.1
.2
6.7
5.2
1.2
.5
1.5
2.5
.5
1.4
2.2
6.2
1.4
.8
1.3
.1
.4
.1
.4
4.2
.1
7.2
3.4
.1
8.9
.6
6.9
.4
1.6
.0
2.4
6.3
.2
.2
1.7
1.4
.9
2.1
.0
Industrial waste-
water treatment
annual costs*
1.8%
.4
.2
.9
5.7
.8
1.2
.3
.1
2.2
2.4
.3
.6
6.2
2.6
1.1
.7
1.1
2.8
1.0
1.1
2.6
4.9
1.6
1.0
2.0
.6
.5
.1
.5
4.3
.3
7.4
2.6
.2
6.3
.8
7.2
.6
1.3
.1
1.7
6.9
.5
.2
1.5
3.4
.8
3.0
.3
Value
added by
manufacturer!
1.4%
.0
.4
.7
8.9
.6
2.4
.4
.1
1.4
1.8
.1
.2
7.4
3.9
1.2
.8
1.4
1.1
.4
1.4
3.1
6.6
1.6
.6
2.2
.1
.5
.1
.3
4.7
.1
9.3
2.7
.1
7.9
.5
7.3
.5
1.2
.1
2.0
4.2
.3
.2
1.6
1.7
.8
2.7
.1
  'Derived from Table IV-16.
  tstatistical Abstract of the United States,
Department of Commerce, 1972.

-------
438          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

  While  no detailed set of effects by Region  or  State can be
developed from the data presented in Tables IV-17  and 18, it is
clear   that   significant  differences   exist.   These   differences
strengthen the hypothesis that there will be a differential burden
among States and regions.

Qualifications
While this assessment is primarily concerned with capital invest-
ments, it recognizes that  each  industry may choose treatment
types with higher O&M costs  in order to reduce its  capital  costs.
Highly mechanized systems tend to have low annual operational
costs, but high initial capital costs. Conversely, less  sophisticated
systems might be built at  lower initial costs, but at the expense
of higher operational costs. No  effort was made to estimate the
optimum balance between these two factors—cost curves depict-
ing average expenditures were used.
  Many  industries tend to favor  waste treatment solutions that
minimize capital  requirements.  Since there are a number  of
treatment  configurations  and treatment  process  combinations
that provide  equivalent waste  control  in  any  given situation,
management  enjoys  considerable latitude in  the  selection  of
treatment alternatives. In approaching a possible  trade-off be-
tween  the capital intensive and  operationally intensive alterna-
tives, there  is reason  to  favor  the  latter alternative  in  those
cases that promise capital  savings  up to—and perhaps  even
beyond—the point of equal total  cost. In such cases, the capital
saved may not have to be raised  or,  if on hand, may be applied
to other purposes. Money saved through  operating economies,
on the other hand, must  be  accumulated over  time to provide
the same utility.  Available savings, then, are inherently more
valuable  than potential ones, with the measure of value  generally
tied to prevailing interest rates. Over the last 3 to 4 years, interest
rates have reached high levels not generally seen in the United
States since the  middle of the  nineteenth century. Given the
consequent penalty on capitalization  and the  uncertainty of con-
tinued high  interest charges, management has  a strong  incen-
tive   to   seek  out  treatment   solutions  with   low capital
requirements—even at the expense of otherwise  avoidable opera-
tional penalties.
  In a number of industries,  the  composition of outputs and the
nature of processes may shift rapidly.  The operationally  inten-
sive alternative may also  permit management  flexibility. Least-
cost solutions that are tied too closely to a particular product or
process may carry a high degree of  risk. In such circumstances,

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS           439

management may prefer to accept operating cost disadvantages
to ensure flexibility. This is probably most evident in  segments
of the chemical industry where batch processing persists in order
to reduce the impact of process change, even though capital in-
tensive, continuous  flow production processes may be more  effi-
cient.
  Tax structures may provide further reason for selection of the
operationally  intensive alternative.   Taxes are  frequently  de-
signed to make it more  advantageous  to accept incremental oper-
ating costs,  all  other things being  equal.  Materials  and labor
utilized  in operations may be offset in the  year  of the expendi-
ture, while capital must be amortized  over time.
  Another qualification is that  the capital estimates  are  based
on two  simplifying assumptions that may not be valid. One as-
sumption is that new capital equipment can be  simply annexed
to existing equipment as standards become  more stringent. This
is not always valid,  and it is certain  that a portion of the pres-
ently available equipment is incompatible with what is required
to achieve the 1977 standards. A second assumption is that only
12 of the most  efficient  and commonly used  treatment  types
(Table IV-3) are used to meet standards. There are other widely
used treatment processes,  but they were not used in the analysis.
  The   last  qualification  is the noticeable difference between
actual  and  planned estimates for water pollution control  ex-
penditures (Table IV-19).  After adjustment  for  inflation  and
capital  replacement, the  actual  expenditures for all  industries
in 1972 was $1.0 billion.  In 1973, industry expects to  spend an
additional $1.7 billion. This  increase in investment—70 percent—
will  probably not be realized, primarily  because  some industries
are inclined to overstate planned expenditures. For example, the
paper and pulp industry spent $135 million in 1971. It predicted
that it would spend  $252 million  in 1972. The actual expenditures
for 1972, however, amounted to only $149 million, a  small  in-
crease over the previous year.

Impacts of Industrial Water Pollution Control
The  installation of wastewater control measures by industry  will
have a  number of broad effects  on the economy  over  and  above
the  improvement of water quality.  These  effects  are difficult
to define in  detail and next to impossible to quantify accurately.
They involve complex factors that frequently interact with each
other in ways not yet well understood. However, it is important
to attempt to identify  significant impact areas as accurately as
possible. The major areas discussed here are:

-------
440          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

                            TABLE IV-19
  ACTUAL VS. PLANNED WATER POLLUTION CONTROL EXPENDITURES FOR  SELECTED INDUSTRIES
                            (1971-1976)*

                                   Actual  Actual  Planned Planned Planned
SIC code no.        Industry                1971   1972    1972   1973    1976
20
22
24
26
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37


Food and kindred products
Textile mill products
Lumber and wood products
Paper and allied products
Chemicals and allied products
Petroleum refining and related industries -.-
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products -
Leather and leather products
Stone, clay, glass, and concrete products -
Primary metals ~. -
Fabricated metal products - 	
Nonelectrical machinery
Electrical and electronic machinery
Transportation equipment
Total . . - 	

58
15
n.a.
135
158
246
24
n.a.
27
134
21
33
34
47
932

(millions
68
10
n.a.
149
214
189
31
n.a.
43
119
42
53
36
62
1,016

of 1972
84
12
n.a.
252
219
297
30
n.a.
55
114
55
97
35
88
1,338

dollars)
123
37
n.a.
444
322
222
46
n.a.
44
193
75
81
48
83
1,708

145
38
n.a.
172
345
486
59
n.a.
34
278
96
119
49
69
1,890

  * Excluding feedlots. Based on Annual McGraw-Hill Survey of Pollution  Control Expenditures, 4th
5th and 6th editions.

     •  Municipal treatment of industrial wastewater.
     •  Impact on energy use.
     •  Broad environmental effects.
Another area, the  economic  impact  on industry,  will  be dis-
cussed in a later chapter.

  Municipal Treatment  of Industrial Wastewater. One of  the
alternatives available to industry for control of water pollution
discharges is  the use of public (municipal) treatment facilities.
According to  Water  Use in Manufacturing, manufacturing  op-
erations using more  than 20 million gallons per year discharged
slightly more than 7 percent of their water to municipal  treat-
ment facilities in 1968. This  small portion, however, represented
more than 20  percent of the total amount of industrial waste-
water treated.
   Industry's use of municipal facilities varies greatly depending
upon the type of industry and its geographic location.  Further,
there appears considerable variability in the extent of the  treat-
ment provided  (primary  or secondary,  for example)  by  the
public authority. Because of these imponderables, it is difficult to
determine whether the level  of treatment given industry wastes
is adequate for 1977 standards.
   The  use  of municipal facilities by industry  requires larger
public investment in treatment plants and interceptors, as well
as higher O&M costs. Conversely, such use permits industries to
avoid making capital investments in wastewater treatment  facili-
ties and to take  advantage of possible economies of scale associ-
ated with larger public treatment facilities.

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS            441

  The 1972  Amendments  identify some specific  requirements
for public treatment of industrial wastes:
     •  Industrial plants discharging pollutants not susceptible to
       treatment by the municipal plants will be required to pre-
       treat their discharges.
     •  The costs of providing additional plant capacity for treat-
       ing industrial  wastes are not  eligible for Federal grant
       funding.
     •  Industries must pay fairly for treatment services rendered,
       including the costs of interceptor and collector services.

  Because of the many factors  involved, it is difficult  to fore-
cast to what extent  industries will use municipal  facilities in
meeting  the  1977  standards.  Presuming the decisions  will  be
influenced greatly by economics, the following factors will prob-
ably be most significant:
     •  Economy of scale. Larger plants, both municipal and in-
       dustrial, are generally more efficient in terms of capital
       and O&M costs.
     •  Integrated  treatment.  It  may  be economical  to  provide
       full treatment within  an integrated  industrial  plant in
       those  cases where  municipalities require industry to pre-
       treat its wastes.
     •  Interest rates. Interest rates on public  indebtedness are
       lower  than for the private sector.
     •  Interest charges. There is  no  interest  charged  on that
       portion of the 75 percent Federal grant covering facilities
       used by industry.
     •  Reliability.  A   combined   industrial-municipal  plant
       should have less variable inflow and may  therefore  be
       more reliable.
     •  Cost recovery  period. The cost recovery periods  used  by
       industry are generally shorter than  those of  municipali-
       ties.
     •  Linkage costs. The costs of connecting an industrial sys-
       tem to a  municipal  plant—through  private  facilities  or
       public sewers—may be substantial.
  Taking the above factors into consideration,  it is reasonable
to assume that smaller industrial plants will tend to utilize muni-
cipal treatment while larger ones—particularly those discharging
toxic wastes—will use private facilities. The figures on industrial
capita] requirements in this report  are based on the  assumption
that industries using less than 1 million gallons of water per year

-------
442          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

will use public treatment plants and those using more than this
amount will use private treatment facilities. While there will be
exceptions to both assumptions, there should be  compensating
trade-offs.
  Impact On Energy Use. Control techniques currently being
applied to treatment systems tend to consume large  amounts
of energy.  When pollution control  is installed  as an after-
thought—as  with most existing plants—rather  than being  de-
signed into an  operation  as  a component activity, the energy
efficiency  may be relatively low. The  greatest impact of indus-
trial wastewater control on energy consumption,  therefore, will
stem from control of existing plants.  The impact will increase
with the number of plants controlled  and the higher levels of
control required.
  Generally, the relationship between  energy consumption and
level of treatment is exponential rather than linear. No  attempt
is made here to specifically quantify this relationship, primarily
because data are not available to support an accurate quantita-
tive  analysis. Such an analysis would  require detailed  informa-
tion  on energy requirements by process for each major industry.
EPA is currently attempting to collect such information and it
should be available to support future analysis.
  To determine the total energy  cost of water pollution,  one
must include the energy inputs required  to make the pipes,
pumps, and tanks used in the treatment facility. Similarly,  one
must consider the energy requirements  of producing the chemical
additives such as chlorine and coagulants.
  Despite the problems involved, a recent report estimated that
the electrical energy used in providing primary and secondary
treatment for all wastewater in the United States would be 25
billion kilowatt  hours  per year, or 1.8  percent of total  1970
electricity use.7 (About  one-third of this  energy  is  for  treating
residential  sewage.  The  remainder is for  treating  commercial
and industrial wastewater.)
  Broad Environmental Effects. Environmental effects of waste-
water control include those resulting from the production of en-
ergy used in the treatment  process  and those  resulting from
ultimate  disposal of the  residuals removed  from  the effluent
stream.
  Industry receives  most of its electrical power from plants us-
  ' Hirst, Eric. Energy Implications of Several Environmental Quality Strat-
 egies. Oak  Ridge National Laboratory.  ORNL-NSF-EP-53. Oak  Ridge,
 Tenn. July 1973.

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES  AND REPORTS           443

ing fossil fuels or nuclear energy. The major environmental re-
siduals produced by plants using- fossil fuels are:  (1)  particu-
late matter and  sulfur oxides in the exhaust gas stream and (2)
waste heat that must be removed by  transfer to either water
bodies or to the atmosphere. Because  of inherently  lower effi-
ciency, existing nuclear-fueled plants  produce  more  heat than
fossil fuel plants  of equivalent  size.  Nuclear  plants also pose
radiation hazards.
  The major environmental problems of wastewater  treatment,
however, are concerned with disposal of the materials  removed
from  the effluent stream. These  materials are broadly classified
as sludge and range from thick liquids  to semisolid and solid
masses. Sludge  is primarily  disposed of as solid waste, but  in
certain cases it can be used for other purposes.  For example,
the residual materials from brewing are used  in  animal feeds.
Sludge can be used as fertilizer, but the hazardous materials such
as heavy metals often present in industrial sludges may prevent
their use as fertilizer.
  Incineration of sludge reduces the quantity of material requir-
ing disposal and also sterlizes the material  by killing  pathogens.
However, improperly controlled  incineration can be a  significant
source of air pollution, primarily particulate matter. Incineration
may be inappropriate if the sludge contains heavy metals or other
hazardous materials.
  Residuals from wastewater  treatment that  cannot be incin-
erated are frequently disposed of on land.  Unless proper proce-
dures are followed,  such  disposal can damage  the environment.
As the quantities of  sludge increase and as land  disposal becomes
more  costly, it will become more  economic for industry to attempt
to recycle the material in some way.
  It appears that imposition of stringent effluent standards on
waterborne residuals without consideration  of airborne and solid
waste residuals  would merely change the character of environ-
mental problems rather than solve  them. Consequently, control
of industrial pollution must focus on an  integrated scheme that
considers the total cost imposed  on the industry and the environ-
mental gains.

Thermal Costs
Waste heat in the form of thermal  water discharges  is now re-
cognized by Federal law  as a pollutant.8 As such, it is subject
  "Section  502(6), Federal Water  Pollution  Control  Act  Amendments of
1972 (P.L.  92-500).

-------
444          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

to control along with BOD,  suspended solids, and other types of
pollutants. The more important provisions  of the 1972  Amend-
ments concerning thermal discharges are:
    •  Studies of effects and methods  of control of thermal pollu-
       tion are required, Section 104 (t).
    •  Best practicable  treatment effluent limitations  are re-
       quired by mid-1977, Section 301 (b) (1) (A).
    •  Best available treatment effluent limitations are required
       by mid-1983, Section 301 (b) (2) (A).
    •  Effluent limitations to attain and maintain water quality
       are required, Section 302(a).
    •  Thermal water quality criteria must be established or re-
       vised for all navigable waters, Section 303(a).
    •  Water  quality limited  segments must  be identified for
       thermal discharges,  and thermal load allocations  must be
       established where effluent  limitations  are not  stringent
       enough, Section 303(d).
    •  Thermal  water quality guidelines  are  required,  Section
       304(a).
    •  Thermal effluent limitation guidelines are required, Section
       304(b).
    •  Applications  for waiver of  too stringent  thermal effluent
       limitations must  be reviewed and  acted upon,  Section
       316(a).
    •  Thermal  discharge  standards  of performance for  new
       sources must be promulgated, Section 306(b) (1) (B).
    •  State certification for  a thermal discharge is required,
       Section 401.
    •  Thermal  discharge permit is required,  Section 402(a).
    •  Thermal  discharge pretreatment standards must  be pro-
       mulgated, Section 307(b).
   These provisions,  while applying to all types  of thermal  pollu-
tion,  place major emphasis upon pollution resulting from in-
dustrial activity.  This section of the report  analyzes industrial
thermal impacts, especially the costs of controlling thermal  pollu-
tion from utility steam-electric generating plants. Thermal  pollu-
tion from other plants is not included primarily because  thermal
guidelines for their operations have not been drafted, and ade-
quate  costs data are not available. The omission does not negate
the value of the analysis, however,  since electric  utilities ac-
count for 80 percent of all cooling water used in the Nation.

Sources of Industrial Thermal Pollution
Approximately 50 trillion gallons of water  were used for cooling

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES  AND REPORTS           445

and condensing purposes in the "United States in 1968. That was
roughly 12  percent of the total  flow in  the Nation's streams
and rivers and accounted for nearly  80 percent of the total water
used by American industries. The 50  trillion gallons are broken
down as follows: 2'9
  Steam-electric power plants (utilities) 	   80%
  Electric power generation—in-house (industrial)  _._    6%
  Industrial processes	   14%
                                                    100%
  Six large industrial users of cooling water—other than utili-
ties with steam-electric  generating plants—are listed in Table
IV-20. The six used 52 percent of the industrial water used for
air conditioning, 79 percent of the water used for steam-electric
power generation, and 84 percent of the water used for other
cooling purposes. Although the amount of water used is a valuable
indicator of thermal  pollution, a  complete evaluation must exa-
mine  other factors  such  as  total heat  outputs  and  discharge
temperatures. Also, the characteristics of the receiving bodies of
water must be taken into consideration.
  None of the Federal/State  water quality criteria on tempera-
ture allows receiving  waters  to  be raised above 100° F. Since
high temperature discharges could result in temperature increases
exceeding  this limit   (or  a  lower required  limit),  the  Refuse
Act  Permit Program applications for EPA Region IV were
searched for high  temperature discharges. Those exceeding  110°
F are displayed in Table IV-21. The list suggests that a  number
of industries, other than  those using large  volumes of cooling
water, may present thermal pollution problems.
  Assessment of the  cost of abating industrial  thermal pollu-
tion  (other than that associated with public utility  power plants)
is not presently possible, since effluent limitations  have not been
established. In addition, identification of the magnitude of the
problem  is complicated by a number of factors, including the wide
variation  in  industrial processes,  the  possibility   of  process
changes  that  could reduce thermal  outputs, and  the degree of
thermal  pollution abatement resulting during treatment of other
pollutants.
  A partial cost could be estimated by computing the costs of
abating  industry's  in-house  generation of electric power. Such
computations  would be difficult to make, however, because of the
  "Parker, F. L. and P. A. Krenkel. Thermal Pollution: Status of the Art.
Nashville, Tenn. 1969. p. 1-2.

-------
446            LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

                              TABLE IV-20
                COOLING WATER USED BY SELECTED INDUSTRIES (1968)*
SIC
code
2621
2631
281
282
2911
331



Industry
Paper mills, except
building paper
Paperboard mills
Industrial chemicals
Plastics materials
and synthetics -- --
Petroleum refining
Blast furnace, basic
steel products
Six industry total
Total all industries -
Six industries as a
percentage of all
industries -- -

Air
conditioning
g
8
30
56
3
25
130
- - - 249
52%

Steam-
electric
power
generation
248
141
613
61
167
1 147
2,377
3,009
79%

Other
cooling
(billions of
97
107
2075
372
1,056
2046
5753
6,877
84 1

Total
use
gallons)
1 194
722
3368
635
1,427
4392
11,738
15,466
4 76%

Use for
cooling as
percent of
total
30%
15
65
59
74
47
49


  •Water use measured by intake. Reuse or recirculation not included.
  Source: 1967 Census  of Manufactures: Water  Use in Manufacturing. Bureau of the Census. 1971.
Table 2A, pp. 7:23 to 7:28.

                               TABLE  IV-21
          INDUSTRIES  DISCHARGING WATER IN EXCESS OF 110° F (EPA REGION IV)*

SIC code
20
22
24
25
26
28
29
30
32
33
34
35
36
37

144X
491X
7211
7542
9711

Manufacturing
Food and kindred products 	 	 _
Textile mill products .- ._. _. . 	 - 	
Lumber and wood products 	 _ _._ . . _.
Furniture and fixtures 	 	 _._ 	 ...
Paper and allied products 	 	 	
Chemicals and allied products ... _ 	 	
Petroleum refining and related industries 	
Rubber and miscellaneous plastic products 	 -
Stone, clay, glass and concrete products 	
Primary metals 	 	
Fabricated metal products 	 	
Nonelectrical machinery - 	 	 	
Electrical and electronic machinery 	 _.
Transportation equipment _ ___ 	 	
Miscellaneous
Sand 	
Electrical services - 	 --- _- 	
Hospitals 	 	
Car washes 	 .. -- 	 	
Military bases 	 . . 	 _ ... . -
Number of
establishments
	 25
	 41
	 18
	 13
	 30
	 28
7
4
. 	 7
.... 	 9
. - 6
7
2
	 3

	 2
	 21
	 2
.. .. 2
.. 	 9
  •The number and mix of industries exceeding a 110° F discharge temperature may vary considerably
 among Regions.
  Source: EPA's Refuse Act Permit Application computer file 4-12-73.
 wide variability of plant size and type of generation  (condensing
 or noncondensing).  Also, since  70 percent of the industrial water
 used  for cooling  is used  for nonpower  purposes,  only  a small
 part of the total costs would be obtained.
   Because  of  the  difficulties  in  estimating  industrial  thermal
 abatement costs  and because such costs are relatively  small, the
 remainder of this discussion is  confined to utility  steam-electric
 generating plants.

 Electric Utility  Systems  (SIC 491)
 Only about one-third of the energy input  to steam-electric power
 plants  is  converted  to  electrical energy.  The remaining  two-

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND  REPORTS            447

thirds is transferred to the environment, usually by discharg-
ing cooling water to receiving  waters such as rivers and lakes
or to the  atmosphere with  the aid of a heat  rejection device
such as a cooling tower.
  In a wet cooling tower,  water vapor is released to the atmos-
phere, while in  a dry tower it is  not. There are  very few  dry
cooling towers associated with power plants in the United States
at present  because of their relatively high costs. Other heat re-
jection devices include  cooling  ponds and canals. Diffusers  are
sometimes  used when heat is discharged directly to the receiving
water body. These devices are  used to disperse the heat in the
receiving water and are not considered a means of  heat rejection.

Level of Control
About 74 percent of the generating capacity in 1970 used once-
through  cooling  systems,  while 13 percent had cooling towers
and 13 percent had  either  cooling ponds  or combination  systems
(Table IV-22).10
  However, a much larger percentage of the post-1974 capacity
is expected to use either cooling towers or combination systems;
cooling towers  are already planned for  42 percent of those
fossil plants and 33 percent of the nuclear plants."
  Economic Analysis. The  following economic analysis is  adapted
from a recent EPA  report12 and is based on a preliminary draft
of the water effluent limitation guidelines, which are summarized
in Table IV-23.  The first section  of the analysis estimates the
maximum impact of the guidelines, based on the cost of installing
mechanical draft cooling towers on all plants included in the 1977
and 1983 standards. The second section predicts the reduction in
impact based  on  the expected number of power plants that  will
not be required  to install cooling towers, due to lack of  adverse
environmental impact on the receiving waters, lack of land for
                           TABLE IV-22
                 COOLING SYSTEMS OF UTILITY STEAM-ELECTRIC
                        GENERATING PLANTS10
Type of cooling system
Once-through (fresh water)
Once-through (saline)
Cooling pond
Wet cooling tower
Combination

% of 1970 capacity
51
23
7
13
6

  M Federal Power Commission. Form 67.
  11 5/72 FPC Printout of Utility Responses to FPC Order 383-2.
  12 Speyer, James M. Economic Impact of  Proposed Effluent Guidelines—
Steam Electric Power Plants. EPA. November 1973.

-------
448
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n
construction of  a tower, potential  adverse impact of salt water
drift, or ability to  comply with guidelines using  less expensive
abatement measures.
   The maximum  impact analysis  is  based  on  these major  as-
sumptions :

      •  Demand  for electricity will  increase by 7.2  percent per
        year between  1970  and  1980,  by  6.7  percent per  year
        between 1981 and 1985, and by  6.6 percent between  1986
        and 1990.
      •  Thermal  discharges will be abated by installation of closed
        cycle cooling systems according  to the  schedule shown  in
        Table IV-23.
      •  The cost of closed cycle cooling systems will  be equal  to
        the cost of mechanical draft cooling towers.
      •  Existing plants  with  cooling  towers  will  incur  no ad-
        ditional expense to meet the thermal guidelines.
      •  Previously planned  (before October 1973) expenditures
        for  new  plant  cooling  towers  will  be  considered  part  of
        the cost of meeting the thermal guidelines.
                                 TABLE IV-23
           PROPOSED EFFLUENT GUIDELINES FOR THERMAL DISCHARGES FROM UTILITY
                        STEAM-ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANTS*
  Type of unit
                                   Existing units
                             1977
                                              1983
                                                          Units to be built
Large base-loadf  	  No discharge            —           No discharge
Small base-loadi  	  No limitation        No discharge        No discharge
Cyclic** 	  No limitation        No discharge        No discharge
PeaKmgft	  No limitation        No limitation        No discharge

  *EPA  is currently considering several alternative  sets  of effluent guidelines that would change
the  date by which various categories of existing power plants  would have  to comply with the no
discharge limitation.
  tUnits with average boiler capacity factors  greater than 0.6 that won't be retired  before July
1983; all nuclear units; all units  placed under construction after  October 1973.
  {Units in plants less than 25 megawatts or  in systems  with  a capacity of  less than  150 mega-
watts.
  "Units with capacity  factors between 0.2 and 0.6 that won't be retired before July 1989.
  ttUnits with capacity factors less than 0.2.


                                 TABLE IV-24
              UNIT COSTS FOR UTILITY STEAM-ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANTS13

                                                  Costs (^/kilowatt of plant capacity)
                       Item
                                                    Fossil fuel
                                                                    Nuclear
                                                           (1970 prices)
 Capital costs of cooling towers*
    Existing  units  	
    New units  	
 Capital costs for replacement capacity
    1977 peaking units 	
    1983 baseload  units  	
 Annual operating costs for replacement capacity
    1977 peaking units  	
    1983 baseload units  	
                                        15
                                         7

                                        90
                                       170

                                        42
                                        30
 18
 10

 90
260

 42
 12
   1 Costs of constructing and connecting cooling towers.

-------
               WATER—GUIDELINES  AND REPORTS            449

  Impact on Utilities. The unit cost  estimates used in the impact
analysis are summarized in Table IV-24.13 The table shows that
the cost of installing cooling towers in the existing plants is about
double that  for new plants. Table  IV-25 shows that  the  total
capitalized  expenditures  required to  implement the guidelines
are $9.5 billion for the  1977 standards and an additional $5.8
billion ($15.3 billion total) for the 1983 standards. The guidelines
will increase the total capital expenditures of the electric utility
industry by 10.0  percent between 1973 and 1977;  by 1983  an
additional  4.2 percent increase in total capital expenditures will
be required.
  The utilities  will finance  the expenditures for pollution control
equipment through  internal  sources (for example, depreciation,
retained earnings, tax  deferrals), as  well  as  external sources
(for example,  long-term debt,  preferred stock,  common  stock).
The utilities could finance an estimated 36 percent of the (1973-
83) capital  expenditures through internal financing, while the
remainder would have to come from external sources." If the  in-
vestor-owned utilities were to maintain their current capital struc-
ture (typically, 55 percent  long term debt,  10 percent preferred
stock,  and  35  percent common  equity), the external  financing
would be obtained in the following way:

                                     Financial requirements
                                     1973-83  (billion dollars)
  Long term debt                              5.4
  Preferred stock                              1.0
  Common  equity                              2.6

     Total                                      9^0

  The key  assumption of this analysis  is that the utilities will
be  able  to  obtain  the required external financing.  While  it  is
difficult  to  conclusively prove that the capital will be available,
there is no evidence  to  disprove  this assumption. The  utilities
were able to increase the level of capital investment by 11 percent
per year in the 1960's even though the industry's  coverage  ratio
(income  before Federal  income  taxes and  interest  charges
  13 Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and
New Source Performance Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generat-
ing Point Source Category, Burns and  Roe, Inc. EPA, contract No. 68-01-
1512. September 1973.
  14 Economic and Financial Implications of  the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act of 1972 for the  Electric Utility Industry. Temple, Barker &
Sloane, Inc. Boston, Mass. EPA contract No. 68-01-1582. September 1973.

-------
450           LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n



                               TABLE IV-25

      IMPACTS OF PROPOSED THERMAL EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS ON UTILITY STEAM-ELECTRIC
                            GENERATING PLANTS

                    Impact                       1977 Standards    1983 Standards

Financial effects
  Added capital investment (billions of 1973 dollars) 	      9.5            15.3
  Percent increase (%) 	     10.0             4.2
Price effects
  Increased revenues per year (billions of  1973  dollars)  	      2.0             3.0
  Price increase (mills/kilowatt-hour)	      0.8             0.9
  Price increase (% production costs) -------	      6.4             5.8
  Price increase (% cost to final user) 	 	      3.2             2.9
Capacity penalty
  Total capacity penalty (megawatts electrical)? 	    8,200           14,900
  % of national capacity 	      1.5             1.9
Fuel penalty
  Total fuel penalty (million tons coal equivalent)}: 	     18              33
  % of national  demand  for  energy 	      0.5             0.7

  •Cumulative effect of 1977 and 1983 standards.
  tTotal replacement  capacity needed to  run the  cooling towers and to  compensate  for  capacity
lost due to increased turbine back pressure.
  tTotal increase  in  demand for  nuclear  and fossil fuel expressed  in million Btu, based on coal
having a heat value of 24 million Btu/ton.


divided by total interest charges) fell from 5.11  in  1961 to 3.03

in 1971. The  investment  required  to  meet the  effluent  guide-

lines will have  an insignificant effect on the industry's coverage

ratios in 1977 and 1983:


                                                       Coverage ratios

                                                       1977      1983

   Without pollution  control expenditures	   3.06     2.93

   With pollution control expenditures    	   3.00     2.92


   In  the  past,  the  electric utility industry  has  been regulated

to ensure  an adequate rate  of return on its common equity. This

analysis assumes  that  the regulatory agencies will allow the utili-

ties  to  raise prices to recover the increased operating and fixed

charges associated with the  standards. Therefore,  the profitability

of the  electric utility industry  in  terms of rate  of  return  on

common equity should not  be  reduced by implementation  of  the

standards. Actually, by realizing a rate of return  on  the in-

creased investment in  pollution  control equipment, the  total  after-

tax profits in pollution control will increase:


                                                          Net income
                                                          after taxes
                                                        (billion dollars)

                                                       1977     1983

   Without pollution  control expenditures	   6.7     14.2

   With pollution control expenditures         	   7.1     14.9


   National  Impact. To  finance  the operating   costs  and fixed

 charges associated with the capital  investment,  the utilities  will

 have to raise  the price of electricity.   Based  on the  previously

 stated  assumptions,  the total cost to the consumers of electricity

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS           451

will  be $2.0  billion  per year by 1977 and $3.0 billion by  1983.
The  price  increase  needed to generate the  additional revenues
will  be 0.9 mills/kilowatt-hour  by 1983. The importance of this
price increase should be evaluated both in terms of its effect on
cost  of power at the generating plants and on the cost of power
to the ultimate consumer.  Thus,  while the  utility industry's
production costs will  increase  6.4 percent by  1977  and an ad-
ditional 5.8 percent by 1983, the cost of power to the final user
will  increase by only 3.2 percent by 1977 and 2.9 percent by
1983.
  The increase in the price of electricity will have an effect on the
price of other goods and services.  The average price increase is
expected to be small, however,  since purchases of electric power
account for  only about 0.8 percent of the total value  of indus-
trial shipments.15 While the impact will be  larger  on  the  price
of products that are power intensive, there  are only six indus-
trial classifications in which electric power costs amounted to 5
percent or more of  the total value of shipments (Table IV-26).
Even if the  increased power costs are completely passed on to
the final consumer,  the final price of the most power-intensive
products will increase by less than 0.5 percent.
  The water effluent  guidelines will  impact the community  di-
rectly  through  increased prices  for  electricity and indirectly
through price increases for  final goods and services. The guide-
lines would  increase the average  residents' monthly electricity
bill $0.78 by 1977 and $1.25 by 1983.
  Installation of cooling  towers will require the construction of
new capacity to generate power to run the cooling towers and
to compensate  for the loss  of  efficiency due to the increase in
turbine back-pressure. This analysis  assumes  that in 1977 the
utilities will provide this increased capacity through the construc-
tion  of gas-turbine  units or the postponement of  scheduled  re-
tirements. However, by 1983 the utilities will be able to construct
large fossil and nuclear plants to replace the lost capacity.
  The total  capacity penalty will  be  8,200 megawatts electrical
by 1977 and 14,900 by 1983. This projected capacity loss will
increase the national  demand  for generating capacity by  1.5
percent by 1977 and  1.9 percent by 1983.
  A  fuel penalty is  associated with the increased capacity. This
penalty results  primarily from additional fuel  required to op-
  15 Possible Impact of Costs of Selected Pollution Control Equipment on the
Electric Utility Industry and Certain Power Intensive Consumer Industries.
National Economic Research Associates, Inc. New  York. 1972.

-------
452          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

erate the closed cycle cooling systems and to compensate for loss
of efficiency.  The fuel penalty  will be approximately the equiva-
lent of 18 million tons of coal by 1977 and 33 million tons by 1983
(total increase in demand for nuclear and fossil fuel  expressed
in million Btu, divided by a heat value of 24 million  Btu/ton).
This penalty  amounts to an  increase in the national demand for
energy of only  0.5 percent  by 1977  and 0.7 percent by  1983.
Thus, the thermal effluent guidelines should not significantly in-
crease  the imbalance between national energy demand and do-
mestic supply.

  Impact  of  Legal Exemptions.  The above  estimates  are based
on the cost of installing mechanical  draft cooling towers on all
plants  included in the  1977  and 1983 standards (Table IV-23).
However,  the number  of  plants that  will actually  be required
to install  mechanical draft  cooling towers will be considerably
less due to the following factors:

    •  Exemptions under 316(a)  where  alternative  cooling sys-
       tems are capable of assuring the propagation of a balanced
       biotic community.
    •  Exemptions due to  lack of land or adverse  environmental
       impact from salt water drift.
    •  Ability of some power plants to comply with the  guidelines
       by  installing less expensive closed cycle cooling systems
       such as cooling ponds and spray canals.
  In order to estimate  the number of plants that would fall into
each of these categories, it  would  be necessary to have at least
the following information for each plant:

    •  Feasibility of assuring  a balanced biotic community with
       alternative cooling system.
    •  Maximum acreage  the  utility  owns  that  could be  made
       available for closed cycle cooling system.
    •  Projected concentration of salt water drift.
  While at the present time information has  not  been compiled
for the last two factors, an  analysis was made of the  impact  of
exemptions under section 316 (a)  of  the  1972 Amendments. The
analysis was  based on the following assumptions:
    •  32  percent of the  existing  capacity  covered under the
       maximum impact case would have  to install  cooling towers
       on  60  percent of  the plants' total  capacity. The  plants
       could meet water quality standards by operating the cool-
       ing towers only 30 percent of the time.

-------
                 WATEK—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
453
                               TABLE IV-26
                 ELECTRICAL POWER COSTS FOR SELECTED  INDUSTRIES
SIC code
2819
3334
3313
2812
2813
3241




Industry
Atomic Energy Commission plantst
Primary aluminum
Electrometallurgical products
Alkalies and chlorine
Industrial gases
Cement, hydraulic
Six-industry total
Other industries
Total, all industries

Electric power
costs as a
percent of
value of shipments*
. - 16.26%
11 40
11.01
9.35
9.10
5 94
10 34
0 69
0.79

Total electric
power purchased
plus net generation
(million kw/hrs)
29,827.7
53,604.9
11,205.7
12,319.0
7,050.4
8,418.2
122,425.9
383,395.0
505,820.9

  'Self-generated power is evaluated for each  industry at the  same cost per kilowatt-hour as  it
pays to buy electric power.
  fOnly a part of SIC 2819 (industrial inorganic chemicals). Value of shipments by these plants can-
not be isolated.
  Source:  1967 Census of Manufactures.  Bureau  of the  Census.  Volume II, Industry Statistics,
Part 1, pp. 28-42;  Volume II, Industry statistics, Part 2, p. 28A-9; Fuels  and Energy Consumed,
Special Series MC (67)  S-4,  p. 18-SR4.
  Electric Energy Purchased, Generated  and Used,  and Maximum Demands, at Major Atomic Energy
Commission Installations by  Months  for 1967 (unpublished  table). Federal  Power  Commission.
July 1968.

                               TABLE  IV-27
           IMPACTS OF EXEMPTIONS TO PROPOSED THERMAL EFFLUENT  LIMITATIONS
1977 Standards
Impact
Financial effects
Added capital investment
(billions of 1973 dollars) ..
Percent increase _. . ._.
Price effects
Increased revenues per year
(billions of 1973 dollars)
Price increase
(mills/kilowatt-hour)
Price increase
(% production costs)
Price increase
(% cost to final user) 	
Without
exemptions
9.5
10.0
2.0
0.8
6.4
	 3.2
With
exemptions
2.3
2.5
0.5
0.2
1.6
0.8
1983 Standards*
Without
exemptions
15.3
4.2
3.0
0.9
5.8
2.9
With
exemptions
4.4
1.2
0.8
0.3
1.8
0.9
  •Cumulative effect of the 1977 and 1983 standards.
     •  A new plant that is  not planning some type of off-stream
        cooling will have to install cooling towers on 60 percent of
        its  capacity. The plant could  meet water quality stand-
        ards by operating the cooling tower only 30 percent of the
        time.
     •  All plants that  are  currently  planning  to install cooling
        towers will be required to  operate  the  cooling tower 60
        percent of the  time on 100 percent of  the plants' capacity.
   As shown in Table IV-27, these  exemptions  would reduce the
required capital expenditure from $9.5 billion  to $2.3 billion in
1977 and  from  $15.3 billion  to  $4.4  billion in  1983.  The pro-
jected  price increase  would  fall from  3.2 percent to  0.8  percent
by 1977 and from 2.9 percent to 0.9 percent by  1983. The exemp-
tions  would  reduce   the cost  to  the  consumer $1.5  billion  per
year by 1977 and $2.2 billion per year by 1983.

-------
454          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n

                V.  NONPOINT POLLUTION

  Nonpoint sources  of water pollution vary considerably in type
and  stem from  a  broad range  of human activities  and natural
causes.* The activities may be divided into five broad  categories
of agricultural-rural, forestry, construction, mining,.and urban.
In many areas,  pollutants stemming  from  these  activities—
including sediments, organic  wastes, salts,  minerals,  acids,  and
chemicals  such  as  pesticides, herbicides,  and  fungicides—
constitute a problem equal to or exceeding  that of point source
pollution.
  Singly and in combination, these  pollutants present a  broad
range  of problems.  In many Western streams, dissolved  solids
present the most  pernicious problem. The increasing  salinity of
the Colorado River,  for instance, threatens  use of this  important
water  source for agricultural  as well as  municipal and industrial
purposes; most of the salinity stems from  nonpoint sources—47
percent from salt  springs and other natural sources, and 38 per-
cent from irrigation. In  Appalachia and  other coal-producing
areas,  acid mine drainage often constitutes the most intractable
problem. An  estimated 20,000 acres of lakes  and more  than
12,000 miles of streams suffer  damage  from  mine discharge or
drainage. Sediments and other nonpoint source pollutants  simi-
larly present a variety of problems.
  As Federal and State pollution control policies have  developed,
most attention has been directed toward point sources of pollu-
tion. Nevertheless, certain States such as Iowa have shown lead-
ership in the control of nonpoint sources.  At the Federal level,
the 1972 Amendments took initial steps to develop a nonpoint
source control program.1 The Amendments require EPA to develop
information on the nature and extent of nonpoint sources of pol-
lution  and the means to control such pollution from a range of
activities. Similarly, the Amendments  require States  to submit
reports on nonpoint sources of pollution, and regional planning
and  operating  agencies to  recommend and  develop  control pro-
grams.
  EPA has published the required series of reports on the na-
ture and extent of nonpoint sources of pollution.  Four are based
on the types of activities that produce  such  pollution: agricul-
  *Nonpoint sources of water pollution are not denned by the 1972 Amend-
ments.  EPA considers  all  sources to be  nonpoint that are not subject to
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits.
  'Sections 303(e), 304(e), 305(b), and 208, Federal Water  Pollution Con-
trol Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500).

-------
               WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS           455

tural,  silvicultural, mining,  and  urban and rural construction.2
Three  cover unique problem  areas  that may  cut across  these
types of activities: disposal  of pollutants in wells or subsurface
excavations, salt  water intrusion, and hydrographic  modifica-
tion.3 A final report covers analytic methods for  identifying and
evaluating the various sources of nonpoint pollution.4
  In none of these reports, however,  is there  significant cover-
age of control costs and economic impacts. The omission  may  be
attributed primarily to a paucity of reliable  information. In  an
effort  to correct, in part,  the information  deficiency,  EPA con-
tracted with Iowa  State University to study the  costs and impacts
associated with two major agricultural pollutants—sediment run-
off  and nitrogen fertilizer.5  The  remainder of  this  chapter dis-
cusses the results of that study.

The Problem
As  the real prices of capital inputs such as fertilizers and equip-
ment have declined,  the American farmer has used them widely
and intensively, substituting them for both land and labor. As a
reflection of these declines,  the ratio  of the index  of fertilizer
price to the index  of farm crop prices declined from 0.98  in 1940
to 0.64 in 1971.  Similarly, the ratio of the farm machinery price
to farm labor price  declined  from 1.19 in 1940 to 0.50 in  1971.
  With modern technology and substitution of capital for land,
the Nation's relative land supply is greater than at any  time in
the last 100 years.  Cropland has remained  relatively constant
over the past two decades, but total crop  output has  increased
nearly  40  percent. The same  crop output could  have been  pro-
duced  under a  less intensive production pattern, perhaps reduc-
ing the amount of runoff and contamination accordingly.  Until
  2 Methods and Practices for Controlling Water Pollution from Agricultural
Nonpoint Sources,  EPA-430/9-73-015; Processes, Procedures, and Methods,
To Control Pollution Resulting from Silvicultural Activities, EPA-430/9-73-
010; Processes, Procedures, and Methods  To Control Pollution From Mining
Activities,  EPA-430/9-73-011; Processes, Procedures, and Methods To Con-
trol Pollution Resulting From All Construction Activity, EPA-430/9-73-007.
  3 Ground Water Pollution From Subsurface Excavations,  EPA-430/9-73-
012; Identification and Control of Pollution From Salt Water  Intrusion,
EPA-430/9-73-013; Control of Pollution  Caused by Hydrographic Modifica-
tions,  EPA-430/9-73-017.
  * Methods for Identifying and Evaluating the Nature and Extent of Non-
Point  Sources of Pollutants,  EPA-430/9-73-014.
  ° Environmental Impacts and Costs in Agriculture in Relation to Soil Loss
Restrictions and Nitrogen Fertilizer Limitations. The  Center for Agricul-
tural  and  Rural Development, Iowa State University.  Ames  1973.

-------
456          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

1973, however, Federal programs  encouraged the trend toward
more intensive farming, with an  attendant  increase in use of
chemicals and similar inputs, by  guaranteeing prices  (coupled
with  restricting  acreage),  subsidizing irrigation  development,
and providing tax advantages.
  While chemicals and similar inputs increase productivity, they
can  also have  adverse environmental impacts. One impact  is
direct—unused  fertilizers  and organic  chemicals  flow  into
streams and underground water supplies.  Another major impact
is indirect. Fertilizers and  pesticides lessen  the need for rota-
tional systems, forages, and mechanical  practices.  Hence,  row
crops can be grown more intensively and even continuously on
the same fields, and  the  land  loses more water  and sediment.
The  sediment not only contaminates streams, but—along with
water runoff—it also provides the transport mechanism by which
a greater proportion of residual  fertilizers  and  pesticides are
carried into streams.
  Technological  and  economic development  of agriculture has
also  had beneficial effects on the  environment,  because  it has
resulted  in fewer acres farmed and better  use  of less erosive
lands. Substituting machines for  animals means  that less  land
is needed for feeding  working animals  and that tractors are
polluting an average  of only 500 hours per year compared with
animals that generate wastes year-round.

Study Design
The  Iowa  Study examines  supply capacity, productivity, farm
income, food  prices, and other economic impacts that might pre-
vail  under a selected set of environmental policies for agriculture.
The  study focuses on the year 2000, a  period long enough  to
allow additional domestic and export demands for food to impinge
on agriculture and to allow sufficient time for agriculture to ad-
just to new environmental restraints.
  The following basic assumptions were made:

     • A free market will exist for commodities included in the
      analysis.
     • Existing technology  will be applied  increasingly in  crop
      and livestock production.
     • Per capita imports  of  agricultural  commodities will  be
      maintained at recent levels.
     • The national population  will be 280  million in  the  year
      2000 (Bureau of the Census, level D estimate).

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES  AND REPORTS           457

  The free market assumption  permits  efficient  production  of
agricultural commodities through crop and livestock  allocation
and through optimal use of water and land resources. Constraints
are imposed on agricultural production, however, in the form  of
environmental policies, food and  fiber demands, and a given land
and water resource base.
  The study incorporates a number of  other general assump-
tions. First, no unexpected or significant jumps are projected  in
world demand. Second, land previously or currently idled in land
retirement programs can be brought back into production. Fi-
nally, no  further public development of irrigated lands is as-
sumed beyond 1980.
  The main objective of the Iowa study is to estimate  agricul-
ture's food-producing capacity under a  selected set of environ-
mental restraints. The primary sources of pollution from  agricul-
ture include soil erosion, soil salts, livestock wastes,  and applied
chemicals.  Pollutants from these sources include plant nutrients,
dissolved  salts,  toxic chemicals  and infectious  agents such  as
coliform bacteria. Except for dissolved salts from irrigation re-
turn flows, the pollutants are most  often characterized by "slug
loads," or  large amounts of wastes at irregular time intervals.
Slug loads from agriculture include enormous  quantities  of sedi-
ments and plant residues that represent  the greatest volume  of
wastes entering surface waters.  These wastes originate  primar-
ily from cropland and overgrazed pastures.  It has been estimated
that agricultural land use results in four to nine times more loss
of soil than would occur at natural rates.
  The evaluation  of the impacts of soil loss and nitrogen fertil-
izer application is restricted in scope. Only sheet and rill erosion
from cultivated lands is analyzed. Sediment yields or the  total
sediment outflow  from  a watershed or  drainage  basin  are not
considered. Nor did the study include direct analysis of livestock
wastes and chemicals such as  phosphates,  insecticides, and her-
bicides related to nitrogen fertilizer application.
  The basic tool  of analysis is  a detailed  model  that measures
interrelationships among all commodities,  resources,  and farm-
ing regions.6 The national model  incorporates the resources, com-
modities, and  related outputs of agriculture in  223 farm areas,
51 water supply regions, and 30 over-all commodity markets  or
consumer demand sets.
  "National Environmental Models of Agricultural  Policy  Land Use and
Water Quality (GI-32990). Iowa State University under contract to National
Science Foundation.

-------
458          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

  Seven policy  models (alternative futures) are specified in the
analysis (Table V-l). Four cover soil loss. The Nation's agricul-
ture is  first analyzed in  the absence of environmental restraints
(Model A).  The outcomes are  then examined  with  maximum
soil loss (gross  erosion) over the entire Nation limited first to 10
tons per acre and then  to  5 tons  (Models B  and C).  To place
these levels in perspective,  losses may range from virtually zero
for Class I low erosive  lands to more than 150 tons for Class
VIII excessively erosive  lands (Table V-2). Because exports are
important in food production patterns as well as in farmer  and
consumer  food  prices, an alternative future  (Model  D) is ex-
amined in which food exports are twice  the  1969-71 averages
used in Models A, B, and C.
  The  final  policy models are  evaluated under  the restricted
nitrogen fertilizer assumption. A base model specifies no restric-
tions on nitrogen fertilizer  application (Model B). Then the  out-
comes are examined as nitrogen  fertilizer is first restricted to an
annual maximum of 110 pounds per acre and  then to 50 pounds
per acre (Models F  and G).  The  110-pound  figure  is approxi-

                             TABLE V-l
                  ALTERNATIVE FUTURES FOR U.S. AGRICULTURE*
Policy model
Model A
Model B
Model C
Model D
Model E
Model F
Model G
Farm policy
Free market
Free market
Free market
Free market
Free market with no nitrogen limit
Free market with nitrogen limited to
110 pounds/acre
Free market with nitrogen limited to
50 pounds/acre
Soil loss
maximum
(per acre)
No limit
10 tons
5 tons
5 tons
n.a.
n.a.
n.a
Exports
Average
Average
Average
High
Average
Average
Average
  'Assuming a population of about 280 million, the Bureau of the Census, level D estimate for the
 year 2000.

                             TABLE V-2
                    SOIL LOSS FOR AN AGRICULTURAL REGION

                                         Soil loss
      Land class/acres            Conventional tillage          Reduced tillage
Straight
row
Contour
Strip
Straight
row
Contour
Strip
                                       (tons/acre/year)
Class 1/1.0 million
(no erosion hazard)
Class IIE/1.5 million
(slightly erosive land)
Class IIIE/1.1 million
(moderately erosive land) 	
Class IVE/0.3 million
(marginal cropping land) 	
Class VI to VIII/0.1 million
(excessively erosive land) __--
5.0
12.0
38.9
53.8
167.1
2.5
6.0
22.5
32.2
129.1

3.0
11.2
16.1
2.9
6.7
21.8
30.1
122.6
1.4
3.3
12.5
17.7
104,8

1.7
6.2
8.9
  'Based on a crop pattern of continuous corn rotation in Region 104,  located in Iowa.

-------
               WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS            459

mately the level of nitrogen applied to corn in  1969. Fruits  and
vegetables frequently receive higher  applications of  fertilizer,
while most grains receive less.

Soil Loss-Expert Policy Models

Soil loss  and  farming practices under  four alternative policy
models are summarized in Table V-3. As might be expected, the
average  soil loss would be  highest, 9.9  tons  per acre, under
Model A, which does not limit soil loss. The study indicates that
with  no  restrictions  on  soil loss, soil erosion would average 60
tons per  acre  per  year in certain parts of the  South Atlantic
Region. The lowest loss, 2.8 tons per acre, would take place with
a 5-ton maximum soil loss limitation (Model C). Under this level
of control, total soil erosion would be reduced to about 0.7 billion
tons per year,  a reduction of nearly 2 billion tons, or about 73
percent,  from  the  level  of Model A.  High exports (Model D)
would increase total  soil  erosion about 16 percent over Model C.
  The Nation's food and fiber demands  (both  domestic  and ex-
port) and soil  loss limitation could  be met  by  adoption of con-
servation practices such  as contouring, strip cropping, and  ter-
racing.  Compared  with  the  base  model  (Model  A),  acreages
farmed under  conventional straight row  tillage would decrease,
and acreages farmed under conservation  would increase, as the
soil loss  maximum is first imposed at 10  tons per acre and  then
lowered to 5 tons per acre.
  With exports of grains and oilmeals doubled  (Model D), culti-
vated crop land would increase about 10  percent. The 5-ton  soil
loss restriction, however,  could still be met by further applications
of conservation practices. Even with the increase in cultivated

                            TABLE V-3
            EROSION AND ACREAGES UNDER CONSERVATION PRACTICES  FOR
                     SOIL-LOSS EXPORT POLICY MODELS
                                                        Model D,
                                          Model B, Model C,    5-ton
                                  Model A,     10-ton   5-ton    limit and
            Item (unit)                no limit     limit    limit    high exports
Erosion per acre (tons) - - 	
Total soil erosion (millions of tons) _ ...
Conventional tillage (millions of acres)
Straight row -
Contour - -
Strip crop & terrace - ...
Reduced tillage (millions of acres)
Straight row . 	 - 	 - -
Contour
Strip crop & terrace

Conventional tillage, straight row (%)
Conventional tillage, contour, strip crop & terrace (%)
Reduced tillaee l%"i .._ 	 	
9.9
2,677
234
11
3
21
0
0
269
87
5
8
4.3
1,132
165
33
19
27
14
3
261
63
20
17
2.8
727
129
37
35
25
19
14
259
50
28
22
2.9
843
134
43
45
28
26
19
295
45
30
25

-------
460          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n
                            TABLE V-4
            LAND AND WATER USE FOR SOIL LOSS-EXPORT POLICY MODELS
Item
Total dryland* ..
Total irrigated - . .
Unused cultivated landst ---
Water consumption 	
Model A,
no limit
283
31
97
83
Model B,
10-ton limit
(millions
276
32
105
Model C,
5-ton limit
of acres)
274
29
108
(million acre-feet/year)
83 77
Model D,
5-ton limit and
high exports
310
30
72
78
 "Not including pasture.
 •(•Including unused summer fallow lands.

land, total soil erosion would  remain substantially below levels
indicated by the no restriction model (Model A).
  Land and water use for the four alternative models are sum-
marized in Table V-4. Three points are evident from the results:
     •  Under  all policy  models studied,  both dryland and irri-
       gated  acreages of crops would be less than at present.
     •  Unused cultivated land  (including 25  to 30  million acres
       of  unused summer  fallow  lands)  would be  substantially
       greater than at present.
     •  Projected  increases  in water use are only  slightly higher
       than in 1965, the most  recent year for which data  are
       available.
  Even with  a high level of  exports  (model D),  the Nation's
land and  water resources  would not be  strained. In fact, acre-
ages used for crops would  decline under a soil loss limitation be-
cause of:
     •  Changes in land  use—that is, shifts to higher yielding
       lands.
     •  Higher yields  of crops resulting from reduced tillage and
       treatment practices  such as contouring and strip cropping.

  Should  supply  control  programs be relaxed in accordance with
the assumptions  of  the  study, crop production  would shift  to
the more productive soils and regions  of the  Nation.  Hence,
total  land use for   agriculture  (including  irrigated acreage)
would be  reduced, and unused land (including 25 to 30  million
acres of unused summer  fallow lands) would approach levels sub-
stantially higher than at present.  In addition, a large amount of
relatively unproductive land  currently used for pasture (such as
permanent pasture, public  grazing lands, and woodland pasture)
would remain unused   under  these policy  models.  The large
amounts of unused   cultivated  lands, however, pose important

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS           461
                           TABLE V-5
           FARM PRICES FOR SELECTED CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS FOR
                    SOIL LOSS-EXPORT POLICY MODELS
Item
Crop prices
Corn
Wheat
Soybeans
Cotton
Hay 	 - ..-
Livestock product prices
Cattle and calves
Hogs
MilK
Income (returns)
Land, labor, and water 	
Other
Overall - --

Model A,
no limit
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

100
100
100

Model B,
10-ton limit
100
99
101
100
99
100
100
100

98
101
100

Model c,
5-ton limit
107
103
115
112
101
104
105
100

99
104
103

Model 0,
5-ton limit and
high exports
113
114
162
112
110
110
112
103

131
113
117

problems for national policies on agricultural controls and farm
prices.
  Farm prices under the alternative soil loss-export policy models
are summarized in Table V-5. Up to this point, the general con-
clusion  has been  that  a nationwide soil  loss limitation  would
not have much  impact on  agricultural  output and  prices. The
results summarized in the table would further support this con-
clusion. Agricultural  production and unit prices under the soil
loss models are  shown  in Table V-6 and resource use or  values
in Table V-7. Although the model doesn't deaPexplicitly with the
way farm income is distributed among producers and with prices
of various categories of agricultural land, one can expect soil loss
limitation policies to have a very significant impact  on localized
areas.
  With a  10-ton  maximum soil  loss  (Model B), farm  prices
(crops and livestock)  and, hence,  food  costs would  not  change
significantly. Net farm income,  measured as the return on land,
labor (including hired labor) and water would decrease slightly.
The response to this decrease would generally  be to substitute
inputs such as  fertilizer  and  equipment for land, labor, and
water.
  With a 5-ton maximum soil loss  (Model  C), farm prices would
increase, but by a low percentage. Soybeans would experience the
highest increase—15 percent. Net  farm income  under the 5-ton
limit  would be  nearly  the  same as without a restriction.  Much
greater increases in farm prices, implied food costs, and net farm
income would result with  a combination of  high exports and
5-ton maximum soil loss limitation (Model D). The price of soy-
beans, for instance, would increase by 62 percent.

-------
462
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n
                              TABLE V-6
            FARM PRICES FOR SELECTED CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS FOR
                      SOIL LOSS-EXPORT POLICY MODELS
Average 1969-71 1
Projected 2000 z
Unit price
Item (unit)
Corn (bushels)
Wheat (bushels)
Soybeans (bushels)3 ___
Cotton (bales) 4
Hay (tons)
Other crops °
Beef cows (head) 	
Beef feeding (head)' ._
Dairy cows (head) T
Hogs (hundredweight) 8
Produc-
tion
(million)
4,741
1,490
_ 1,203
10
129
36
25
12
- 20
Value of
produc-
tion
(millions
of $)
5,540
1,937
3,318
1,205
3,158
1,800
10,924
6,751
4,502
Unit
price
1.17
1.29
2.71
0.23
26.36
27.42
5.68
20.79
Produc-
tion
(millions)
6,520
1,916
2,117
10
249
82
61
8
31
Value of
produc-
tion
(millions
of W
5,650
2,267
2,768
818
5,903
3,996
18,752
3,679
4,643
Model A,
no limit
0.86
1.18
1.30
0.16
23.69
24.85
3.21
14.94
Model
B,
10-ton
limit
a
0.86
1.17
1.31
0.16
23.41
24.86
3.21
14.93
Model
C,
5-ton
limit
>)
0.92
1.22
1.50
0.18
24.02
25.72
3.21
15.66
Model D,
5-ton
limit
and
high
exports
0.97
1.34
2.10
0.18
26.12
27.26
3.32
16.66
  1 Sources:  U.S.  Department of  Agriculture, Agricultural  Statistics,  1972;  U.S. Department  of
Agriculture, Cattle on Feed, January 1973.
  • Values are expressed in 1970 dollars  and do not take into account inflation from 1970 to 2000.
  3 Includes cottonseed in soybean equivalent.
  4 Unit price is per pound of cotton.
  •" Includes sorghum  grain, barley, oats,  corn, and sorghum  silage and pasture. A common unit can-
not be used. Pasture  not included in average 1969-71 values.
  « Value and price are for all cattle and calves, including dairy. Price is in liveweight equivalent.
  ' Values and prices represent hundredweight milk production.
  8 Unit price is liveweight equivalent.

Fertilizer Limitation Policy Models
Use of land and water under the three alternative nitrogen fer-
tilizer limitation policy models is summarized in Table V-8. Re-
stricting nitrogen  fertilizer use  would  result in a substitution  of
land and water for fertilizer,  with a resulting increase in use  of
both land and  water.  Unused land, not  including unused  sum-
mer fallow lands, would drop from around 51 million acres with
no restriction  (Model  E)  to  about 13 million acres with a 50-
pound limit (Model G). The 110-pound nitrogen limitation would
not strain the Nation's  agricultural capabilities under  the food
and fiber  demand implied under  these three policy models. The
total land use for agriculture would actually remain below 1971
levels. Even under a 50-pound limit, some unused land  (not in-
cluding unused summer fallow lands)  would remain for further
substitution or other uses. Compared with no limit, the 50-pound
limit would result in 14 percent more land being used, a reduc-
tion  in  unused land by nearly  75 percent,  and an increase  in
water consumption of about 5 percent.
   With a 110-pound limitation,  crop  prices  would  increase  by
less than  12 percent, and livestock by less than  4 percent (Table
V-9). Net farm income would be higher, but so would consumer
food costs.  Farm prices would be substantially higher  under a

-------
                    WATER—GUIDELINES  AND  REPORTS
463
                                       TABLE V-7
               RESOURCE USE FOR SELECTED CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS FOR
                             SOIL LOSS-EXPORT POLICY MODELS
Item
Model A — no limit
Row crops __ ... _
Close grown crops -
All hay 	
Pasture 	
Beef cows .._ .__
Beef feeding 	
Dairy
Hogs 	 ...
Total 	
Model B— 10-ton limit
Row crops 	
Close grown crops __
All hay 	
Pasture 	 ___
Beef cows _.. 	
Beef feeding 	
Dairy 	
Hogs 	 ..
Total 	
Model C— 5-ton limit
Row crops
Close grown crops .
All hay 	
Pasture 	
Beef cows
Beef feeding ....
Dairy _. __. . ..
Hogs .... 	
Total 	
Model D— 5-ton limit
and high exports
Row crops _ 	
Close grown crops
All hay 	
Pasture 	
Beef cows 	 .
Beef feeding 	 .
Dairy 	 .
Hogs 	
Total 	
Land

2,770
894
1,188
780
0
0
0
0
5,632

2,599
849
1,121
820
0
0
0
0
5,389

2,876
782
1,225
744
0
0
0
0
5,627


4,723
1,370
1,744
882
0
0
0
0
8,719
Water

51
23
81
7
5
3
0
0
170

47
23
87
7
5
3
0
0
172

44
16
69
2
3
3
0
0
137


32
17
91
2
3
2
0
0
147
Labor
(millions
910
293
467
0
1,350
167
916
523
4,626

873
291
487
0
1,351
167
916
522
4,607

872
284
512
0
1,347
161
906
527
4,609


972
336
535
0
1,345
166
907
530
4,791
Feed
of 1970 dollars)
0
0
0
0
7,175
4,053
1,648
2,067
14,943

0
0
0
0
7,161
4,054
1,652
2,066
14,933

0
0
0
0
7,294
4,325
1,745
2,272
15,636


0
0
0
0
7,804
4,696
1,897
2,552
16,949
Other*

7,161
2,412
3,523
866
3,251
1,663
2,106
2,054
23,036

7,223
2,409
3,665
866
3,274
1,662
2,107
2,055
23,261

7,433
2,273
3,929
953
3,323
1,733
2,049
2,071
23,764


8,878
2,723
4,049
867
3,518
1,724
2,096
2,100
25,955
Total t

10,892
3,622
5,259
1,653
11,781
5,886
4,670
4,644
48,407

10,742
3,572
5,360
1,693
11,791
5,886
4,675
4,643
48,362

11,225
3,355
5,735
1,699
11,967
6,222
4,700
4,870
49,773


14,605
4,446
6,419
1,751
12,670
6,588
4,900
5,182
56,561
  * Includes all other costs not itemized.
  t Water used by  exogenous crops (fruits and vegetables, for  example) and water and feed used  by
exogenous livestock (broilers, sheep, and lambs, for example) are  not reported.
                                       TABLE V-8
                 LAND AND WATER USE FOR NITROGEN FERTILIZER POLICY MODELS
Item
Total dryland *
Total irrigated
Unused cultivated lands t
Water consumption ._ 	
Model E,
no limit
255
26
51
	 92.0
Model F,
110-lb limit
(millions of acres)
265
26
41
(million acre-feet/year)
92.4
Model G,
50-lb limit
292
27
13
96.6
  * Not including pasture, orchards, vegetables, and other miscellaneous crops.
  t Not including unused summer fallow lands.

-------
464          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

50-pound limit than  under either no limit or  a 110-pound limit,
crop prices increasing up to 50 percent and livestock prices up
to 28 percent. Resulting net farm income  and food outlays  also
would rise substantially.

Implications For Farm Programs
Restrictions on  soil  loss and fertilizer use hold important  eco-
nomic implications for farm incomes,  commodity  supplies,  and
environmental control programs. To examine  these implications,
one first has to look  at the demand  and supply considerations as-
sociated with farm products.
  Demand  for  agricultural commodities  is  basically  inelastic.
Thus, if farm production is increased by a given percentage, the
price received will  decrease by a greater percentage; or  con-
versely, should production fall off  by a certain percentage, the
price received would increase by a greater percentage. Expressed
in different terms, farm incomes will increase with reduced  pro-
duction and fall with increased production.
  Without price guarantees, farm incomes in the aggregate are
not increased by applying  fertilizers  and other inputs that in-
crease productivity,  because the increased production is offset
by lower prices. Since no producer is so large that he can signif-
icantly influence market prices by his own actions, there is al-
ways an incentive to  increase production efficiency.
  Government farm programs used in recent years to reduce
acreage and  limit outputs were designed to  maintain  farm in-
comes by keeping supplies  at a fixed level in relation to demand.
Generally,  the programs have kept farm income  higher than
would have  been the case  in their absence. The same  logic has
underlain the government programs to increase exports. Export-
ing a given  percentage of commodities  (hence removing them
from domestic markets) would  result in a larger percentage price
increase, at  least for  those commodities sufficiently  protected
from world market prices.
  Of course, as more individual farmers use advanced technologies
and increase  output in  a  free market situation, market prices
will fall by a greater proportion, and total farm income will be
reduced accordingly. In the absence of farm supply control  pro-
grams that  materially affect total  crop output (and thus main-
tain  higher  prices), the  individual farmer  will  be worse off
unless he continually uses new  technologies and produces more to
sell at the reduced prices.
  Farm  production  could also be controlled, at least in part,

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS           465

                            TABLE V-9
            FARM PRICES FOR SELECTED CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS FOR
                    NITROGEN FERTILIZER POLICY MODELS

    Item             Model E,           Model F,              Model G,
                    no limit          110-lb limit            5-ton limit
Crop prices
Corn
Wheat
Soybeans
Cotton
Hay
Livestock product prices
Cattle
Hogs
Milk

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

109
106
104
112
102
102
104
102

150
147
136
151
124
120
128
113

through  environmental programs  that  restrain production. Es-
sentially, farm programs have restricted output by taking part of
the Nation's cropland out  of  production.  Some  combination of
lower  productivity  and utilization of  idle land  could  restrict
available supplies in a manner similar to the land  restriction
program. Environmental protection measures might be phased in
as control programs are eliminated.
  The Iowa study reveals  that a  surplus  of  land will continue
to exist  to  the  year 2000  under  the 1969-71 average level of
exports. This reserve capacity  could be used in combination with
environmental protection measures (such as restrictions  on fer-
tilizer use)  in place of existing government supply control pro-
grams.
  Such a program is not only possible, but, if designed properly,
would result in  an efficient use of resources. One  reason  for the
overuse of chemical fertilizers and row cropping  is that  market
prices do not reflect the social cost of their  use. Prices reflect
neither the cost of eutrophication that may result from the buildup
of nitrates nor the adverse  effects  of sedimentation on recreation
and  on certain  species of  fish and wildlife.  At  this  time it  is
impossible  to determine the most  efficient combination of inputs,
because the full social costs cannot be measured  in dollars. It is
possible, however, to indicate the potential benefits of an environ-
mental control program and its economic impact.

  Reduced Erosion.  Results of the study indicate that agriculture
has the opportunity to contribute to an improved environment.
In general, they  indicate  that a  nationwide  soil-loss limitation
would have only minor impacts on land and water resource use,
farm prices, food costs, and net farm incomes. Soil erosion, how-
ever, would be reduced considerably with an  attendant improve-
ment  in water  quality.  This  reduction  would  be  possible  at
relatively small  cost to farmers, as a group, if adequate time for

-------
466          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

adjustment were allowed. The reduction would be affected through
changes in crop rotations and the  adoption of  conservation til-
lage practices such as contouring and strip cropping.  Individual
farmers, however, may be reluctant to switch from conventional
practices for a number  of reasons. Reduced tillage practices, as
compared to conventional practices, would  in most cases, require
new or different equipment. Also, weed control can become a
problem, and  colder soil temperature  (which results  from  re-
duced  tillage)  sometimes delays seed  germination.  Over time,
though, it is  expected that farmers  could make the necessary
adjustments.
  A doubling  of exports  over the 1969-71  average would have a
much greater impact on resource use,  farm prices, food costs, and
net incomes than the adoption of a nationwide soil loss limita-
tion. With higher exports, total soil erosion also would increase.
But even if the higher level of exports were combined with a soil
loss limitation, total  soil erosion could still be held  to  reasonable
levels.
  Nitrogen Fertilizer Limitations. The  results of the study indi-
cate that a mild  restriction  on the use  of  nitrogen fertilizer
(such  as  110  pounds per acre per year) would not  strain land
and water resources. The substitution of water and land (mostly
land) for fertilizer under a 110 pound  nitrogen limit  would still
leave a considerable amount of surplus land and water to meet
possible increases in demand. Also, the restriction would result
in farm prices above those experienced without  a  restriction.
  With nitrogen fertilizer limited to  50  pounds per acre,  the
reserve supply capacity of U.S. agriculture  would  be reduced
considerably—nearly 75 percent. Farm  prices  and consumer food
outlays,  however, would be expected  to  increase,  some  by as
much as 50 percent.
  Income Distribution and Equity Effects. Environmental  con-
trol measures that lessen output can  increase  gross farm income
because  demand  for the basic agricultural commodities  is in-
elastic. This does not mean, however, that all groups of farmers
would benefit or have their income protected. The  results of the
study  indicate that  certain  types  and levels of environmental
protection measures would have greatly different effects in dif-
ferent regions. Some regions have topography that would not be
affected greatly by soil-loss limits. Also, some  regions  have cli-
matic  conditions  and crop adaptation that permit meeting  crop
nitrogen    requirements   through    natural   processes   of

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS           467

nitrification—the summer fallow wheat areas of the Great Plains,
for example. In contrast, certain areas of the Southeast have crop
farming on hilly and  erodable land. Production from these areas
is greatly dependent  upon the amount of chemical fertilizer ap-
plied. Limits on nitrogen fertilizer application in these areas could
reduce crop yields by a greater percentage  than  offsetting per-
centage price  gains  resulting  from  environmental  protection
measures  or government  supply control programs. Agricultural
regions based entirely on semiarid grazing lands and beef produc-
tion generally are not  faced with reduction in crop  yields  and
output  as  environmental measures  are taken.  Some,  however,
would face greater competition from  those regions that would
be forced to  incorporate  more forages into their  rotations  (or
sod-based  rotations)  as  a means of  attaining  environmental
standards.
  Imposition  of soil  loss  and nitrogen application limits would
not reduce total national farmer receipts if two conditions were
met:

     • The farmer's level of production is  not lower than under
       the land retirement programs.

     • The farm community  must  receive  payments  equal to
       what it  formerly received for removing land  from  pro-
       duction.
  However, income effects would vary widely among the  223
farm regions delineated in the study.  Not all of  them possess
the  characteristics  needed to  have  their  income  improved  or
maintained under conditions  of prevailing farm  programs or a
free market situation.
  Adoption of  environmental measures that would  just offset
and replace government supply control programs would still have
a differential effect among regions. As might be  expected, areas
using little nitrogen fertilizer and having soils and climate caus-
ing little soil  loss would realize more income, as well as windfall
gains in the form of  higher land values. Conversely, those areas
with  yields affected  materially by shifts  in land use and re-
duced nitrogen would  have less income, even though total revenue
would remain constant at the national level.

-------
468          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

VI. BENEFITS FROM WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT

Introduction*
Meeting the  water quality goals set by the 1972 Amendments
will  require  expenditures by Federal,  State  and  local govern-
ments  and by  private industry.  Given the cost involved,  it is
important to  know what will be received in return, what will be
the economic value of enhancing the quality of  water resources,
and  in which locations and  for  what purposes will abatement
efforts be most valuable.
  The purpose of estimating benefits is  to infer the  economic
value of pollution control. The market value of most goods and
services and  factors of production is  known by  their  market
prices—that  is, the  amount that someone is willing to pay for
their use.  However,  normal market transactions are not usually
available for valuing water  quality.  Therefore,  the  value  must
be imputed indirectly as it affects  the costs of  producing goods
or the demand for  water-related  activities. The  estimation of
benefits is an effort  to identify how much  water users  would be
willing to pay for an amount of water quality enhancement if a
market existed. For  example,  consumers would be willing to pay
for increased pleasure in recreation  uses, and industry and munic-
ipalities would be willing to  pay to avoid the  costs of treating
water before they use it.
  Estimating benefits at a particular site requires four sequen-
tial steps:
     •  The abatement plan must be specified  in  terms of the
       amounts and types of pollutants to be reduced.
     •  The impact of the abatement plan  on  the parameters of
       watercourse quality must be predicted.
     •  The impact of changes in the parameters on water uses
       must be estimated.
     •  The economic value  of induced changes in the level of
       uses and in the increased value of  existing uses, plus cost
       savings because of improved  water quality, must be identi-
       fied.

  The first step is required because a benefit study is useful only
if estimated benefits can be compared to the costs that produced
  * For a more theoretical and comprehensive discussion of the issues in
benefit analysis by EPA, see Techniques for Cost and Benefit Analysis of
Water Pollution Control Programs and Policies, report to Congress in com-
pliance with Public Law 92-500. January 1974.

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS            469

them. A benefit study is undertaken at a  site to compare the
value of abatement with the costs of abatement. The effluent
guidelines,  established  under the 1972 Amendments, become the
abatement plans. And the projected total effluent releases must be
compared to the present level of effluent releases in order to ob-
tain a measure of abatement. The first step  is probably the  least
difficult once the guidelines are established,  although the content
of  some  presently  released  effluents,  particularly  industrial
wastes, is not completely known. Abatement  can reduce release of
a combination of pollutants  such  as  oxygen-demanding organic
wastes, suspended and  floating solids,  hazardous materials, waste
heat, and other chemical substances. Data  on abatement  plans
already undertaken should depend mainly  on monitoring efflu-
ent streams before and  after abatement. For benefit  studies of
proposed plans, the abatement efficiencies of selected technologies
must be inferred from  experience elsewhere.
  For the second step, a transfer function  must be constructed
relating pollutant emission quality to changes in ambient condi-
tions. Abatement can affect parameters such as dissolved oxygen,
temperature,  and chemical concentrations in  a wide variety of
ways. Some of the effects are well known, but others are not. The
effects  depend in part  on existing water temperature, air  tem-
perature, wind, water current and mixing, and other physical
and biological characteristics of the receiving waters.  In-stream
monitoring should  include several water quality  parameters,  a
number of monitoring sites, since effects can  vary widely be-
tween nearby  points. However,  monitoring  is so expensive  that
inferences must be made from samples made at few points and
for only a few parameters. This tends to weaken this step in the
benefit estimation process.
  Probably the most difficult step in benefit  estimation is to link
changes in  water quality parameters and man's potential use of
water resources.  For  this third  step,  it is  useful to  classify
water uses  as withdrawal or in-stream uses.  Withdrawal uses in-
clude municipal, industrial, and agricultural (irrigation)  activi-
ties. In-stream uses include commercial fishing, water-related rec-
reation, and  navigation. There  are also ecological benefits and
aesthetic values not directly related to recreation.
  The fourth step in benefit estimation is to assign values to use
changes. Municipal and industrial water users value improved
water quality  because  it can  lower water treatment costs, and
farmers and  commercial fishermen value it  because it increases
crop and fishery yields and  thus  increases  their  income. Many

-------
470          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

individuals value improved water quality  because  it  increases
the potential for water related activities, aesthetic enjoyment of
water courses,  and maintenance of the ecological system.  Indi-
viduals also value improved water quality because it reduces the
potential for health hazards.
  Each of the four steps must be completed in order to estimate
the benefits of a given abatement scheme. The ability to measure
benefits is a composite of the four steps. The greatest difficulties
lie in the second step, tracing the effects of an abatement plan on
water quality parameters,  and in the third step, relating para-
meter changes to man's use of the water. To a large extent, im-
proved benefit analysis depends on better knowledge of how to
measure these relationships, but the emphasis here will be on the
fourth step of placing a value on the changes in use.

Water Quality as an Input into Production
Water quality is important as an input into industrial water uses,
municipal (domestic) water uses, commercial fisheries, and agri-
culture. With cleaner raw water, an  industry  or  municipality
may incur lower treatment costs or a fishery or farm may be
more productive. The approach to measuring  the benefits is to
estimate the value of lower costs of production and  increased
productivity resulting from improved water quality.
  Industrial  Uses. Deviating from prescribed  water quality for
particular industrial uses can  result in damage to equipment, re-
duced efficiency, reduced product quality, or other economic costs
such as reduced yields. Water quality requirements vary widely
from industry to industry. For  example, water with color would
be suitable as boiler feed  but unsuitable in the manufacture of
clear, uncolored plastics. Because of the wide variations in water
quality requirements, benefit estimates for  one or two industrial
sectors cannot be generalized to all industry in a region or in the
Nation.
  The benefits from  water quality  enhancement are probably
measured most accurately  in industrial  water  uses. Engineering
studies  can calculate  the  cost savings  from  decreased require-
ments for water  treatment;  the cost calculation  is facilitated
by  the use of normal market prices  for the inputs that will no
longer have  to be used. Measuring  benefits for  more than one
firm or for  regional  or national  studies might be done  using
statistical cost functions, and future cost savings might be esti-
mated through  use  of population and  water  use projections—
that is, demand projections. If  statistical cost functions are not

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS           471

available, then survey and interview techniques could be applied;
their accuracy would probably be lower, however.

  Municipal  Uses.  Estimating the benefits of cleaner water  to
municipal water systems  is as straightforward as for industrial
water uses, but the engineering studies of damage to equipment
and  to other factors are  not as well developed.  Statistical cost
functions for particular treatment  plants, if applied to plants  in
other locations, would probably be more  reliable than the same
procedure in industrial  studies because the product, clean water,
is much more similar between regions. There is still the problem,
however,  of  variations in  natural pollutants.  Treatment costs
and  techniques vary between locations, which makes generaliza-
tion  of a few studies to  broader areas unreliable.
  Although  treatment  cost savings  can be  calculated,  it  is
difficult to relate these benefits to the cost outlays made upstream
for waste treatment. Frankel (1965)  attempted to make this link
using a simulation model  of a part of a river.* His results indi-
cate  the complexity of  the  linkage because of hydrologic varia-
tions in rivers,  both between  sites and  at  the  same site over
time. Benefit estimates  are not useful as a policy guide if they
cannot be related to the cost outlays needed to produce them.
  There is one national estimate of water supply benefits to do-
mestic users. Tihansky [1973 (b)] derived individual functions
that  relate physical damages from  minerals and  other pollutants
to both household appliances and to water distribution facilities.
The  effects  were converted to  economic losses  from  operating
problems and equipment depreciation in a typical  household.
Average household damages were found to depend on the sources
of water supply—whether it was publicly treated surface water,
publicly  treated groundwater,  or private well water. The most
economically damaging pollutants  were hardness and total dis-
solved solids. Because  these pollutants  are partly natural  in
origin,  the  portion  due  to  man-made pollutants is  difficult  to
segregate.

  Multiple  Uses. Some benefit studies do  not  emphasize one
water  use but  instead  study one  pollutant  in  several contexts.
Considering both domestic and industrial uses,  Brandt   (1972)
assessed the economic  effects of  sediment  along the Potomac
River north of the District of  Columbia.  Not all of  the effects
were detrimental, since turbidity in municipal water supply ab-
  * Keferences cited are included in a bibliography located at the end of this
section.

-------
472          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

sorbs certain foul-tasting and odor-producing constituents. Hypo-
thetical linear  damage  functions were used to relate sediment
loads to the chemical treatment costs of water supply.
  In  a more  comprehensive geographic  analysis, Stoll  (1966)
estimated annual sediment damages for the United States. Dam-
age categories  included reservoir capacity losses,  inland naviga-
tion  route blockages,  obstruction  of irrigation  canals,  excess
turbidity in public water supplies, and commercial fishery losses.
The  validity of such estimates is questionable because accurate
data on sediment discharge, transport, and subsequent effects do
not exist in  most regions of the country. Benefits were estimated
by using the cost of repairing the damage or  removing the ob-
struction. For example,  the cost of dredging was used as a surro-
gate for damages although firms  using a dredged  canal or what-
ever may be willing to pay much more (or less) than these costs.
Thus, costs  of  repair are  not an  accurate  surrogate for benefits.
  Commercial Fishing Uses. Commercial fishery losses from pol-
lution have been  estimated for  small coastal  areas,  estuaries,
and  river stretches throughout the United States, but there are
only a  few  national estimates. Bale  (1971) estimated total na-
tional losses of revenue  (dockside)  from DDT, mercury,  and
pathogenic  organisms.  Fish kills were  evaluated by assigning
an arbitrary price per fish and assuming that roughly two-thirds
of reported kills were  commercial species. This  assigned value
may be modest; further, because fish kills are not carefully moni-
tored, the damage estimates are highly conjectural. Bale calcu-
lated the economic losses to the shellfish  industry by assuming
that only clams and oysters, which are immobile, were reduced in
catch. Other species were assumed to avoid pollution.  The reduc-
tion in potential supply was assumed to be proportional to shell-
fishing areas closed by pollution.  Potential revenue gains  used  as
benefit estimates  were  calculated from   the  original price  of
shellfish. This  may  be  inaccurate since an increase  in the na-
tional supply should lower prices.
  The Council on Environmental Quality  (1971)  also estimated
national revenue losses  of commercial   (marine)  shellfishing;
this value is four times as large as Bale's  estimate because it in-
cluded all species caught. The  Council's estimate is probably too
high because some species, such as lobsters and  crabs, can tolerate
more pollution than clams and oysters. The  fourfold difference
in loss estimates indicates that benefit estimation is not far ad-
vanced.
  Weddig (1972) calculated the impact of mercury restrictions

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS           473

on inland and estuarine  fish supply in the United States. He
assumed that roughly 1.5  percent of potential domestic supply is
lost.  An interesting part of this estimate pertains to a potential
coho salmon fishery in Lake Michigan. Since it "closed before it
began," the real dollar losses to private fishermen are assumed to
be nil. By overlooking the social cost of unfilled opportunity and
lost option demand, this viewpoint avoided a very difficult mea-
surement problem.
  Agricultural Uses. The  salt content of water can  have  serious
economic and social  impacts on  agriculture by  contaminating
irrigation water. Callinan and Webster  (1971) estimated  farm
production losses and  the social costs of  uprooting rural  com-
munity life  by forcing farmers to move.  The  economic  cost of
re-establishment was assumed to  be a  fixed amount  per capita
and the corresponding "social cost"  to be one-fourth of the eco-
nomic value.  These costs were not defined explicitly and ap-
parently included some concept of value in addition to the  normal
efficiency concept of benefits. Damage to  crops  may be  caused
by other factors such  as  poor farm management, the effects of
which were not considered in the study. Finally, farm crop losses
are an immediate effect and may not reflect long-term damages.
Crops more tolerant of salinity may be  substituted in irrigated
fields, reducing initial income  losses.
  Vincent and Russell  (1971) presented  a more  comprehensive
analysis of saline water uses. Economic losses estimated were de-
creased agricultural crop  yields, municipal and  industrial water
treatment costs, corrosion of water supply intake pipes, and re-
duced palatability of drinking water. The palatability loss re-
ferred to consumers' willingness to pay for their taste  prefer-
ences and hence was  more subjective than the other impacts.
Because general information on salinity effects  was  minimal, the
authors  derived estimates of expected  values  and  probabilities
of damage levels by soliciting the opinions of experts.
  In  a theoretical  decision model,  EPA  (1971)  attempted to
identify the least cost solution of salinity control. Farmers had
five possible responses to  saline irrigation water from the  Colo-
rado River Basin. Their options varied from no  remedial action
(with reduced crop  yields) to maintenance  of past crop yields
(with increased water requirements). Nonlinear economic  dam-
age curves were formulated for each action, but they were based
on minimal data and incomplete surveys of farmers' preferences
for action. As a hedge, all damage estimates were made  on the
conservative side.

-------
474          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT 11

  Another study of this region,  by the Bureau of  Reclamation
(1969), derived what appear to be high damage values.  On the
basis of no remedial actions, crop  losses were evaluated on the
assumptions that the highest valued crops were destroyed and
that soil  leaching  conditions were extreme. Estimates  of re-
gional crop damages were based on fixed  prices and  thus  over-
looked the possibility  that  large-scale  changes  in supply  could
significantly affect the market prices.
  Implications.  The ability to  estimate  benefits  varies  when
water  quality is an input in production. Benefit estimation can
be quite accurate for  a single industrial  plant or  a municipal
water  treatment plant.  It is less  accurate in agriculture because
of problems of changing levels of output, of subsidized prices,
and  in separating natural from  man-caused pollutants. Finally,
it is probably inaccurate  in commercial  fisheries  because the
effects of pollutants are not well known and the price-quantity
relationships vary greatly in short time periods as  fish supplies
change. In addition, benefit studies must  be specific  to a  plant
or site to have any validity. Generalization of the results of one
study to other sites or plants is usually not valid. National  bene-
fit studies must be a summation of the results  of many studies
and  not a generalization from one or a few studies.

Water Quality When Consumed With Another Good
Clean water is consumed with some final goods. In this case, the
benefits of water quality enhancement  are measured  by the in-
creased willingness to pay for the good  consumed with the
cleaner water.  For example, the  additional amount  that persons
would be willing to pay for  a recreational experience on a cleaner
lake or river is the relevant concept of benefits.
  The primary good for which water quality  is important  is
water related recreation. But a complicating factor is that out-
door recreation is  usually  a nonmarketed  good so  that  the  de-
mand has to be determined from some other activity. There are
three  main approaches to  determining benefits and variations
within each method.
  One approach is to  use market data of private recreation fa-
cilities. If a private development  is a close substitute for a public
facility, then willingness to pay  for private  recreation is  likely
to be a valid estimate of the value of the public recreation. Un-
fdrtunately,  private recreation  developments  are usually not
similar to public ones.
  A second approach is to  ask potential beneficiaries how  much

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES  AND REPORTS           475

they would be willing to pay to use a particular recreation fa-
cility. The critical problem with this approach is that responses
to survey questionnaires tend to be  biased whenever the respon-
dent believes his answer to be self-serving.  For  example, a
respondent may overestimate his willingness to pay for a rec-
reation  area  if he believes his answer will encourage a decision
to provide more  such areas. He may understate it if he thinks he
may have to pay. In addition, there is the problem  of people
making hypothetical choices. The respondent  is not as  likely
to evaluate the consequences  of a hypothetical choice as carefully
as he would the possible outcomes of an actual choice. In fact,
the choice may  be made with very little  thought since he will
not experience the consequences.
   The  third  approach  is the travel-cost  method. This  method
derives  a market-demand function  for a particular recreation
site. It bases willingness to pay on  travel  costs to get to a par-
ticular site. However, this approach underestimates willingness
to pay to the extent that persons are willing to use  their scarce
time for travel to the site.
   The travel-cost approach has  been applied successfully several
times and is probably the most useful of the three models. Its
most serious difficulty is that it primarily is useful only for calcu-
lating benefits on a completed project. Since the method depends
on participation  rates, the  use before  and  after  a change in
water quality must  be known before willingness to  pay for the
site can be estimated. This difficulty is serious, since  the primary
use of benefit estimates is for evaluating proposed projects.
   One  of the earliest and  most comprehensive benefit studies
dealt with  water quality in the Delaware Estuary. The study,
made by the Federal Water Pollution  Control Administration
(1966), attempted to quantify  water quality benefits to recrea-
tion, commercial fishing, and domestic water supply. Rough esti-
mates of recreation benefits based on national participation rates
and applied to  the regional  population accounted for  the  great
majority of water quality benefits.  Benefits to commercial fish-
ing were significant,  although only a small  fraction of total bene-
fits. Benefits to domestic water supply were  negligible.
   In an extension of the Delaware study, Tomazinis  and Gab-
bour (1967) estimated the economic impacts of pollution control
on the  specific  activities of boating,  fishing,  swimming, and
beach picnicking. Like another related  study completed earlier
by Davidson (1966), they assumed that  demand  increases lin-
early with  the supply of clean  surface water. The major short-

-------
476          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

coming of both studies was that total benefits were determined
by multiplying the anticipated increased use by a range  of es-
sentially arbitrary values. This approach does not represent bene-
fits in terms of willingness to pay, nor is there any reason to
suspect it is a good approximation.  Nevertheless, useful  atten-
dance information was developed.
  A rigorous benefit study by Stevens  (1966) looked at the re-
lationship between water quality and the  value  of  the  Yaquina
Bay sports fishery in Oregon. Demand for fishing was estimated
by the travel-cost method but modified  to  include the quality of
fishing, which  in  turn depended on  the quality  of water.  The
benefits of cleaner water were  estimated  by the willingness to
pay for sports  fishing. The benefit  estimation was later success-
fully questioned  by Burt  (1969)  as underestimating the total
willingness to pay.
  Despite their limitations,  studies such as  these have  provided
useful information and have  advanced benefit evaluation. More
empirical  work based  on  sound analytical procedures is needed,
but rigorous studies tend to be both time  consuming and  expen-
sive.  Data requirements  can be staggering and the necessary
methodologies highly technical. The value of  future studies would
be enhanced greatly if results could  be legitimately generalized
to the regional level. High priority should be given  those studies
most likely to produce results that can be extended to other sit-
uations.

Water Quality As a Factor in Human Health
There has been  considerable research  on the impact  of  inade-
quate water quality control on human health. Epidemiologic and
other health data are now  compiled  in detail for acute clinical
illnesses, however, and they do not exist for subclinical  and  low-
level illnesses  such as  common diarrhea as related  to  water
quality. Problems arise  in that  the  victim  may  not report the
illness, or the effects may only occur after  a period of  time
has elapsed, making its cause impossible to trace.
   Water  pollutants are  transmitted to  man in several ways.
Pollutants enter  through the public water supply system in the
form of such things as chemical impurities, bacteria, and viruses.
Second, they enter through  the food supply such  as a buildup
of chemicals in fish. Third, pollutants enter through direct  body
contact with the  water such as in  swimming. Finally, pollutants
may lead  to ecological changes that affect  man's physical or psy-
chological health.

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS           477

  The research on  health  impacts  and  water  quality is con-
cerned with several basic areas:
    •  Bacteriological parameters of surface water bodies,  in-
       cluding discussions of source, survival, and removability.
    •  General  reviews  of  the  incidence,  outbreaks, and  signifi-
       cance of waterborne diseases.
    •  Engineering  evaluations  of  health  hazards  and  water
       quality parameters.
    •  Studies of specific pollutants such as mineralization, mer-
       cury, or coliform bacteria, and  their relation  to  human
       health.
    •  Bacteriological parameters and contact recreation.
The emphasis at this time  has not  yet shifted to the economic
quantification of reduced health hazards or risks associated with
water pollution abatement.
  The value of avoiding sickness or of dying prematurely from
polluted water does not fit well into the two previously discussed
concepts  of benefits. When  water is used directly for drinking,
cooking,  bathing, and swimming, or indirectly in the  production
of some good, there is a risk of contracting some disease. A per-
son would not use water if he knew that it would make him sick.
But he would use water if he knew there was only a small chance
of contracting a sickness—that is, he thought perhaps  that some-
one may get sick, but  he  did  not know who. Thus the  correct
concept of benefits is the amount a person is willing to pay to
reduce the risk of getting sick.
  Health benefits have been conceptualized in several  ways. One
is to measure loss in gross earnings. This assumes that there is
no benefit in preventing illness for housewives,  children, or per-
sons who are retired, on  vacation, on  welfare,  or living on  in-
vestment income. It is not clear that even  persons who are work-
ing would  be willing to pay all of their  income losses to avoid
being  sick.  A  second  measure takes gross  income minus con-
sumption expenditure.  It is again not clear that persons who
are working would be willing to pay only their  savings to avoid
being sick  or dying prematurely. A  third measure adds up out-
lays  by  sick persons for doctors, hospitals, and medicine. The
amount that persons would pay to repair a sickness may be very
different from the amount they would pay to reduce the risk of
getting sick in the first place.
  There  is recent but  increasing acceptance of the  concept of
health benefits  as being willingness to pay to reduce the risk of

-------
478          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

contracting a sickness or of dying prematurely,  but very little
successful work has  been done  to  identify a  proxy for  this
amount for water  quality (or for other health situations) (Liu
1972).

Bibliography
Appalachian Regional Commission, Acid Mine Drainage in Ap-
  palachia, Vol. 1.  Washington, D.C., 1969.
Arner, D., et al.,  "An Ecological  and Recreational  Use Survey
  of the Luxapalila River,"  page 367.  Water Resources Bulletin
  V. 8, April 1972, No. 2, Permagon  Press, Oxford, England.
Aukerman, R., "Water  Quality  Criteria for Selected Recrea-
  tional Uses—Site Comparisons," Thesis, University of Illinois,
  1971.
Baker, J. M., "The Effects  of  Oil on Plants,"  Environmental
  Pollution, (1) 1970.
Bale, H. E., Jr., Report on the Economic  Costs of Fishery Con-
  taminants,  National Marine Fisheries Service,  Department of
  Commerce, Washington, D.C., 1971.
Barbaro, R. D., B. J. Carroll, L. B. Tebo, and  L.  C.  Walters,
  "Bacteriological  Water Quality of Several  Recreational Areas
  in the Ross Barnett Reservoir," J. Water Pollution Control
  Fed., July 1969,  p. 1330.
Barker, B., and P. Cramer,  "Water  Quality Conditions in Illi-
  nois,"  Appendix A,  State-Wide Water  Resource  Development
  Plan 1972,  Illinois Department of Transportation, Division of
  Water Resource  Management, Springfield, 111., 1973.
Battelle  Memorial Institute,  Environmental  Evaluation  System,
  for  Water Resource Planning, for Bureau of  Reclamation,
  U.S. Department of the Interior, Columbus,  Ohio, 1972.
Belding, David L.,  "Toxicity Experiments with Fish in Reference
  to Trade Waste  Pollution," Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.  57, 1972.
Benjamin,  S., Anti-Pollution  Measures May Change the Econ-
  omy, United Press Release,  New York, N.Y., August 26, 1972.
Bevins, Malcolm I., Attitudes on  Environmental Quality  in Six
  Vermont  Lakeshore  Communities,  Northeast  Regional Re-
  search  Publication, Vermont  Ag  Experiment Station  Uni-
  versity of Vermont, Bulletin 671, June 1972.
Beyer, J., Water Quality and Value of Homesites on the Rock-
  away  River, Water  Resources Research  Institute,  Rutgers,
  The State University, New Brunswick, N.J., 1969.

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS           479

Bishop, Doyle W., and Robert Aukerman,  Water Quality Cri-
  teria for Selected Recreational  Uses, Research Report No. 33,
  University of  Illinois Water Resources  Center, University of
  Illinois, September, 1970.
Born, Stephen M., et al., "Inland Lake Demonstration Project,"
  A Joint Venture of the University of Wisconsin and the Wis-
  consin Department of Natural Resources, 1972.
Bradfield, M., Benefit-Cost  Study of the  Annapolis-Cormvallis
  River  Systems,  Dalhousie University, Halifax,  Nova  Scotia,
  1970.
Bramer,  H. C.,  The Economic Aspects of the Water Pollution
  Abatement Program in the Ohio River Valley, Ph. D. thesis,
  University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa., 1960.
Bramer,  H.  C.,  Economically  Significant  Physicochemical Pa-
  rameters of Water Quality for  Various Uses, Mellon Institute,
  Pittsburgh, Pa., 1971.
Brandt,  G.  H.,  et al., An Economic Analysis of Erosion and
  Sediment Control  Methods for Watersheds  Undergoing Ur-
  banization, The Dow Chemical  Co., Midland,  Mich., 1972.
Bregman, J. I. and  Sergei  Lenormand, The Pollution Paradox,
  A Spartan  Book,  Books,  Inc.,  New York and Washington,
  1966.
Buelow, Ralph W., and Graham Walton, "Bacteriological Quality
  vs. Residual Chlorine," /. of Am. Water Works Assn.,  63, 95,
  1971.
Bureau of  Outdoor Recreation, Water-Oriented Outdoor Recrea-
  tion  in the Lake Ontario Basin, Federal Water Pollution Con-
  trol Administration, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1967.
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, "Recreation and Aesthetics," Ap-
  pendix F, Development  of Water Resources in Appalachia,
  U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., 1968.
Bureau of Reclamation, Value of  Desalted Water for  Irrigation,
  U.S. Department of the Interior, Denver, Colo., 1969.
Burt, O. R., "Comments on  'Recreation  Benefits from Water
  Pollution  Control'  by Joe  B. Stevens," Water Resources Re-
  search, Vol. 5(4), 1969.
Cairns, John Jr., "Ecological Management Problems  Caused by
  Heated Waste Water  Discharge into the Aquatic Environ-
  ment," Water Resources  Bulletin, November-December  1970,
  No. 6.

-------
480         LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n

Cairns, John Jr., and Kenneth L. Dickson,  "A  Simple  Method
  for the Biological Assessment  of the  Effects  of Waste  Dis-
  charges on Aquatic  Bottom-Dwelling  Organisms,"  J.  Water
  Poll. Control Fed., November, 1968, Vol. 43, No.  5.
Callinan, B. J., and R.  G.  Webster,  "Economic  and Social As-
  pects  of Saline  Water Use and Management," SaMnity and
  Water  Use, edited by T. Talsma and J. R.  Philip, Wiley-Inter-
  science, New York, N.Y., 1971.
Cannaro, P., et  al., Pollution and Ecologic  Patrimony,  ISVET
  Document, No. 33, Rome, Italy,  1970.
Ciriacy-Wantrup, S.  V., Resource Conservation:  Economics and
  Policies, Univ. of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles,
  1952.
Clarke, N. A., G. Berg, P. W. Kabler and S. L. Chang, "Human
  Enteric Viruses in Water: Source, Survival and Removabil-
  ity," Ed.  W.  W. Eckenfelder, Advancement in Water Pollu-
  tion Res., Proc.  Int. Conf., London,  September 1962, Vol. 2,
  pp. 523-532.
Claudon,  D.  G., et al., "Prolonged Salmonella Contamination of a
  Recreational Lake by Runoff  Waters,"  Appl. Microbiology,
  May 1971, 875-877. Vol. 21, No. 5.
Clawson, M., and J. L.  Knetsch, Economics  of Outdoor  Recrea-
  tion, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Md., 1966.
Cole, Arch E., "Water Pollution Studies in Wisconsin,  Effects of
  Industrial  (Pulp and Paper Mill)  Wastes  on Fish,"  Water
  Pollution Studies, Vol. 7, No. 2, March, 1935.
Committee on Environmental Quality Management of the Sani-
  tary Engineering Division, "Engineering Evaluation of Virus
  Hazard in Water," J. of the Sanitary Engineering Division,
  February, 1970.
Committee On Public Works, Laws of the United States Relating
  to Water  Pollution Control and Environmental Quality,  U.S.
  House  of Representatives, Washington, D.C., 1970.
Coomber, N. H. and A.  K. Biswas. Evaluation of Environmental
  Intangibles, Genera Press, Bronxville, N.Y., 1972.
Copeland, B. J., Neal  E.  Armstrong,  and  Earnest F.  Gloyna,
  "Ecological Aspects of Stream Pollution," Advances in Water
  Quality Improvement, 1968.
Council on Environmental Quality, Ocean Dumping: A National
  Policy, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1971.
Council on Environmental  Quality, Environmental Quality, The
  Second Annual Report, Washington, D.C., 1971.

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS           481

Cowell,  E. B.,  ed., The  Ecological Effect  of Oil Pollution on
  Littoral Communities,  Institute of  Petroleum,  London, 1971.
Craun, Gunther F., and Leland J. McCabe, "Review of the Causes
  of Waterborne-Disease  Outbreaks,"  Water  Technology/Qual-
  ity, /. Am. Water Works Assn., January, 1973.
Criss, R. R.,  "Socio-economic Accounting Applied to Water Re-
  source Planning," Water Resources Bulletin,  August, 1971.
David, Elizabeth  L., "Lakeshore Property  Values:  A  Guide to
  Public Investment in Recreation," Water Resources Research,
  August, 1968.
David, Elizabeth  L., Richard S. Howe,  and  John  T. Quigley,
  "Institutional Design for Water Quality Management: A  Case
  Study  of the  Wisconsin River Basin,"  The  University  of
  Wisconsin Water Resources Center, Tech.  Report OWRR C-
  1228,1970.
David, Elizabeth  L., "Public Perceptions  of Water  Quality,"
  Water Resources Research, June, 1971 (3), pp. 453-57.
David, E. L., and W. B.  Lord, Determinants of Property Value
  on Artificial Lakes, University of Wisconsin,  Department of
  Agricultural Economics, Madison, Wisconsin, 1969.
Davidson, P., F. G. Adams, and J. Seneca, "The  Social Value of
  Water Recreational Facilities Resulting from an Improvement
  in Water Quality: The Delaware Estuary," Water Research,
  A. V. Kneese and S. C. Smith (editors),  John Hopkins Press,
  Baltimore, Md.,  1966.
Dearinger, John A.  and  George M. Woolwine, "Measuring the
  Intangible Values of Natural Streams, Part I,  Application of
  the Uniqueness  Concept,"  Research Report No.  40, Univer-
  sity of Kentucky, Water Resources Institute, Lexington, 1971.
Dee, Norbert, et  al.,  "Environmental  Evaluation  System for
  Water Resource Planning," Columbus Laboratories, January,
  1972.
Ditton, Robert, and Thomas Goodale, "Marine Recreational  Uses
  of Green Bay:  A Study of Human Behavior and Attitude
  Patterns,"  University  of Wisconsin, Sea Grant Prog., Tech.
  Rept. 17, December, 1972.
Dornbusch, David M.  &  Co., Inc.,  Benefit  of Water  Pollution
  Control on Property Values, San Francisco, Calif., 1973.
Dunn, Dorothy and  Thurston E. Larson, "Relationship  of Do-
  mestic Water Use to Assessed Valuation  with Selected Demo-
  graphic and Socioeconomic Variables," J. Am. Water Works
  Assn., 55, pp. 441-450,1963.

-------
482         LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT 11

Dupuit, J., "On the Measurement of Utility of  Public Works,"
  International Economic Papers, Vol. 2,1844.
Dutta, M., and P. Asch, "The Measurement of Water Quality
  Benefits," report prepared for Delaware River Basin Commis-
  sion, Bureau of Economic Research,  Rutgers,  The State  Uni-
  versity, New Brunswick, N.J., May, 1966.
Eliassen, R., and W.  T.  Rowland, "Industrial Benefits  Derived
  from Improved Raw Water Quality in the Contra Costa Canal,"
  Stanford University, Institute of Engineering-Economic  Sys-
  tems, September, 1962.
Environmental Protection  Agency, "Effects of Chemicals  on
  Aquatic Life," Water Quality Criteria Data Book, Vol. 3, May
  1971(a).
Environmental Protection Agency,  The  Mineral Quality  Prob-
  lem in the  Colorado River  Basin,  "Physical and Economic
  Impacts," Appendix B, Regions VIII and IX, Denver,  Colo.,
  1971(b).
Faro, R., and  N. L. Nemerow, Measurement of the  Total Dollar
  Benefit of Water Pollution Control,  Syracuse University, De-
  partment of Civil Engineering, Research Report No. 10, Janu-
  ary, 1969.
Federal Inter-Agency River Basin Committee, Subcommittee on
  Benefits and Costs,  Proposed Practices for Economic Analysis
  of River Basin Projects, Government Printing  Office, Washing-
  ton, D.C., 1950.
Federal Water Pollution Control  Administration, Delaware Es-
  tuary  Comprehensive  Study: Preliminary  Report  and  Find-
  ings, U.S. Department of  the Interior,  Philadelphia, Pa.,  July,
  1966.
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Effects of the
  San Joaquin Master Drain on Water Quality of the San Fran-
  cisco Bay and Delta,  U.S.  Department of the  Interior,  San
  Francisco, Calif., January, 1967.
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Water Quality
  Criteria, National Technical Advisory Committee, Washington,
  D.C., April,  1968.
Federal  Water Pollution Control Administration,  The National
  Estuarine Pollution Study,  U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior,
  Vol. II, November, 1969.
Federal  Water  Quality  Administration,  New  Haven  Harbor:
  Shellfish Resource and Water Quality,  U.S. Department of the
  Interior, Needham Heights, Mass., August, 1970.

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS           483

Fisher, A. C., "The Evaluation of Benefits from Pollution Abate-
  ment," Environmental Protection Agency,  Office  of Planning
  and Evaluation,  Washington,  B.C., 1972.
Foster, David H.,  et al.,  "A Critical  Examination  of  Bathing
  Water  Quality Standards," J. Water Poll.  Control Fed., Vol.
  43, 1971, p. 2229.
Foster, M., M. Neushul, and R. Zingmark, "The Santa  Barbara
  Oil Spill Part 2: Initial Effects  on  Intertidal and Kelp  Bed
  Organisms," Environmental Pollution (2), 1971.
Frankel,   R.,  "Water  Quality  Management:  Engineering—
  Economic  Factors  in  Municipal Waste  Disposal," Water Re-
  sources Research, Vol. 1, No. 2,  (1965), pp. 173-186.
Freyre, Lauce, "Pollution of the 'El Carpincho' Pond  (Pampasic
  Region, Argentina) and its Effects on Plankton and Fish Com-
  munities," Environmental Pollution (4), 1973.
Geldreich, E. E., "Applying Bacteriological Parameters to Rec-
  reational Water Quality,"  J. Am.  Water  Works  Assn., 62,
  113,1970.
Geldreich, E. E.,  L. C.  Best,  B. A.   Kenner, and D. J. Van
  Donsel, "The Bacteriological Aspects of Stormwater Pollution,"
  /. Water Poll. Control Fed., November, 1968, Vol. 40, No. 11.
Gorman,  Arthur E.,  and Abel Wolman, "Waterborne Outbreaks
  in the United States and Canada,  and Their Significance,"
  J. Am. Water Works Assn., Vol. 31, No. 2.
Granstorm, M. L.,  M. Dutta, J. DeRooy, "Water Resources and
  the Chemical Industry  in  New Jersey,"  New Jersey Water
  Resources Research Institute,  October, 1969.
Greeley and  Hansen, Engineers, "Study  for Determination of
  Benefits from Improved  Great Lakes Water Quality," Dredging
  and Water Quality Problems in the  Great Lakes, U.S.  Army
  Corps of Engineers, Buffalo, N.Y., June, 1969.
Harberger, Arnold C., et al., "Three Basic Postulates for Applied
  Welfare Economics; An Interpretive  Essay," Economic Litera-
  ture, September, 1971, Vol. IX, No. 3.
Henderson, J. M., "Enteric  Disease  Criteria  for  Recreational
  Waters," J. of the  Sanitary Engineering Division, Proc.  of the
  American Society of Civil Engineers.
Hepple, Peter, ed. Water Pollution by Oil,  The Elsevier Pub-
  lishing Co. Ltd.,  London, 1971.
Jordening, D. L.,  and J. Algood, State of the Art: Estimating
  Benefits of Water  Quality Enhancement,  Development Plan-
  ning and Research Associates, Manhattan, Kan., 1973.

-------
484         LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

Katz, Max,  Richard S.  LeGore, Donald Weitkamp,  Joseph M.
  Cummins, David Anderson,  and Dora  R. May,  "Effects on
  Freshwater  Fish," /.  Water  Poll.  Control Fed., Vol.  44, No.
  6, June, 1972.
Kimball,  T. L.,  "Air, Water Pollution  Now Cost  U.S.  $28.9
  Billion  a Year,"  National  Wildlife Federation,  February-
  March, 1972.
Kinney, Edward  C., "Extent of Acid Mine Pollution in the United
  States  Affecting Fish and  Wildlife," U.S. Department of In-
  terior,  Fish and Wildlife Service,  Bureau of  Sport Fisheries
  and Wildlife, Circular 191, 1964.
Klein,  David  H., and Edward D.  Goldberg,  "Mercury in  the
  Marine Environment," Environmental Science and Technology,
  Vol. 4, No. 9, September, 1970.
Klein, L., River Pollution, Vol. 2: Cures and Effects, Butterworth,
  London,1982, 456 pp.
Kneese, Allen  V. and Blair T. Bower, Managing Water Quality
  Economics, Technology, Institutions, Resources for the Future,
  Inc., Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Md., 1968.
Kneese, Allen V. and Blair  T. Bower, Environmental Quality
  Analysis,  Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Md., 1972.
Kneese, A. V., and R. D. d'Arge, Pervasive External Costs  and
  the Response of Society, Resources for the Future,  Inc., Wash-
  ington, D.C., July, 1969.
Kontogiannis,  John E. and Craig J.  Barnett, "The Effect of Oil
  Pollution  on Survival  of the Tidal Pool Copepod, Tigriopus
  Californicus,"  Environmental Pollution (4),  1973.
Krumholz,  Louis A., "A Preliminary Ecological  Study of Areas
  to be Impounded in the  Salt River Basin of Kentucky," Uni-
  versity of Kentucky Water Resources Institute, Research Re-
  port No. 43, September, 1971.
Krumholz, Louis A., and Stuart E. Neff, "A Preliminary Ecolog-
  ical  Study of  Areas to be Impounded in the Salt River Basin
  of Kentucky,"  University  of Kentucky,  Water Resources In-
  stitute, Research Report  No. 48,  October  1971.
Krutilla, J.  V., Evaluation  of an Aspect of Environmental Qual-
  ity:  Hells Canyon Revisited, Resources  for the Future, Inc.,
  Washington, D.C., 1971.
Lackner, J., and A. A. Sokoloski, Safe Drinking  Water Act of
  1973: Estimates  of Benefits and  Costs, Environmental  Pro-
  tection Agency, Washington,  D.C., 1973.
Larson, T. E., "Municipal  and  Home Water Softening," /. Am.
  Water Works  Assn., June 1953.

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES  AND REPORTS           485

Lee, Roger D., James M. Symons, and Gordon G. Robeck, "Water-
  shed Human Use  Level  and Water Quality," /. Am.  Water
  Works Assn., 62, 1970.
Lerner, Lionel, J., "Quantitative Indices of Recreational Values,"
  Water  Resources and  Economic  Development of the West:
  Economics in Outdoor  Recreational Policy,  Report No. 11,
  Conference  Proceedings of the Committee  on the Economics
  of Water Resources Development  of the Western Agricultural
  Economics Research Council, jointly with the Western Farm
  Economics Association, pp. 55-80, University of Nevada, Reno,
  1962.
Liu,  0. C., Proposal  on Research of Enteric  Virus-Related Dis-
  eases, Environmental Protection  Agency, Narragansett,  R.I.,
  1972.
Lof,  George 0. G., and John C. Ward, "Economics of Thermal
  Pollution  Control," /. Water Poll.  Control  Fed., December,
  1970.
Long, Wesley H., "A Sample  Design for  Investigating the Ef-
  fects of Stream Pollution on  Water Based Recreation  Expendi-
  tures," Water Resources Bulletin,  Vol. 4, N. 3, pp. 19-26, Sept.
  1968.
Matson, J. V., and G. F. Bennett, "Cost of Industrial and Munic-
  ipal Waste Treatment in the Maumee River Basin," presented
  at the  American Society of  Mechanical  Engineers—American
  Institute of Chemical Engineers Joint  Conference on Stream
  Pollution and Abatement, New Brunswick, N.J.,  1969.
McKee, J. E., and H. W. Wolf  (editors), Water  Quality Criteria,
  The Resources  Agency  of California, State Water  Resources
  Control Board, Sacramento,  Calif., 1963.
Megli, L. D., W. H. Long,  and  H. E. Gamble, An Analysis of the
  Relationship Between Stream, Water Quality and Regional In-
  come Generated by Water-Oriented Recreationists, The Penn-
  sylvania  State  University,  Institute for  Research  on  Land
  and Water Resources, University Park, Pa.,  1971.
Meredith, D.  D.,  and  B.  B. Ewing,  Systems Approach  to the
  Evaluation of Benefits from Improved Great Lakes Water Qual-
  ity, Proceedings of  12th Conference, Great  Lakes Research,
  Buffalo, N.Y. 1969.
Merritt, L. B., and B. Mar, "Marginal Values of Dilution Waters,"
  Water Resources Research, December, 1969.
Metcalf & Eddy Engineers, The Economic Value of Water Qual-
  ity, Report to the  Office of Saline Water, U.S. Department of
  the Interior, March, 1967.

-------
486          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

Minnehan, R. F., "A  Test of the Hypothesis that Water Pollu-
  tion Control is Worth What it Costs," Proceedings of the Water
  Resources Seminars. 1967-1968, University of Delaware, New-
  ark, Del., 1968.
Munson,  K.  F.,  "Opinions  of Providers and Users  About  Site
  Quality for Water-Oriented Recreation on  Eight Small Lakes
  in Arkansas," Ph.D. Dissertation,  University of Illinois, Jan-
  uary, 1968.
Myles,  George A., "Effect of Quality  Factors  on Water Based
  Recreation in Western Nevada," Desert Research Institute, No.
  3E, Progress Report Series,  Center  for Water Resources Re-
  search  (Max  C. Fleischmann College of Agriculture  Report
  Series  B 16), Reno, February, 1970.
National  Academy of Sciences, Water Quality Criteria, Com-
  mittee  on  Water Quality Criteria, Washington, D.C.,  Decem-
  ber, 1972.
Nedenes,  0., Water Management-Cost Benefit  Analysis, presented
  at the  6th  International  Conference "Water Pollution  Re-
  search," San  Francisco, Calif., 1972.
Nemerow, Nelson L.  and Hisashi Sumitomo, Benefits of  Water
  Quality Enhancement,  (Onondago Lake), Water Pollution Con-
  trol Research  Series, 16110 DAJ12/70.
Nighswonger, J. J., "Methodology for Inventorying and Evaluat-
  ing the Scenic Quality and  Related Recreational Value of Kan-
  sas Streams," Planning Division, Kansas Department  of Eco-
  nomic  Development, Topeka, Kans., Report No.  32,  March,
  1970.
Nordell, Eskel,  Water Treatment for Industrial and  Other Uses,
  Reinhold Publishing Corp., New York, 1961.
Ohio River Committee, "Report Upon  Survey of the Ohio River
  and Its Tributaries for Pollution Control," House Documents,
  Vol.  19, pt. 1, No.  266; 78th Congress, 1st Session, Washing-
  ton, D.C. 1943.
Olson,  H. M., "Benefits  and  Savings from Softened Water for
  Municipal Supply," /.  Am. Water Works  Assn., April, 1939,
  Vol.  31, No.  4.
Olson,  Theodore A.,  and  Fredrick  J. Burgess, Pollution  and
  Marine Ecology, Interscience Publishers, 1967.
Orlob, G. T., M. B. Sonnen, L. C. Davis, and W. R. Norton, Wild
  Rivers: Methods for Evaluation,  Water Resources Engineers,
  Inc., Walnut  Creek, Calif.,  October, 1970.
Packer, Randall K., and William A. Dunson, "Effects of Low En-

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS           487

  vironmental pH on Blood pH and Sodium Balance of Brook
  Trout," /. Exp. Zool, 174, 65, 1970.
Patterson, W. L., and R. F. Banker, "Effects of Highly Mineral-
  ized  Water on  Household  Plumbing and  Appliances," /. Am.
  Water Works Assn., September, 1968.
Pfischner, F. L., Jr., "Relation Between Land Use and Chemical
  Characteristics of Lakes in Southwestern Orange County, Flor-
  ida," Geological Survey Research, 1968.
Pincock, M. Glade, "Assessing Impacts of Declining Water Qual-
  ity on Gross  Value Output  of Agriculture,  A Case  Study,"
  Water Resources Research, Vol. 5, No. 1, February, 1969.
Presnell, Maynard  W., and John  J.  Miescier, "Coliforms and
  Fecal Coliforms in an Oyster-Growing Area," J.  Water Poll.
  Control Fed., March 1971, Vol. 43, No. 3, Part 1.
Pyatt,  E. E., G.  R.  Grantham, and B. J. Carter, A Model for
  Quantifying Flow  Augmentation Benefits, University of Flor-
  ida, Gainesville, Fla., September, 1969.
Randall, Allan  D.,  "Movement  of  Bacteria  from a River to  a
  Municipal Well—A Case History," /. Am. Water Works Assn.,
  November, 1970.
Reiling,  S.  D.,  K.  C. Gibbs,  and H.  H. Steevener,  Economic
  Benefits  from  an Improvement  in Water Quality,  Environ-
  mental Protection Agency, Report No. R5-73-008, Washington,
  B.C., 1973.
Renshaw, E. F., "Value of an Acre-Foot of Water," Journal of
  the Am.  Water Works Assn.,  Vol. 50, p. 304, 1958.
Robert R. Nathan Associates, Inc., "Impact of Mine Drainage on
  Recreation and Stream Ecology," Appalachian Regional Com-
  mission,  Washington, D.C., June, 1969.
Romm,  Jeff, "The Value of  Reservoir Recreation," Cornell Uni-
  versity Water  Resources  and Marine  Sciences  Center,  New
  York,  Technical Report No.  19, A. E. Res. 296, August, 1969.
Scaiola, G., "Public Intervention Against Pollution: Estimates of
  the Economic Costs and Benefits Related to a Project for Elim-
  inating the Principal Forms of Atmospheric and Water  Pollu-
  tion in Italy," Rapporto di  Sintesi,  pp. 137-173, June, 1971.
Smith, J. E. 'Torrey Canyon'  Pollution and Marine Life, Cam-
  bridge University Press, 1968.
Smith, L. L. and D. M. Oseid,  "Effects of Hydrogen Sulfide on
  Fish  Eggs and Fry," Water  Research,  Pergamon Press, 1972.
  Vol. 6, pp. 711-720, printed in Great Britain.

-------
488          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

Snyder, George R., and Theodore H. Blahm, "Effects of Increased
  Temperature on Cold-Water Organisms," J. Water Pott. Control
  Fed.,  (43), 1971.
Spaulding,  Willard  M., Jr., and Ronald D. Ogden,  "Effects of
  Surface Mining on  the  Fish  and Wildlife  Resources of the
  United States," Bureau of Sport Fisheries and  Wildlife, U.S.
  Department of the Interior, Aug. 28, 1968.
Special  Advisory Committee on Water Pollution,  "Report  on
  Water Pollution,"  National Resources Committee, Water Re-
  sources Section, Washington, D.C., July 1935.
Spencer, S. L., "Monetary  Values  of Fish," The Pollution  Com-
  mittee, American Fisheries Society, Montgomery, Ala.,  1970.
Sprague, J. B., "Measurement  of Pollutant Toxicity  to Fish,"
  Water Research, Pergamon Press, 1969, Vol. 3.
Sprague, J. B., and D.  W. McLeese, "Different  Toxic Mecha-
  nisms in Kraft Pulp Mill Effluent  for  Two Aquatic Animals,"
  Water Research, Pergamon Press, 1968, Vol. 2.
Sprague, J. B., and D.  W. McLeese,  "Toxicity of  Kraft  Pulp
  Mill Effluent for Larval and Adult Lobsters, and Juvenile Sal-
  mon," Water Research, Pergamon  Press,  1968, Vol. 2.
Stanley,  Maxwell C.,  "Economics  of Water Softening," /. Am.
  Water Works Assn., Vol. 28, No. 4.
Stevens, J. B., "Recreation Benefits  from Water  Pollution Con-
  trol," Water Resources Research, Vol. 2,  No. 2, Second Quar-
  ter 1966.
Stoevener, H. H., et al., Multi-Disciplinary Study of Water  Qual-
  ity Relationships: A  Case Study of  Yaquina  Bay, Oregon,
  Oregon Agricultural  Experiment  Station, Corvallis, Oregon,
  February, 1972.
Stoll, J. B., "Man's Role in Affecting Sedimentation of Streams
  and Reservoirs," Proceedings of the Second Annual Water Re-
  sources Conference, Chicago, 111., 1966.
Stone, R.,  and H. Friedland,   "Estuarine  Clean  Water  Cost-
  Benefit Studies,"  presented at 5th International Water Pollu-
  tion Research Conference, San Francisco,  Calif., 1970.
Stone, Ralph, William Garber, and Helen Friedland, "Water  Qual-
  ity: Cost Benefits of  Irreducibles," J. of the Sanitary Engineer-
  ing Division, June, 1970.
Storey,  E.  H.  and  Ditton,  R. B., Water Quality Requirements
  for Recreation,  Water Resources  Symp.  No. 3, April,  1969,
  University of Texas Press, Austin, 57, 1970.

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS           489

Sumitomo, H., and N. L. Nemerow, "Pollution Index for Benefit
  Analysis," Syracuse University, Department of Civil Engineer-
  ing, Syracuse, N.Y., 1969.
Tarzwell, Clarence M., "Thermal Requirements to Protect Aquatic
  Life," /. Water Poll.  Control Fed.,  May 1970,  Vol. 42,  No.
  5, Part 1.
Tihansky,  D. P., "An Economic Assessment of Marine  Water
  Pollution Damages," Third  Annual Conference  International
  Association  for Pollution Control,  Pollution  Control in  the
  Marine Industries, Montreal, Canada, June 7, 1973(a).
Tihansky,  D. P., Economic Damages to Household Items from
  Water Supply Use, Environmental Protection Agency,  Wash-
  ington, D.C.,  August, 1973(b).
Todd, David Keith,  The Water Encyclopedia, Water Information
  Center, Water Research Building, Manhasset  Isle, Port Wash-
  ington, N.Y., 1970.
Tomazinis,  A. R., and I.  Gabbour, "Water-Oriented Recreation
  Benefits:  A  Study of the Recreation Benefits  Derivable from
  Various Levels of Water Quality of the Delaware  River," In-
  stitute for Environmental Studies, University of Pennsylvania,
  Philadelphia, Pa., February,  1967.
Trice, A. H., and S.  E. Wood, "Measurement of Recreation  Bene-
  fits," Land Economics,  34, 1958, pp. 796-207.
Tybout, R.  A.,  "Economic Impact of Changes in the Water Re-
  sources of the Great  Lakes,"  Proceedings of  "The Economic
  and  Social Impact of Environmental Changes in  the  Great
  Lakes Region," State University College,  Fredonia, N.Y., Nov.
  7-8,  1969.
U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers,  Potomac  River Basin Report,
  North Atlantic Division, Baltimore, Md., February, 1963.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Feasibility of Evaluation of Bene-
  fits from Improved Great Lakes Water Quality, Water Resources
  Center, University of Illinois, Special Report  # 2, May, 1968.
U.S.  House of Representatives, 92nd Congress, 2nd  Session, Fed-
  eral  Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Con-
  ference Report No. 92-1465, Washington, D.C., 1972.
Vincent, J.  R., and J. D.  Russel,  "Alternatives for Salinity Man-
  agement in the Colorado River Basin," Water Resources  Bulle-
  tin, 7(4), August 1971, pp. 856-866.
Wallace, Robin  A.,  et al., "Mercury in the  Environment, The
  Human Element," Oak Ridge National  Laboratory, January,
  1971.

-------
490          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

Wasserman, L. P., "Economic Loss of Our Estuarine Resource
  Due to  Pollutional  Damage,"  Infinity, Ltd.,  Livingston, N.J.,
  1970.
Water Resources  Engineers,  Inc.,  Evaluation of  Alternative
  Water Quality Control Plans for Elkhorn  Slough and Moss
  Landing Harbor, Walnut Creek, Calif., September, 1969.
Weddig, L.  J., "Effects of  Pollution on the Commercial Fish
  Industry," National Fish  Institute, Inc.,  Washington, D.C.,
  1972.
Weibel, S. R., R. R. Dixon, R.  B.  Weidner, and L. J.  McCabe,
  "Waterborne-disease  Outbreaks,  1946-1960," /. Am.  Water
  Works Assn. 56: 947-958, 1964.
Weisbrod, B., "Concepts of Costs and Benefits," Problems in Pub-
  lic Expenditure Analysis, p. 261.
Whipple, William, Jr., "Economic Considerations Relative  to Wa-
  ter Quality," N.J. Water Resources Research Institute Report,
  Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J.
Whiteley,  Virgil and Bill B.  Dendy, "Conceptual Problems  in
  Water-Quality Economics," J. of  the Sanitary Engineering
  Division, October, 1968.
Willeke, G., Effects  of  Water Pollution  in San Francisco Bay,
  Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University, Calif., 1969.
Winton, E.  F.,  R.  G. Tardiff, and L.  J.  McCabe,  "Nitrate  in
  Drinking  Water," /. of Am. Water Works Assn., 63, 95, 1971.
Winton, Elliott F., "Studies Relating to Water Mineralization and
  Health," /. Am. Water Works Assn., 63, 26, 1971.
Wright, James F., "Water Resources of  the Delaware River Es-
  tuary,"  J. Am. Water Works Assn., Vol. 58, No. 7, 1966.
Wollman,  N., et al., Value of Water in Alternative Uses, Univer-
  sity of  New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, N.M. 1962,  pp. 220-
  282.
Zajic, J.  E., Water Pollution  Disposal and Reuse, Vol. L., Uni-
  versity  of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada,  Marcel
  Dekker, Inc., New York, 1971.
Zitko, V.,  "Determination of Residual Fuel Oil Contamination of
  Aquatic Animals,"  Bulletin of Environmental  Contamination
  & Toxicology, Vol. 5,  No. 6, 1971.

                    VII. CONSTRAINTS

This  chapter examines some  of  the potential problems in imple-
menting the 1972 Amendments. A  national determination that
water pollution control is in the public interest does not eliminate
economic  and administrative problems. The economic problems of

-------
               WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS            491

concern in this report are the financial burdens placed on munici-
palities and industries as they meet the 1977 standards, and the
capacity of the construction and equipment supply industries to
put in place the required capital without  adversely affecting the
levels, volume, and prices of construction and equipment, as well
as wages and employment in those industries.

Fiscal Impact on Local  Government
Localities will not, in  general, find it difficult to  finance  their
share of the capital outlays  required to construct sewerage facili-
ties. Local agencies will bear, however, the considerably increased
annual cost of operating, maintaining, and administering public
sewerage facilities and  services.
  Required Capital Outlays. The  1973 "Needs" Survey indicates
that an  enormous investment  is required  to  bring the Nation's
public sewerage  facilities up  to  an  acceptable level.  The  indi-
cated costs (Table III-5) may be summarized as follows:

Category                                                     Billions of
                                                         1973 dollars
  I                To meet the "secondary treatment" standards             $16.6
                  contained in the 1972 Act.
  II               To provide more  stringent treatment when              5.7
                  required by water quality standards.
  ill               To correct sewer infiltration and inflow.                    .7
  IVA              To construct new interceptors, forcing mains,              13.6
                  etc.
  IVB              To construct new collection sewers in existing              10.8
                  communities.
  V                To correct overflows from combined sewers.                 12.7
                     TOTAL                                   $60.1

  Projecting Sewerage Capital Expenditures. The results of this
latest Needs  Survey were meant  to serve  as  a basis for allocat-
ing available  Federal  construction  grant  funds among the
various States. The survey  results have not been used  directly in
projecting capital outlays for  sewerage facilities during the next
several years. The primary reason is that the individual States
and localities developed their estimates of expenditures and com-
pletion dates without  consideration  of the  overall amount of
funds that might be available. Instead, public expenditures for
sewerage construction  were projected (Table VII-1)  primarily
on the following assumptions:
     • The remaining unallocated  funds ($13 billion)  authorized
       in the 1972 Amendments will  be released in the FY 1975
       and FY 1976 allocations. The actual rate of  allotment will
       be determined by Federal  fiscal policy.

-------
492
LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
                                   TABLE VI1-1
         PROJECTION OF CAPITAL OUTLAYS ON PUBLIC SEWERAGE CONSTRUCTION, 1974-80
                    1974
                             1975
                                    1976
                                            1977
                                                   1978
                                                           1979
                                                                  1980
                                                                          Total
                                       (millions of 1973 dollars)
EPA grant outlays
  Pre-1973 funds*  	
  1972 Act funds t
    1973/74  allocation
    1975/76  allocation
  Total EPA outlays __
State and local outlays
  Match for pre-1973
    tunds T 	
  Match for 1972
    Act funds"* -_ ..-
  Projects with no
    EPA funds 	
  Total State and  local
Direct capital
  outlays tt 	
Cumulative direct
  outlays	
   $1,500
     500

   $2,000


   $1,200
     200
     500
   $1,900

   $3,600
   $3,600
           $1,600  $   700  ?  300  $   200  $  100
        1,650     800     400     200
        2,050    3,300   3,200    2,100
$3,500  $ 4,400  $ 4,400  $ 3,800  $ 2,400
1,350
 550
$1,100  $   700  $  300  $   200  $  100
  600   1,200    1,400   1,200     800
  500     500     500     500     500
$2,200  $ 2,400  $ 2,200  $ 1,900  $ 1,400

?5,200  % 6,800  $ 6,600  $ 5,700  ? 3,800
$8,800  $15,600  $22,200  $27,900  $31,700
    — $ 4,400
$  100   5,000
  1,100  12,300
$ 1,200 $21,700
                                        —  $ 3,600

                                       400    5,800
                                       500    3,500
                                    $   900  $12,900

                                    $ 2,100  $33,800

                                    $33,800      —
  * Including $1,900 million in reimbursables.
  t Based  on the following projection of obligations and upon  historical  time lags between obliga-
tions and outlays; (Outlays of $700 million from  the 1975/76 allocation will  be  made after 1980).
                    Obligations
                         Allocation
                   1973/74     1975/76
                                                            Total
1973 (4th Quarter)
1974
1975
1976
1977

1.6
3.2
.2

	
5.0
	
1.4
4.8
5.0
1.8
13.0
1.6
4.6
5.0
5.0
1.8
18.0
This projection  of obligations was made on  11/1/73 and  is subject to substantial changes due  to
such factors as limitations on the total  Federal budget, and the rate at which  states and  localities
can produce applications that meet all applicable criteria for grant awards.
  t Assumes a 1:1 match, but excluding the effect of  the approximately $800  million  in Federal  reim-
bursables paid in FY 74 but related to construction in place as of 7/1/73.
  ** Assumes a  1.3 match.
  tt Excludes the effect of the approximately $800 million in Federal  reimbursables paid in  FY  74
but related to construction in place as of 7/1/73.

      • These  allotments   will  be   obligated  over  the  30-month
        periods provided for in the 1972  Amendments.
      • Federal  outlays will  continue to lag obligations  in the  pat-
        tern  observed  in this  grant program  in the recent past.
      • State and local outlays will occur  in the  same period  as
        related Federal outlays.
      • Future Federal outlays from pre-1973 EPA  funds will  be
        matched  equally by State and local  funds.
      • Much  of the construction  begun during the next several
        years,  including  all sewerage  treatment  plants  and   an-
        cillary facilities  (for  example, interceptors  and  pumping
        stations), will  be 75 percent Federally funded.
      • Approximately $500 million of sewerage  construction,  pri-

-------
               WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS            493

       marily  collection sewers,  will  be built annually without
       EPA financial assistance.
Although the projection is based in part upon a level of alloca-
tions in FY 1975-76 higher than that used when  discussing the
impact on  the construction  industry, it provides  a reasonable
basis for discussing the potential fiscal  impact on  local govern-
ment during the next several years.
  Local Fiscal Impact.  The  projection indicates a  considerable
increase in total capital outlays on public sewerage facilities over
outlays made in the recent past  (Table VII-2).  The 1975 direct
outlay of $5.2 billion is almost four times that of 1970. Further-
more, State and local projected outlays on  sewerage construction
during the  next  several  years will constitute a larger portion
(11.6 percent)  of their total capital expenditures.  Finally,  even
though EPA grants will make up a much larger portion of  total
outlays, State  and local governments will be called upon to con-
tribute approximately $2 billion  annually.  This  is  approximately
twice what they supplied annually from 1961 through 1970.
  Local governments  can be  expected  to  finance the non-EPA
portion  of the projected  capital expenditures  in  a variety  of
ways.  The  most common sources of funds are  likely to be cur-
rent general revenues and the issuance of  municipal bonds. Sev-
eral recent studies  indicate  that  State and  local  governments
may run surpluses in their current general accounts over the next

                             TABLE  VII-2
                   STATE AND LOCAL CAPITAL OUTLAYS, 1961-70
Year
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
Totals
1975 (projected) 	
Direct
All
purposes
. $ 16,091
16,791
17,638
19,087
20535
22,330
24,233
25,731
28,240
29,650
$220,326
- $ 43,099"
capital outlays"

%
Sewerage sewerage
Sewerage outlays
EPA grantf State and!
outlays local sources
(millions of current dollars)
$ 747 4.6% $ 44 $ 703
798 4.8 42 756
928 5.3 52 876
1,095 5.7 66 1,029
1,107 5.4 70 1,037
1,202 5.4 81 1,121
1,093 4.5 84 1,009
1,107 4.3 116 991
1,208 4.3 135 1,073
1,385 4.7 176 1,209
$10,670 4.8% $ 866 $9,804
$ 5,200ft 11.6% $3,000tf $2,200ft
only
EPA grant
outlays
5.9%
5.3
5.6
6.0
6.3
6.7
7.7
10.5
11.2
12.7
8.1%
57.7%
  * U.S. Bureau of the Census, Governmental Finances in 1969-70, Series GF70-NO. 5, U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1971 and preceding issues.
  t Cash outlays reported to Department of the Treasury.
  t Includes funds from Department of Housing and Urban  Development, Farmers  Home Administra-
tion, and the Appalachian Public Work Program.
  ** The Financial Outlook for States and Local Government to 1980. Tax Foundation, Inc., New York,
1973.
  ft From Table VI1-1.

-------
494          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

several  years.1"3 Hence, most localities may have more flexibility
to deal with an increase in sewerage service costs than they have
had in the recent past.
   A survey conducted in 1969 indicates  that  localities nation-
wide had been initiating or boosting "user fees" to  finance sewer-
age services.4 Of the  1,040 localities  that  both  collect and  treat
wastewater, 86 percent indicated they levy such a  charge. In the
aggregate, revenue from user fees exceeded the annual costs for
operating  and maintaining  sewerage facilities, but  had  to  be
supplemented by other  charges  in order  to  cover debt service
payments.  The survey indicated  a trend for more cities to levy
user charges, and for such  charges  to pay a larger portion of
total annual costs. This  trend should be reinforced by require-
ments in the 1972 Amendments that agencies adopt user charges,
and, in particular, that such charges be sufficient  to ensure that
industrial  users  repay an appropriate portion  of the costs of
constructing such a facility.
   Between 1961 and  1970,  approximately 67 percent of  funds
required by State and local  governments for sewerage construc-
tion were provided through  long term borrowing (Table VII-3).
Assuming  this percentage continues over the next several  years,
new issues of sewer bonds would total $5 billion for FY 1974-77
(Table  VII-4). A recent study estimated that total municipal
bond sales in 1975 would amount to $25.9 billion.3 The $1.5  billion
projected sales of sewer bonds in 1975 would represent 5.8 per-
cent of the total, a percentage only slightly above the  5.2 percent
experienced in the recent past.
   There are, of course, many factors that will determine the suc-
cess of localities in the municipal bond market, including:
     • Basic demand  for municipal bonds. The last  comprehen-
       sive study of the  demand for municipal bonds was made
       in 1966.5 However, one indicator of a continuing demand
       is the fact that in the face of generally tight  credit mar-
       kets and record interest rates,  interest rates on municipal
  * Setting National  Priorities—The 1974 Budget.  Brookings Institution,
 Washington, D.C., 1973.
  2 Public Claims on U.S. Output. American Enterprise Institute for Public
 Policy Research, Washington, D.C., 1973.
  ' The  Financial Outlook for State and Local Government  to 1980. Tax
 Foundation, Washington, D.C., 1973.
  "Sewer Services and Charges. Urban Data  Service (International City
 Managers Association) Washington, D.C., Vol. 2 No. 2. February, 1970.
  5 State and  Local Public Facility Needs and Financing. U.S.  Congress,
 Joint Economic Committee, 1966.

-------
               WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
495
                             TABLE VI1-3
                  STATE AND LOCAL SEWER BOND SALES, 1961-70
Year
1961 	 ...
1962
1963 ...
1964
1965 --.
1966
1967
1968 -
1969 	
1970
Totals 	
Construc-
tion
contracts*
$ 763
803
1,004
862
832
919
1,045
1,449
1,510
1 843
	 $11,030
EPA
grants*
(millions
$ 45
66
93
85
84
120
134
194
203
577
$1,601
State and
local
funds
of current
$ 718
737
911
777
748
799
911
1,255
1,307
1 266
$9,429
Sewerf
bond
sales
dollars)
$ 624
659
607
290
629
591
572
631
490
1,180
$6,273
% bonds
86.9
894
66.6
37.3
84.1
74.0
62.8
50.3
37.5
93.2
66.5
Total
municipal
bond
sales}
$ 99,463
8,568
9,151
10,201
10,471
11,303
14,643
16,489
11,838
18,110
$120,237
% sewer
bonds
6.6
7 7
6.6
2.8
6.0
5.2
3.9
3.8
4.1
6.5
5.2
 *EPA files.
 tSecurities Industries Association.
 {Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
                             TABLE VI1-4
                OBLIGATIONS FOR SEWERAGE FACILITY CONSTRUCTION
                        STATE AND LOCAL FUNDING*
Fiscal
year
1974
1975
1976
1977 -.
Total

EPA grantsf
$ 4.6
""" 50
50
1.8
$16.4

Match for
EPA grants}:
(billions
$15
1.7
1.7
.6
$5.5

Other
projects
of 1973 dollars)
$ 5
5
5
.5
$20

Total
$2 0
2.2"
2 2
1.1
$7.5

New issues of
sewer bonds
$1.3
1.5
1.5
.7
$5.0

 'Assuming that State and local funding is arranged in same period as the related  EPA grant.
 tFrom Table VI1-1, second footnote.
 ^Assumes 1:3 match.

       bonds  have fallen from 1970 highs to a current level  of
       approximately 5 percent. In addition, a projection of State
       and local general finances over the coming decade indicates
       that debt as  a portion of  own source revenue  will drop
       from 124 percent in 1970  to 112  percent in 1975.3 This
       trend may be generally viewed as a reduction of the risk
       involved in buying municipal bonds, thereby strengthen-
       ing demand.
     •  Tighter  credit market conditions.  Municipal  bond sales
       during the last  half  of calendar year  1969  were  sharply
       reduced, primarily due to  a severe  "credit crunch."  A
       Federal  Reserve Board study indicated a net short fall of
       $5.2 billion  in long-term  State and  local  borrowing  in
       FY 1970 below a planned level of $18.5 billion.6  However,
       in  the following year relatively favorable market condi-
       tions stimulated a record volume of municipal bonds. The
       effect  on capital spending  was apparently  minimized  by
  * Peterson, John E. Response of State and Local Governments to Varying
Credit Conditions. Federal Reserve Bulletin. March 1971.

-------
496          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

      the  ability of States and  localities to fill the gap with
      short-term borrowing. A similar response to future credit
      market conditions of similar severity would  be  expected.

    • Legal constraints. State and local governments  are gen-
      erally restricted  in  the  amount  of general  indebtedness
      that they can issue by  State constitutions  or statutes.  A
      recent study indicates that debt  limits generally inhibit
      local spending, rather than  encourage the use  of other
      sources of funds.7 A second  study, however, asserts that
      legal debt limitations in general are ineffective in con-
      trolling total debt.8 Debt limits have been avoided through
      such measures as:

      —Issuance of nonguaranteed debt such as  revenue  bonds.

      —Shifting of financial  responsibility to  independent au-
         thorities, or special districts.

      —Use of lease purchase arrangements.

      Legal debt limits should continue to be avoidable in most
      cases.

  Most localities will probably not find it difficult to finance their
share of the anticipated surge in capital  expenditures on sew-
erage facilities.  There  will,  of course, be  individual  localities
where financing will pose a major  problem, perhaps because  of
unacceptable credit ratings. The source  of support in these cases
may be the State  construction grant programs.  In response  to
earlier  Federal  legislation,  approximately 40 States have estab-
lished such programs, which can provide up to 25 percent of total
construction financing.  A second source of financial assistance
for these localities  will be the  Environmental Financing Author-
ity, which  was created by the  1972 Amendments  ". . .  to  assure
that inability to borrow necessary  funds on reasonable terms
does not prevent any State or local public body from carrying out
any project for construction  of waste  treatment works  deter-
mined eligible for  assistance . . ." The Authority will  begin op-
eration  in calendar  year 1974. Finally, the Farmers  Home Adminis-
tration   is  currently making  loans  for  community  facilities,
  7Pogue, T. F. The Effect of Debt Limits: Some. New Evidence. National
 Tax Journal, 23(1) March  1970, p. 36-44.
  8 Hoggan, D. H. Can State and Local Governments Assume More of the
 Costs of Water Development? Water  Resources  Bulletin, 8(3) June 1972,
 p. 626.

-------
                WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS             497


                              TABLE VI1-5
                 ESTIMATED VALUE OF SEWERAGE CAPITAL IN PLACE
                          (billions of 1973 dollars)

Value, July 1973* 		..-	-  $35
  Net investment—FY 74-77
   Capital Expendituref 	$22
   Less: depreciation! 	  	  5	   17
Value, July 1977 			  $52
  *Estimated from net investment in Table 111-4.
  tFrom Table Vll-l.
  {Based on 4 percent annual depreciation for treatment plant and 2 percent for sewers.

                              TABLE VI1-6
                  TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS OF SEWERAGE FACILITIES

                                  July 1973
         Category                (billions of 1973 dollars)              July 1977
Interest*
Depreciationt
Cost capital
Operations^
Total costs

-- --- $1.7
9
$2.6
1.2
$3.8

$2.6
1.6
$4.2
2.1
$6.3

  *5 percent of estimated value of sewerage capital.
  •f4 percent for plants, 2 percent for sewers.
  JBased upon an extrapolation of recent trends in the ratio of operating costs to the value  of
sewerage capital.

including waste water treatment projects, to communities of under
10,000 population.
  Annual Costs. While Federal financial  assistance will  largely
mitigate  the fiscal  impact on localities  of constructing waste
treatment facilities  during the next several years, localities will
largely be on their own when it comes to financing the operation
and maintenance of a vastly increased amount of sewerage capi-
tal.
  The annual  expenses  of providing sewerage  service  may be
classified as operation costs  (plant operation  and  maintenance,
sewer maintenance,  and  overall  administration),  and  capital
costs (interest and depreciation). Both categories of costs  may be
expressed as a  function of the value of sewerage capital in place,
which is projected to increase from $35  billion in  1973 to $52
billion in 1977  (Table VII-5). Based upon this  estimate,  the  an-
nual cost of providing sewerage services may increase by  66 per-
cent in the next 4 years (Table VII-6).
  In the aggregate,  this rapid  increase in annual  costs should
not result in severe  pressures on  the general  revenue of locali-
ties because:
     • Expenditures on sewerage operations represented just over
       1  percent of  all  current  expenditures  by local  govern-
       ments in 1970.  Even  a 66  percent  increase would have
       meant that the cost of sewerage  operations was no more
       than 1.7 percent of all current expenditures  in that year.

-------
498          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

    • As discussed earlier, several recent reports indicate that
      State and local governments may  well run surpluses in
      their general accounts over the next several years, due in
      part to the advent of general revenue sharing. Hence, most
      localities may be better able to absorb an increase in sewer-
      age service costs.

    • Localities  are increasingly  utilizing  sewerage user fees
      as a source of income. Hence, although the public will  pay
      increased costs, the impact on local budgets will be further
      mitigated by a corresponding increase in revenue.

  It should be noted, however, that the per capita annual costs
of sewerage services can be considerably higher in smaller com-
munities than in larger communities (Table VII—7). These varia-
tions, which result primarily from the considerable economies of
scale experienced  in facility construction, may  be even greater
for very small communities.
  Analysis of Bureau of the Census data yields conflicting indi-
cations  regarding the ability of the  residents in  these smaller
communities to pay these higher costs  (Table VII-8).  On the one
hand, as per capita income does not  vary significantly by com-
munity  size there would seem to  be a real  difference in impact
on  the  residents of small communities.  On the other  hand, as
smaller communities  generally exert a  smaller  "own  revenue
effort"  (that is, local governmental income as a percent of  per-
sonal income), these higher sewerage  charges appear  to be more
than offset by lower burdens from  other  sources of  revenue.

Economic Impacts on Directly Discharging Industries

The economic impact of the 1977 standards  on  industrial sectors
is highly dependent upon their ability  to recover abatement costs
through price increases. If they can  recover costs, it is antici-
pated that they will be able to meet the standards. If they  can-
not recover costs, they will experience declines in  profits and in
certain  instances may have to  curtail  production or close plants.
  Methodology of Analysis.  Recognizing  the potential  economic

                            TABLE VI1-7
                    PER CAPITA COST OF SEWERAGE FACILITIES,
                         BY SIZE OF COMMUNITY
                                          Average per
                                            capita
             Community size                      Costs
                 25,000 	 $30.
               25-250,000	 $19.
                 250,000 	 $13.

-------
               WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS            499

                             TABLE VI1-8
               FISCAL CHARACTERISTICS OF COMMUNITIES, BY SIZE OF
                             COMMUNTY*

   Community                              Average  per          Average own
     size                               capita income          revenue effort
2,500  to 9,999 	 	  $2987               .0209
10,000-25,000  	   3310               .0238
25,000-50,000  	 	   3432               .0267
50,000-100,000  	   3425     '          .0296
100,000-200,000 	   3277               .0326
200,000-300,000 	   3188               .0377
300,000-500,000 	   3211               .0405
500,000-1,000,000  	 	   3221               .0368
greater than 1,000,000 	   3736               .0466
  "Based on the 1970 Census of Population and the 1967 Census of Governments.

problems  facing industry in meeting control requirements,  EPA
contracted for microeconomic studies to be conducted in conjunc-
tion with  development of effluent standards (VII-9). For each
of the 23 industries  under  consideration  an  economic  impact
analysis was performed which focused  on  the  following param-
eters: 9
     • Price  effects—including effects  upon  an  industry's sup-
       pliers and consumers.
     • Profitability, growth and capital availability.
     • Number,  size and  location of plants that can  be expected
       to  close or curtail  production.
     • Changes in employment.
     • Community impacts.
     • Balance of payments consequences.
  The analysis started with an examination of the costs of pollu-
tion  abatement  in light  of  existing  institutional  and market
factors. Primarily  this  was  to determine whether  various  in-
dustry subcategories  could meet the necessary capital  require-
ments  and  recover abatement  costs  through  price  increases.
Assumptions were made regarding each industrial category's par-
ticipation in  publicly owned treatment works and present levels
of abatement. In cases where full recovery of pollution control
costs appeared  impossible through  price increases, some  costs
were assumed to be  absorbed internally, with profits  declining
accordingly.
  Following this step, an attempt was  made  (using,  where feas-
ible, a discounted cash flow analysis) to determine if future cash
  "The 1972 Amendments require promulgation of effluent guidelines for 27
major industry categories. The effluent guidelines for four major industrial
categories have not been completed at the time of publication.

-------
500           LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
                              TABLE VI1-9
                  CONTRACTORS FOR MICROECONOMIC STUDIES OF
                           SELECTED INDUSTRIES
Industry                                     Contractor*
Asbestos  				   ADL
Beet sugar  				   DPRA
Cane sugar  				   DPRA
Cement 				   Southern Research Institute
Dairies  		   DPRA
Electroplating 		   ATK
Feedlots 				   DPRA
Ferroalloy  		   ATK
Fertilizer	   DPRA
Fiberglass  				   No contract
Fruits and Vegetables 	   DPRA
Flat glass  	   ADL
Grain milling 	   DPRA (with feedlots)
Inorganic chemicals  	   ADL
Leather 	   DPRA
Meat 					   DPRA
Nonferrous  			   ADL
Organic chemicals 	   ADL
Petroleum 		__	_.   Steve Sobotaka
Phosphates  			   ADL
Plastics 				   ADL
Paper 		   ADL & In-house
Rubber  		   ADL
Steel  	   ATK/Booz-Allen
Timber  				   ADL

  *ADL—Arthur D. Little
  DPRA—Development Planning Research Associates
  ATK—A. T. Kearney
flows would justify continued operation of various types of plants
in light of additional investments required for pollution control.
This analysis  was  done  for both  the 1977  and  1983  proposed
effluent standards.
   In performing the  analysis,  it  was  necessary  to synthesize
model plants by size group and to  make certain assumptions re-
garding the relationship between production costs,  salvage value,
abatement costs, and discount rates. Due to uncertainties inher-
ent  in  the data  (and in  some cases, the lack of data), the dis-
counted cash flow  analysis was  used only  as an indicator of the
plant  or  types of  plants  that  could  be  severely  impacted by
pollution  control requirements and  related costs.  Final  determi-
nation of  the numbers of plants  impacted to the point where clos-
ure  could be considered  a real  possibility  was  made only  after
consideration  of  other factors  such  as  geography, land  costs,
access  to  municipal waste treatment systems, and other poten-
tial  alternatives.
   Summary Results. The results of the  analysis are based  pri-
marily on the  reports of the  contractors and are  subject to re-
vision  as  EPA develops  the final versions  of effluent guidelines.

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND  REPORTS            501

However, the revisions are not expected to alter the general con-
clusions of the contractor reports.
  An overview  of 23 industries discharging  directly into the
Nation's waters indicates that  in  most cases they will be able
to recover the costs of best practicable wastewater  treatment
by increases in prices. However, individual plants in certain in-
dustries will  experience  difficulties in meeting the requirements.
Generally, the profitability  of smaller and/or  older plants may
be so reduced by  pollution  control that many  of them may de-
cide to  close prior to 1977. Secondly, plants located  in heavily
urbanized areas, especially small older ones, will experience dif-
ficulties because they lack  the  necessary land to use the  most
cost-effective treatments. This is the case in fruits and  vegetables
and electroplating where some  546 plants are expected to close.
In the absence  of adequate  municipal treatment facilities the
1977 requirements may force many of these plants to close, relo-
cate elsewhere, or be absorbed by more viable firms.
  Not all of the costs  will be  passed on because of  the  avail-
ability of substitute products and  imports. Also, smaller plants
in an industry  cannot pass on all costs because they  may be
constrained by larger firms with  lower unit costs. Thus  some
firms will earn  lower profits, some will  curtail production, and
some firms will be forced to shut down.
  Prices.  Most of the industries studied are expected to  raise
prices  (regardless  of potential closures) with the  size  of the
increase  varying among segments of an industry (Table  VII-
10). The industries expected to  experience price increases of less
than 1.5 percent are asbestos, dairies, feedlots, flat glass, leather,
meatpacking,  nonferrous metals, softwood  plywood,  and  wood
preserving. Price increases of 1.5 to 5 percent are expected to oc-
cur in cement, fertilizer, fiberglass, fruits  and vegetables, and
hardwood  plywood.  Price increases  higher than 5  percent are
expected  in electroplating,  hardboard, inorganic  chemicals, or-
ganic chemicals, paper, and plastics  and synthetics.  (The indus-
tries italicized also face significant air pollution control costs.)
  The average price  increases do not always reflect the cost of
the most difficult waste treatment  problems.  For  example, in
both the  organic and inorganic chemical industry,  the  average
price increase is no more than  3 or 4 percent.  However, in sev-
eral chemical subcategories, such as titanium dioxide, sodium sul-
fite,  sodium  chloride, potassium  sulfate, lime, ethylene glycol,
and acetic acid, price increases may be 5 percent or greater.
  Plant closings. Pollution control costs that cannot be passed on
in the form  of price increases will  result in  decreasing profit

-------
502          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

margins and,  in  some cases,  plant  closings.  Plant closings  are
expected in all of the industries with the exception  of  cement,
ferroalloys, flat glass, fiberglass, grain milling, and rubber.
  In many of  the industries studied, closings will be due  primar-
ily to factors unrelated to water pollution  control costs, but they
will  be accelerated by the costs. Feedlots, leather, dairies, and
fruits  and vegetables are  examples. In these industries,  many
plants are old, family-owned, largely financed with internal capi-
tal, and have a low level  of long-term debt. Expenditures for
new technology have been modest because  of difficulty in getting
outside capital. Another  factor in the closings is that  the threat-
ened plants are usually  small. Their high vulnerability  may be
partially explained  by a number of factors:  lack of access to
municipal treatment systems, diseconomies of scale in pollution
control facilities, lower  efficiencies of  operations,  and extensive
investment required to modernize.
  These plant closings may result in  a maximum direct unem-
ployment of approximately 50,000 or 1.2 percent of the estimated
3.3 million total employment in the industries studied.
  Industry Summaries. The following  is a brief discussion of the
economic impacts associated with the proposed guidelines for ma-
jor segments of 23 industries. Although studies have been under-
taken  of the paper,  seafood, steel, and  textiles industries, results
are not available  as the effluent guidelines for these industries
have not been completed  nor are  the relevant economic data
available at this time.
  Asbestos. Eighty-one firms operating 138 plants are  involved in
manufacturing asbestos products.  Corporations  dominate, con-
trolling about 84 percent of the  physical facilities and 99.5 per-
cent of the work force. Plants  tend  to  be specialized  and are
concentrated near metropolitan areas  to serve their major mar-
kets, the automotive and construction industries. Most  larger
plants are well over 25 years old.
  The economic  viability  of  the asbestos industry will not be
seriously affected by the 1977 standards.  To meet the goals, the
industry will  have to invest roughly $3 million, with an annual
cost of about $1.4 million. The  additional costs,  assuming  that
they are passed on to the consumer, would not exert a significant
impact on prices or market competitiveness. Manufacturers will
probably absorb  the costs because they  are negligible  and be-
cause  of competition from substitute  products. If costs are ab-
sorbed, impact on overall corporate profitability  is expected to
be minimal since almost all manufacturers are highly diversified.

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS           503

  Most industry plants will be able to comply with the new re-
quirements. No more than four plants, accounting for less than
0.5  percent of total industry capacity, are threatened.  The mill-
board segment of the industry will be most affected, since two of
its plants now lack any control facilities and will face  high  con-
trol costs.
  Approximately 2 percent of the industry's  13,500 employees
work in plants threatened by 1977 standards.
  Beet Sugar.  Currently,  there  are 52 plants  processing  beet
sugar  in the United  States,  38 of them built before 1933.  The
number has  been slowly declining, and in 1971,  three  plants
closed due to higher production  costs and  relatively low sugar
prices. (However, three new plants are due to  begin  operation
in 1974-75.)  Most plants are located near supplies in  relatively
small,  rural communities where  they  constitute a major enter-
prise.  The industry has not been highly profitable, with after-
tax return on sales  ranging from  -0.2 to 4.0 percent in  the
past 2 years.
  The estimated  capital costs  for achieving the proposed 1977
level of control range from $4.3  to $7.7 million, with an annual
operating cost ranging from $0.4 to 0.8 million.  The price in-
crease required to  offset the costs ranges  between  0.2 and 2.2
percent,  depending on  the size  of the plant,  the length of its
season, and the current degree of control. Prices  are  not likely
to increase, however,  because of Department of Agriculture poli-
cies and competition from  other sweeteners.  Consequently,  the
profits of some firms  may decline.
  While most plants in the  industry  should  be able to comply
with new standards, some may  not be able to absorb the required
capital and operating costs  and may have to close.  Typically,
these plants  are small, old, and  already in jeopardy because of
factors such  as urban encroachment and declining beet supplies.
Even  without pollution control  requirements, from two  to six
plants may have  to close over the next 10 years. The proposed
1977  standards,  which  require  zero  discharge where land  is
available, threaten an additional four  to 10 plants, representing
4 to 13 percent of industry  capacity.  Assuming each  plant  has
50 full time and 200  seasonal employees and serves 300 growers,
2,200 to 5,500 people would be affected. Growers might be  able
to process their beets in nearby plants with excess capacity or in
new plants, or they may choose to grow other crops.
  Cane Sugar. The cane sugar refining industry will react much
as the beet sugar industry. The  capital costs associated with meet-

-------
504
LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n
                                          TABLE  VI1-10
              POTENTIAL  IMPACT OF  EFFLUENT STANDARDS ON INDUSTRY OPERATIONS1
    Industry
                        Price increases to consumer (%)     Plant closings
                                                                                Unemployment
                                 1977
                                            1983
                                                       1977
                                                                  1983
                                                                             1977
                                                                                        1983
Asbestos 	 	

Beet sugar 	 - .

Cane sugar . . .

Cement 	 	
Dairies 	 .- 	 	
Electroplating 	 ..
Feedlots" 	
Ferroalloys .. ... 	 	
Fertilizer7 	

Fiberglass (wool) 	 ..
Flat glass 	 	 -_.
Fruits and vegetables8 	
citrus 	 	 	
apple 	 ... .- - .-- .
potato 	 	 -
Grain milling _ _ 	 	
Industrial phosphates __. - -
Inorganic chemicals 	
titanium dioxide 	

lime 	
potassium sulfate 	
sodium chloride _- - 	

sodium sulfite 	 - 	
sodium chromate
& bichromate .. 	
Leather 	 -.
Meatpacking 	 - —
Nonferrous (aluminum only)
primary 	
secondary 	 	
bauxite refining 	
Organic chemicals 	
Petroleum 	
Plastics and synthetics - ...

Rubber 	
Timber - ---
softwood plywood - _.. .

hardwood plywood 	
hard board .......
wood preserving 	
-. 0.1-
1.0%
-- 0

.- 0

-. 1-3
... 0-.8
... 15
-- <0.3
... 1.2
.-- 0-3.5

.-- .6-3.8
... 0.1-0.3
... 1-2
... 1-2
... 1-2
... n.a.
... 0-1.9
... .6-1.6
.. »0-2%
... 7.7-16.7

... 0-6.4
... 6.1
... 11.8-
19.9
... 5.9

... 3.4
._.". 6-1.3
... .1

... minimal
... 0
... 0
.--"1.0-4.0
-.- <1
... 0.1-2.4

„- 0-3.5
... 1-8
... 1

— 2
.- 4-8
... 1
1%

' n.a.

0

1 n.s.i.
0
8
n.a.
n.a.
4-5

0
0-0.4

2
2
n.a.
n.s.i.
n.a.
0-3
» 13.4-
19.6
0-6.4
6.1
11.8-
19.9
7.2

4.8
n.a.
.3

n.s.i.
n.s.i.
n.s.i.
n.a.
n.a.
0.5-6

0-3.5
n.a.
n.a.

n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
3

4-10

3-6

= 0
514-659
517
minor
0
23-61

0
0
29
n.a.
n.a.

0
0
few
n.a.

n.a.
n.a.
n.a.

n.a.

n.a.
21
10

n.s.l.
n.s.i.
2
" some
2-11
6-53

0
75-85
15-20

30
1
30-35
1

n.a.

0

0
0
25
minor
n.a.
n.a.

0
0
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.

0
0
n.s.i.
n.a.

n.a.
n.a.
n.a.

n.a.

n.a.
"n.a.
89

n.s.i.
"6
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
1-33

0
n.a.
n.a.

n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
275

3 2.200-
5.500
300-
2.000
0
3,250
2,397
n.a.
0
590-
1,620
0
0
232
n.a.
n.a.

0
0
n.a.
n.a.

n.a.
n.a.
n.a.

n.a.

n.a.
"950
400

n.s.i.
n.s.i.
15 3,700
n.a.
500
1,100-
3,170
0
1,600
375-
1,000
750
n.a.
1,050
50

n.a.

0

0
0
248
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.

0
0
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.

0
0
n.a.
n.a.

n.a.
n.a.
n.a.

n.a.

n.a.
n.a.
3,400

n.s.i.
160
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
0-780

0
n.a.
n.a.

n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
   1 Potential impact of the 'proposed' effluent limitations on directly discharging industries.
   2 Not available.
   " Only 200 to  500 are fulltime employees.
   4 No significant  impact.
   5 Twenty plants  expected to close primarily due to factors unrelated to water standards.
   " Projected  closures are difficult to assess due  to  importance  of  many other economic  factors and
 applicability of effluent guidelines.  Impact will be heaviest in  swine operations.
   1 Industry  as  a  whole is not significantly affected; impacts occur primarily  in  subcategories where
 trend is to  excess capacity.
   8 Impacts relate only to subcategories of citrus, apple, and potato.
   9 Average price  increases for the  industry range from 0-3%; however, the six chemicals listed will
 experience  greater price  increases.
   10 Figures represent two  different processes.
   11 Estimated price increase for large plants is roughly  1.3%; for  small  plants It ranges  up to  20%.
   12 Excludes marginal  operations that would have  closed without controls. This  industry  needs addi-
 tional study.
   13 Plus 5,625  in  secondary  leather  manufacturing.
   " Wet dross operations.
   " Potential  unemployment  estimate for two plan ts out of nine  that  have  not installed control  tech-
 nology.
   16 Potential price  increases  may be high  as  6 to 12%  where waste treatment problems are most
 difficult,  specifically  ethylene  glycol,  ethylene  dichloride,  caprolactam,  ethyl  acrylate,   acetic  acid,
 para-cresol, and aniline.
   17 Small firms with less than 20 employees will be affected most by the standards.

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND  REPORTS            505

ing the 1977 standards are $5.6  million,  with an  annual cost
of $1.9 million.  The price increases required to offset the costs
would  range between 0  and 2  percent. As in the  beet  sugar
industry,  however, prices are  not expected to increase.  From
three to six  plants could close, representing 6  to  12 percent of
industry capacity. Three of the plants are  small rural refineries
in Puerto Rico.  Since excess capacity exists in  the other Puerto
Rican facilities,  any closings would probably result  in a consolida-
tion of the industry, rather than a permanent loss  of production.
From  300 to 2,000 employees could be affected  by the plant
closings. Under normal  conditions, they should be  able to find
work in similar occupations.
  Cement. There are currently  166 cement plants in operation
in the United States: 154 involve nonleaching operations in which
water  pollution is inherently not a  problem. The  number of
cement plants has been declining in recent years.  Plant obsoles-
cence is usually the reason for such closures. Some 10-20 plants
could close in the next 4 years, continuing the recent trend. The
closing of these plants, generally the older, less efficient ones, may
be accelerated if they cannot raise the additional  capital neces-
sary to finance  water pollution control equipment. The  greatest
cost pressures have usually stemmed from air pollution.
  The total  cost  of achieving  the  1977  standards  is $15-17
million for capital  investment; total annual  costs  are estimated
at $5.5 million. Impact  of the  controls might  result in a price
increase of 1 to 3 percent.  Each of the eight leaching plants
with the most serious problems may have to invest a half million
dollars. The eight are  considered to be  the  most productive
and profitable in the industry and so are unlikely to  close.
  Dairies. Of the 4,870  plants in  the dairy processing industry
today, as  many  as a third could  close  by 1977 through "natural"
attrition.  An additional  514 to 659  plants  representing  about
12  percent of   industry plants  could  close  as a  result of the
1977 water pollution standards. The plants threatened by  pol-
lution  costs are  usually the small, old plants in  rural areas. They
have  less  in-plant control,  they  suffer from diseconomies of
scale in control, and they lack access to a  municipal treatment
system. Furthermore,  these  operations are already in jeopardy
because of other factors such as shrinking milk supplies, difficul-
ties in maintaining sanitary standards, lower  efficiencies of op-
eration, and lack of capital to modernize operations. These esti-
mated closings  are based on use  of  activated  sludge and  sand
filtration,   now  the recommended technology  for meeting the

-------
506          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

standards. The estimates might be slightly lower if less expensive
systems such as ridge and furrow or spray irrigation were used.
If land were available and  climatic problems  overcome, these
methods might be a  viable alternative for the small plants. The
estimates are also very sensitive to the percent of plants using
municipal systems and the level of control currently in place.
  To  meet the proposed 1977 standards,  the dairy processing
industry would have to invest $357 million, or almost 16 percent
of the industry's current fixed investment. The required operating
costs of $81.7 million,  however, would represent only a few per-
cent of sales. The cost of  water pollution control would not be
passed backwards to  the  farmer,  since  most  of them  are in
strong,  effective  cooperatives and  because the  Department of
Agriculture  regulates  raw   milk  prices.  Efficient  operations
would pass the costs—generally no more than 1 percent—on to
consumers. The less efficient operations would have to absorb the
costs, a significant consideration  since their after-tax profits are
generally below 1 percent of  sales.
  The potential closings in 1977 could affect approximately 3,250
plant employees.  Milk  producers could probably find alternative
markets. While the number of employees affected would be rel-
atively low, they would have little opportunity to be reemployed
in remaining dairy processing plants. Any new plants that would
be built would probably not be located in the same towns where
old plants closed. Furthermore, employment  in  the industry has
been dropping because of increased automation.
  Electroplating. A wide  variety of  platings and coatings are
used on manufactured items when  the base metal does not have
the characteristics desired. This study scope was limited to copper,
nickel, chromium, and zinc electroplating.  The industry consists
of approximately 5,600 shops and 78,000 employees.
  The industry is characterized by relatively low capital invest-
ment in equipment,  land, and buildings. Once purchased  and in-
stalled the market value of equipment decreases rapidly.  Annual
sales range from $60  thousand to  $8 million; however, most of
the shops surveyed  reported sales of less than  $1 million. Total
industry sales are approximately  $876 million annually.
  The total investment  required for the  electroplating industry
to meet the proposed 1977 standards is approximately $481  mil-
lion, with an annual cost of $35 million.
  The proposed requirements by 1977 are not  expected  to have
any significant effect on the production capacity or future growth
of the electroplating industry. However, it is likely that signifi-

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES  AND REPORTS           507

cant price increases will result from meeting the proposed stand-
ards. These increases are projected to be a maximum of 15 per-
cent for 1977, with  additional increases of about 8  percent for
1983. Since these estimates assume that  none of the  required
costs for 1978  have been incurred,  the  actual increases will be
highly dependent on the level of control already attained.
  Production effects  are expected primarily among  low volume
independent job shops.  Such shops are expected to incur dispro-
portionate cost increases in relation to larger operations. In addi-
tion, many  of them are expected to have  difficulty  raising the
necessary capital. In the  absence of less  expensive treatment
methods, many of these operations probably would be forced to
close. As many as 517 such shops representing approximately
5.4  percent of total job shop capacity and about 2,397 employees
might have to close  as  a result of the proposed  1977 standards.
  Ferroalloys. Roughly 85  percent  of the  ferroalloy industry's
output  consists of  four major alloys  (iron-manganese,  iron-
silicon,  iron-chromium, and  silicon-manganese)  and  products
from electric  furnances.  This  study was  limited  to the  nine
companies making those products. The firms range in size from
annual sales of $20 million to over $3 billion. Some produce  only
ferroalloys, while ferroalloys represent about half of annual sales
of other firms.
  The iron and  steel  industry is the major consumer of ferroal-
loys. With  the  high  level of steel production,  the ferroalloy in-
dustry has  been operating at full capacity. In 1972, however, its
shipments  and  profitability  were severely  affected  by  imports.
In addition, air pollution control requirements are  becoming a
major concern.  These two factors  are expected to have a greater
impact on the industry than the anticipated costs of water pol-
lution control.
  Of the 22 plants in the study, 14 (representing over 70 percent
of industry capacity)  are already using the technology needed
to meet the 1977 standards. For the other eight to meet the stand-
ards requires an additional  investment  of  $9.5 million. Annual
operating costs  would  increase by $4.0 million. To offset the
costs, industry  would have  to increase prices by 1.2 percent, to
maintain its current return on total assets.
  Fiberglass (Wool). There are 19  plants producing glass  wool
in the United States; 15 plants operated by two firms are re-
sponsible for about 95  percent  of the production. There are no
small producers, since  the process is basically a  high-volume
operation. The plants range in size from 5 million to 440 million

-------
508          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

pounds  per  year.  The  majority are  multiproduct operations.
Plants range in age from 2 to 25 years, with about 30 percent
being 10 to 15 years  old. Age  is not  necessarily  a good  guide
to plant efficiency  or  profitability,  however, since most plants
have been expanded or modernized over the years.
  The primary markets for glass  fiber are as building insula-
tion,  acoustical  ceiling  tiles, and insulation  for  pipes, ducts,
process equipment,  and appliances.
  The industry will have to spend  about $10 million to meet
the proposed 1977 standards;  annual  operating  costs  will  be
about $3.7 million.  Price increases of 0.6 to 4 percent would  be
necessary to offset the added costs. In the past, however, the in-
dustry has been able to offset cost increases by increasing pro-
ductivity.
  No plant closings are forecast  from .pollution  control  costs.
The industry is operating at full capacity, and  demand is ex-
pected to increase.  One  major producer plans to increase capa-
cities in spite of additional pollution control costs.
  Flat  Glass. The production  of  sheet, plate,  and  float glass
in the  United States  is  highly  concentrated and involves only
seven companies. The total  capital costs of the 1977 and  1983
standards are less  than $1 million, with annual costs below 0.4
percent  of  the  1972  unit price.  The  major segments  of the
industry—sheet glass, plate glass, and float glass—are not im-
pacted  by the effluent guideline limitations. Relatively greater
problems exist in  the industrial segments  of  automotive  glass
tempering and  lamination.  To  meet  the  standards,  prices  of
tempered and laminated  glass would have  to increase by  0.1 to
0.3 percent. Increases  would be passed  on by glass fabricators so
that the industry's current rates  of  profitability  would not  be
affected. The capital required should be  readily available.
  Fruits and Vegetables. There are almost 1,400 plants in the
United States that can, freeze, or dehydrate fruits and vegetables.
They vary greatly  in size, organizational structure, product mix,
degree of diversification, and integration. Although about 70 per-
cent process two or more products, plants are specialized in that
they  are located near concentrations  of specific crops  and they
require specialized  equipment. Many of the plants are  relatively
old, but new equipment  has  been added so that most  are a
combination of old and new equipment.
   The industry's plants are frequently major employers in their
areas. Further, they use a high  proportion of unskilled seasonal
workers. Curtailed  production would therefore have an important
impact on lower income levels.

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES  AND REPORTS           509

  In development of the standards, three segments  of the in-
dustry were selected for controls:  apples, citrus  and  potatoes.
  These three would have to invest $26.1 million to  meet  1977
standards; annual costs would be $3.6 million.
  Of the 105 plants  involved in processing citrus fruit, 41 are
strictly citrus processors. The remaining process other  fruits  or
vegetables. About one third  of the  plants are tied to municipal
treatment systems  and one third have technology in  place that
can meet 1977 standards.
  Orange juice, which constitutes 90 percent of  the industry's
business,  was  used  to  represent  citrus  products in  general.
Small plants making frozen concentrates would have to increase
prices  1.9 to 2.5 percent to recover the costs of pollution control.
For plants producing single-strength juice, increases would  have
to be 4.4  to 5.5  percent. Since the two forms are competitive,
the ability to pass  costs on may  be  limited by the fact  that two
thirds  of the plants will not be affected by the standards. There-
fore, price  increases would  most  likely be on  the  order  of  1
percent.
  Two single-strength plants should have difficulty meeting the
standards.  They  represent 6 percent of single-strength output.
If past trends in the canning and  freezing industry  continue,
eight citrus  plants would  be expected to  close by 1977 and  10
more by 1983.  However, the standards may hasten the closings
so that all 18 would close  by 1977. Of  the 10,600 employees
in the  citrus processing industry,  only 1.5 percent  would lose
jobs because of water pollution abatement.
  Since over 40 percent of canned orange juice is exported, any
major  reduction in production could result in losses of exports.
Larger plants, however, would probably take up any slack.
  Of the 144 plants that process canned or frozen apple  products,
about 29 pack only apple products. As with citrus processors, two-
thirds  of apple processors  are tied to municipal systems or  have
technology in place to meet the 1977 standards.  The ability  to
raise prices  to recover the 1977 pollution  costs may be limited
to less than  1 percent. Four plants may have to close,  affecting
0.5 percent of the  apple processing industry's 14,650  employees.
In addition,  12 plants would normally  be expected  to  close  by
1977 for other reasons and 13 might have to close  early because
of the  standards.
  Prices of potato products  may increase by  1.5  to 1.8 percent
from the  1977 standards; however, this  is only  a preliminary
estimate since little information is available for analysis.

-------
510          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

  Grain Milling. Assessment of the grain mill products industry
was  limited to flour  and other grain mill products (including
dry  corn  milling), rice milling, and wet  corn milling. These
segments account for 20 percent of the industry's establishments
and  35 percent of its capacity. The number of  plants and com-
panies has been decreasing in all three segments in recent years.
  In flour mill products, only corn wet  milling will be  affected
by the 1977  standards. Most of the mills  with process waste-
waters discharge  into municipal systems. For  plants that dis-
charge directly to surface  waters, the  impacts are slight.  All
rice milling operations discharging wastewaters are tied to munic-
ipal  systems.
  Only in corn wet  milling will the cost impact be appreciable.
However,  no closures or  production  curtailments are expected.
Of 17 plants, five (representing 30 percent of industry capac-
ity)  now  discharge directly to  surface waters; three have some
biological  treatment facilities,  one is constructing  a treatment
system,  and the fifth will soon discharge to a municipal system
under construction.
  Wet corn milling plants discharging directly to surface waters
face the greatest cost burden. To completely cover  costs, prices
would have to increase 1.2  to 1.9 percent.  However, because of
the  competitiveness  of the  industry, it is  possible that price
increases  may amount to no more than 1 percent.  Thus profit-
ability of  some firms would decrease.
  The most  serious  problem may be some mild curtailment of
industry growth. Wastewater flows  are  substantial, and effluent
overloads  and periodic spills are a  recurring  problem. Before
output can be significantly expanded, improvements must be made
in controlling these problems.
  Industrial Phosphates. Phosphorus and its nonfertilizer deriva-
tives are  the principal products of the  industrial phosphates
industry.  In  general, the same companies  that make elemental
phosphorus also make the derivatives. With two exceptions, the
producers are large  chemical or petroleum companies for whom
phosphorus  and  derivatives represent  only a small percentage
of total sales. The companies usually use the products  to make
other products, creating problems in estimating the profitability
of individual products.
  Phosphorus is  produced  by six companies in 28 plants; in
addition,  TVA is a  major producer. Production is  concentrated
near deposits of  phosphate rock in Florida, Tennessee, and the
Idaho-Montana area. Because  phosphorus  plants are  generally
located  near  raw  materials and because phosphorus is the  most

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS           511

economic form in which to transport phosphate  values, phos-
phorus derivatives are usually produced at other locations.
  The pollution control costs required for the industry to meet
1977 standards range from $1.40 per ton for food grade dicalcium
phosphate to $4.60 per ton for phosphorus. These costs represent
an  increase  of no  more  than  1.6 percent of  current selling
prices. A cost increase  of  this  magnitude should have no meas-
urable impact on  productive capacity or the economic  viability
of the industry.
  Inorganic  Chemicals. The study of a  part  of the inorganic
chemical industry  analyzed 23  chemicals:  aluminum  chloride,
aluminum sulfate, chlorine and caustic soda, hydrochloric acid,
hydrofluoric  acid,  hydrogen  peroxide, lime,  nitric  acid, sulfuric
acid,  calcium carbide,  sodium sulfate, titanium  dioxide, sodium
chromate  and bichromate,  potassium bichromate,  sodium  bi-
carbonate, sodium chloride, sodium silicate,  sodium,  sodium sul-
fite, calcium chloride, soda ash, and potassium sulfate.
  There is no definite  indication that any significant economic
impact  will  result from the 1977 standards. Some small,  older
plants that  are already marginal  may be  forced  to close, but
they generally comprise a very minor segment of the industry.
With  present market  conditions, most  costs  can  probably be
passed on, at least  to the extent that profitability will not decrease
markedly. The  long-term  growth  of the  industries  may be
slightly impaired,  but these impacts  will be far overshadowed
by  such factors as  market trends,  technological advances, and
productivity.
  Price increases  ranging from  0 to 20 percent  are  possible
for lime, titanium dioxide, sodium chloride, sodium sulfite, and
potassium  sulfate.  Sodium chromate and bichromate  prices
might increase by  about 3 percent, but for all the other inorganic
chemicals  studied, increases will be less than  2  percent, and in
some  cases, even zero.
  Several  products appear to be more sensitive to costs because
of a wide variability in control costs, low profits, or special market
situations. Chlorine-caustic plants using mercury cells will incur
greater costs than those using  diaphragm cells. For the four or
five plants that have  not yet  invested  in  controlling mercury,
costs  may be prohibitive, and  one or two  of them may close
prior  to 1977.
  In  the lime industry, 25 percent of the  plants  are achieving
zero  discharge. The remaining  plants  will try to  pass  their
abatement costs on to the customer. In cases with unique supply-
demand situations,  the producer may be able  to  pass on  his

-------
512          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

full cost, but in general a large segment of the lime industry will
be at a competitive  disadvantage, which may  force some small
plants to close.
  In titanium dioxide production, the major problem arises over
the fact that  abatement costs are higher for sulfate than for
chloride process plants. Current market  conditions will probably
allow some cost differential to be passed on. Sodium bichromate
will probably not be able to pass on abatement costs because of
increased competition from  imports  and  substitute  products.
After-tax profits of  bichromate producers could decrease  by  30
percent if all costs of 1977 standards had to be absorbed.
  Plant closings in the inorganic chemicals industry will depend
on both market trends and abatement costs, making  it difficult
to determine the effects of possible unemployment. The facilities
expected to close, however,  are generally  small and so are a small
portion of the industry's labor force.
  Since there are now few substitutes for these inorganic chem-
icals, industry growth would  probably  not be significantly  af-
fected by the standards. To some extent, however, price increases,
coupled with minor decreases in profitability and rates of return,
might slightly retard the industry's future growth potential.
  Leather. The leather tanning and finishing  industry consists
of a wide diversity  of firms,  ranging from small family-owned
companies and  closely held corporations to divisions of large
conglomerates. Almost 50  percent of the firms  are  located in
Massachusetts and New York. Over 70 percent of the  plants are
in buildings 50 years or older, but a substantial number have
been rebuilt and modernized.  Most plants are  highly  specialized
because tanning equipment and  processes are specialized; also,
shoe manufacturing has been  and continues to be the principal
consuming industry, accounting  for about three-quarters of all
leather used in 1972. It is primarily the 176 wet process tanners
that will be affected by the effluent guidelines.
  Meeting the 1977 standards would involve capital expenditures
of some $37 million, a substantial proportion  of the industry's
total fixed investment of $130 to  $140 million. Raising  capital
may pose a  severe problem.
  In this competitive industry only the large  firms, which pro-
duce at least two-thirds of the total  industry  volume, can be
expected to  be able to pass on the  entire cost in price increases.
Assuming that  60 percent  of  tanneries are linked to  municipal
systems, with several large plants  incurring only pretreatment
costs, acutal price increases will probably range from 0.6-1.3%.
   The  1977 standards  may  force closing  of  about 21  small

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES  AND REPORTS           513

plants (most  of which  are  not linked  to municipal treatment
systems). About 2.8 percent  of industry capacity and 4  percent
of its employees would be affected  by the guidelines.  An addi-
tional 2,850 employees in the  leather manufacturing industry
might also be affected. An additional 28 plants, affecting about
16 percent of  current production,  are predicted to close for rea-
sons unrelated to pollution abatement.
  Meat Packing.  In mid-1973, there  were  almost 6,000  live-
stock slaughtering plants in the United States, down from 6,400
in 1971. Many  have closed as  Federal  inspection requirements
have been more vigorously enforced. Employment has also dropped
as highly automated plants increased the productivity of plant
labor.
  The industry is characterized by  a preponderance of single-
plant firms generating a high  dollar value  of sales. After-tax
profits have traditionally been  around 1  percent, with  smaller
local  and  sectional  packers  usually  doing better than  larger
regional and national packers. Plants are found in every State,
with Iowa, Nebraska, and Texas leading in pounds of liveweight
killed.  Two factors  govern plant  location—concentration of fed
livestock for slaughter and concentration  of  demand. The trend
in recent years  has  been to locate plants near livestock.
  The study  focused on the  1,400  plants that  slaughter  more
than 2  million  pounds liveweight annually. If these plants are
to meet the 1977 standards, they will have to invest roughly an
additional $44 million; operating costs as a percent of sales range
from 0.04 to 0.16. The price  increase required at the wholesale
level to recover  all the costs would range from a low of 0.04 per-
cent for large packing houses with  baseline  controls already  in
place to a high of 0.5 percent  for  small  slaughter houses  with
only primary controls currently in place. Because  of competition,
the actual  long-term price increases within the  industry should
be about 0.1 percent. The increases  will be relatively small from
the point of view of the consumer  but may  be  very significant
to an industry with  low profitability.
  Potential closings necessitated by the standards are estimated
at about 10 plants representing less  than 0.2  percent of industry
capacity and  400 employees. The small slaughter houses  with
disproportionate pollution control cost and lower operating ef-
ficiencies are most likely to be affected. As many as three-quarters
of meat packing houses and slaughter houses  are located  in  com-
munities of less than 10,000 population, so a plant closing could
have a noticeable effect on the  local economy. Many small  com-
munities have only one plant, so that opportunities for reemploy-

-------
514          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

ment in new or remaining plants in the  industry will probably
be low.
  Nonferrous (Aluminum Only). The proposed  standards  are
expected to have only minimal effects on the secondary aluminum
sector and practically no impact on the  primary sector. While
similar conclusions  have been reached concerning  the bauxite
refining sector, two  plants in this industry (representing about
24 percent of total  industry supply) are likely  to  incur  very
significant cost  in meeting the proposed standards. There  are
good  reasons to believe that these plants will  remain open,  but
such decisions ultimately lie with company management.
  Within  the primary  aluminum sector, the  current  trend to-
ward dry scrubbers  to  control air pollution should  minimize if
not eliminate the problems of water pollution control. Accord-
ingly, there should be only minimal cost in meeting the proposed
effluent limitations for 1977 and 1938.  No  price increases,  no
plant  closings,   or  unemployment   are  anticipated.  Further,
there should  be no impacts on the balance  of  trade  or industry
growth.
  Noticeable price increases are not expected within the sec-
ondary aluminum industry as a result of the proposed standards.
With the  exception  of  the  wet  dross  processing  sector, cost
increases  are expected  to be less than 1.1  percent  of the sale
value of aluminum.  Excepting  isolated cases of regional  monop-
olies, competition should prevent these costs from being passed
on as price increases. Plant  closings are  expected only in those
plants using wet processes for dross and slag milling. In such
plants the combined 1977 and 1983 proposed guidelines could
lead  to cost  increases equal to 6 percent or  more  of the sale
value of aluminum.  There are six known wet dross operations,
representing approximately 160 employees and less than 1 per-
cent of total  aluminum production.
  The majority of the costs for meeting the proposed guidelines
have already been incurred by seven of  the nine plants in the
bauxite refining sector.  Cost  increases  for these seven  plants
are expected to range from  zero to  2 percent of the sale value
of alumina, depending on the levels  of control already in place.
Cost increases for the remaining two plants may equal as much
as 25 percent of the sale value of alumina. Due to  the low cost
increases for the other seven plants, it is not likely that the
cost to these two plants can be recovered through price increases.
Their estimated cost for meeting  the proposed  guidelines are
quite high; investment  costs are equal  to  about 18 percent of
replacement  cost of refining facility, and annual costs are equiva-

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS           515

lent to 30 percent or more of the total profits normally realized
on the  manufacture of  finished  aluminum. In  light of some
distinct advantages to overseas bauxite refining, these high costs
may cause the owners to give serious consideration to closing
these  plants.  Such actions could result  in significant short-term
disruptions within the aluminum  industry.  In addition an  esti-
mated 1,200  jobs  would be  lost,  with potential  secondary un-
employment for an additional 2,500 people.
  Organic  Chemicals. The organic chemical industry produces
80 to  90 million  tons  of  chemicals  each  year. Thousands  of
compounds are made, ranging in production volume from  a  high
of about 10 million tons of ethylene to very small  quantities  of
reagent chemicals. However, 70 chemicals or classes of chemicals
account for about three-fourths of the industry's sales.
  Nearly 500 companies are engaged in producing organic  chemi-
cals ; the four largest account for  a minimum of 36 percent and
the first hundred for more than  92 percent of total shipments.
At the other end of the spectrum are 220 plants with less  than
10 employees each. The large plants  produce a wide variety  of
different chemicals,  and  their effluent will  generally be treated
in a  centralized  water treatment plant. Many  smaller  plants
dump their effluent into public sewer systems.
  The basic organic chemicals are generally produced in large-
volume continuous process plants  located near their  raw material
sources—natural  gas fields, petroleum refineries,  or coke  oven
operations. Because the  basic chemicals are the  raw material
for upgraded  intermediates,  these intermediates  are frequently
made in the  same plant to save  freight cost, or by purchasers
at adjacent plant sites that receive the basic organics by pipeline.
  About 35 percent of the  industry,  based on  number of em-
ployees,  is located  in the Northeast. New  Jersey  accounts for
about one-quarter of the industry's total employment. The South
is responsible for  nearly 45  percent  of  employment  (and much
larger percentage  of tonnage).  The  Midwest accounts for less
than  20  percent and the West has less than 5 percent  of the
organic chemical  industry's  employees. The Gulf Coast,  princi-
pally  Texas and Louisiana, is predominately the source of basic
organics, while the Northeast accounts for a major share of the
upgraded products such as dyestuffs,  flavor and fragrances, and
other high-value, low-volume  products.
  The investment  required for the organic  chemical industry to
meet  the 1977  standards is roughly  $1.03  billion;  annual costs
are $210 million.  There is no definite indication  that any sig-

-------
516          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

nificant economic  impact would result  from imposition of  the
standards.  Overall, potential price increases range from 1 to 4
percent for the majority  of  products,  but can go as high as
6 to 12 percent for several of the products with  the most difficult
waste treatment problems (ethylene glycol, ethylene dichloride,
caprolactam, ethyl acrylate, acetic acid,  para-cresol, and  ani-
line).  Since the  majority of  these  products  are  commodity
chemicals with  few  substitutes,  potential price increases  will
probably be passed on rather than absorbed by the manufacturer.
  A seemingly critical area  is  the  small-volume  producers of
intermediates and  end products. Unfortunately,  little  informa-
tion is available to facilitate an analysis of their water pollu-
tion control costs.  For dyes and organic pigments, costs appear
to be 2 to  5 percent of  selling price but 20 to 50  percent of
the selling  price of plasticizers.  Although many of the producers
in this category discharge their wastes  into  municipal treat-
ment  facilities, those plants without access to  such a discharge
route will probably be forced to close. Firms with less than 20
employees  will be most  severely  affected.  Generally,  they  are
located in  major  urban  areas in  the Northeast,  where  the
community  impacts  of any resulting  unemployment would be
minimal.
  Plastics  and Synthetics. The plastics and synthetic polymer
manufacturing industry  covered in the  study consists of  ap-
proximately 280 companies, many of which have multiple plants.
Production  in 1972 totaled 12,661,000 kkg. The plants are located
throughout the United  States   and its territories,  with  most
major production  units located  in  the Gulf Coast, Midwest,  and
South.
  The plastics and synthetic  polymer industry will have to in-
vest $300 million  to meet the 1977 standards.  Pollution control
investment  costs  are roughly  30 percent  of  current industry
investment  based  on 1967 figures. For  the majority of the in-
dustry, price increases of 0.1 to 2.4 percent would be needed to
recover the costs.  Given the  current  market, including com-
petition from lower-priced imports, such  increases are unlikely.
Rather, the near-term result  will be a  decrease in profitability.
In  either event, the impact does  not appear  to  be severe, al-
though some already marginal plants  may be forced to close
from the added burden of pollution costs.
  For the plastics  industry, the overriding factor  is whether in-
creased costs will  be able to be passed on to  the  consumer. In
1971,  the  industry was  overproducing, profits  were  low,  and
costs  could  probably not  have  been  passed  on. The reverse

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS           517

was  true in 1973, and  prices could have risen  except  for  price
controls. Based  on past history,  supply may again exceed de-
mand, making it difficult to pass costs on.
  Among the synthetics, there would be no great economic im-
pact on production of  viscose rayon. At present, rayon  staple
producers are optimistic because prices on  competitive fibers,
cotton  and polyester staple are expected to rise. With demand
and prices high,  producers  would switch to staple should demand
for textile filament and industrial filament decline. The situation
with cellophane  producers  differs. Markets have  been  declining
and  show no signs of  a turnaround. Costs are rising, and  al-
though  they may  be  offset by increasing costs for  competitive
materials, this segment does not have the same pricing flexibil-
ity as does viscose rayon.  The standards are expected to make
production of cellophane decline still further. They should have a
negligible effect on cellulose acetate  and triacetate fibers,  how-
ever, since producers appear well on their way  to  compliance.
  Petroleum. The  costs for the petroleum industry to meet the
1977 standards  are approximately $637 million, with an annual
cost  of  $255 million. For the 1983 standards, the total costs are
approximately $625  million, with an estimated annual cost of
$250  million.  In  terms of  production costs,  the  annual cost
amounts to approximately  5.8 cents per barrel by 1977 and 9.8
cents per barrel  by 1983. Although many refineries will be forced
to provide additional capital for in-plant alternatives for  water
conservation  (average of 2.3 cents per  barrel by 1977), only a
small portion of these  expenditures would be reflected in  price
increases, which are estimated to be about 0.1 cents per  gallon
by 1977 and 0.2 cents per  gallon by 1983.
  There is tremendous variability in  the treatment  costs  in  re-
fineries of less than 25,000 barrels, as compared with the rela-
tive  stability of  costs for larger refineries. Two  to 11 small  refin-
eries representing at most 0.3 percent of current capacity may
incur pollution abatement costs large enough to force their closure.
Approximately 100 to  500  out of  the  150,000 refinery employees
would  be the maximum number to  face job losses.  Since  these
refineries are located  in  several geographical areas,  the  com-
munity and regional impacts of even the maximum unemployment
do not appear to be substantial.
  Although  the  $1 billion  required expenditure for water pollu-
tion control appears to  be  relatively large, it is not expected that
this  requirement will jeopardize the  petroleum  industry's  capac-
ity for  expansion throughout the decade. Estimated capital  ex-
penditures for  the petroleum industry in 1971  were  approxi-

-------
518          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

mately $7 billion. Furthermore, the industry itself claims to have
spent $288 million  in 1972  alone on  water  pollution abate-
ment, while the 1977 guidelines would require annual capital ex-
penditures of only $250 million.  With rapidly increasing profit-
ability, the industry should find the needed capital.
  Rubber.  The U.S. rubber industry consists  of  two segments.
The first is 28 plants producing different types of synthetic rub-
ber; 18 plants producing  a single rubber are part of a diversi-
fied plant complex manufacturing other products such as rubber
processing chemicals,   plastics,  and  organic  chemicals.  Most
plants are located  in  heavily  industrialized  areas, and in the
case of  synthetic rubber,  near  sources of raw materials and re-
fineries.
  The second segment of the rubber industry consists  of  56
plants producing tire and tube products.  The plants vary in ca-
pacity from 5,000 to 30,000 tires per day. Water pollution prob-
lems depend  in part on the age and general maintenance of the
plant, since most water originates from washdown of facilities
and blowdown of cooling  water. However, most tire plants have
been expanded and modernized since 1967 when belted bias tires
were  introduced. Older plants  located in heavily built-up  indus-
trial sections have no land on which to build ponds and lagoons,
while the newer ones in less confined areas do.
  Most firms in the industry are  large with a high  level of
integration, some of which are owned by the petroleum industry
and some of which are not involved in the manufacture of con-
sumer products.
  The standards will not seriously affect the economic  viability
of the rubber industry. The probable price effect on tires and
inner tubes is less than  0.8% ;  and for the synthetic  rubbers,
the effect is less  than 1% except for SBR latex, where the price
effect is as high as 3.5 percent. Thus, while price increases of
around  1 percent will  occur in most segments, not all producers
will be able to recover  the full cost of pollution by raising prices.
The required annual costs  for plants in the industry are esti-
mated to range from 0 percent to 3.1 percent of sales.
  Timber. The timber  industry assessment focused on three seg-
ments. Their products are generally noncompetitive; the sectors
are in differing  states  of growth; and,  the  companies active in
one sector are not necessarily active in another.
  Hardboard is manufactured primarily from wood cellulose fiber
and  is  used  for  paneling, siding, furniture,  and millwork. The
product can be producted by the "dry process," which uses little
process water, and by "wet process," which is analogous to the

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS           519

manufacture of pulp and paper  and  uses  substantial  process
water. The study considered 17 dry process  mills and nine wet
process mills.
  The plywood and veneer sectors was further broken into soft-
wood  plywood/veneer and hardwood plywood/veneer. Products
within each sector are generally not competitive.  Softwood ply-
wood  is used for structural applications—for example, exterior
sheathing and residential  homes; hardwood plywood is used for
its  decorative  qualities—in furniture,  for example. Moreover,
while both industries have approximately the same  number  of
plants (200), the total output of hardwood plywood and  veneer
is approximately 12 percent of the softwood sector. The softwood
industry is  concentrated  in  the Pacific Northwest and  in  the
Southeast.
  The hardwood plywood and veneer sector  is characterized  by
small operations owned and operated by an independent business.
The industry  is concentrated in the mid-South  and Southeast,
and also in the North Central and Northeast States.
  The third sector of the timber industry is the wood preserving
industry. It is composed of more than 400 plants, many of which
are small, privately owned companies  with  long-standing tech-
nology and  largely depreciated plant and equipment.  The  top
four producers account for about 35 percent of  production and
are owned by large, public corporations in the chemical and
timber products industries.
  The 1977 standards will have essentially no major impact  on
the hardboard and the softwood plywood sectors.  The  impact
is  focused more specifically on hardwood  plywood and wood
preserving,  since these  industries are more  the province of the
small, independent business. There will be essentially no  overall
production in curtailment in any of the four industry sectors.
Where plants are forced to close, they will be smaller firms, with
relatively little impact on  total industry output. In addition, with
the exception  of the hardboard industry, which  is operating at
more than 90 percent of  capacity, the  industry is characterized
by flexible capacity.  (Certain producers move in and out of pro-
duction depending on price/profitability  levels.)   The  industries
typically operate at 70 to 80  percent of total capacity.  Thus,
any production deficiency  that results from plant closures can be
offset by the remaining facilities.
  About 75 to 85 plants are predicted to close due to the effluent
guidelines. In most cases, these plants are already marginal be-
cause of their low profitability  over the preceding 5 to 10 years.

-------
520          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  n

The added burden of  air  pollution abatement costs  and difficul-
ties in raising capital may  result in a shutdown decision.
  Price increases will vary by industry segment, but will range
from 1 to 8  percent.  Unemployment  effects will  impact  most
severely on operations in the mid-South and Southeast. The total
effect on unemployment will  not  be great,  perhaps 1600  nation-
wide, but  for  30 to 40 individual communities,  as much  as a
quarter of the work force  could become  unemployed.

Construction  Industry

Recent legislation will make it necessary to increase substantially
the rate of construction of new water pollution control facilities
and the modification  of existing facilities. An  increase of the
magnitude called for in the 1972 Amendments (from close  to $3
billion/year in 1971 to  $9 billion/year in 1976) will place  addi-
tional demands on  the  capacity  of the construction industry to
produce these  facilities and  possibly create an unacceptable in-
crease in the  cost  of the facilities or in  construction costs in
general. EPA initiated several  studies  in  order to assess the
impact of these  expenditures on the construction industry as a
whole and the impact on  particular sub-sectors of  the  construc-
tion industry.10
  One type of study estimated  the impact  of the incremental
EPA-stimulated  demand on the price and output of the construc-
tion industry.  Since this  type  of study assumed  that past rela-
tionships will hold  in the future, unforeseen events such as the
energy crisis  may lead  to  basic changes in the  system and
therefore outcomes may be very different  from those predicted.
A second type of study examined the  possible existence  of spe-
cific bottlenecks, such as the supply of skilled labor or entrepre-
neurs, that would limit the  construction industry's  capacity to
meet EPA stimulated demand. The following material describes
  10 George  F.  Brown,  Jr. and Louis Jacobson, "An  Assessment of the
 Sabotka Study," Order No. P3-01-02905, September 1973.
  Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, "Manpower Implication
 of Alternative  Levels of Sewer Construction," Agreement  No. EPA-IAG-
 0240 (D), October 1973.
  Chase Econometrics Associates, Inc., "The Economic Impact of Pollution
 Control Expenditures Needed to Meet Waste Water Discharge Standards by
 1980 with Particular Emphasis on the  Effect on Construction Prices," Con-
 tract No. 68-01-1532, April 1973.
  Stephen Sabotka  and Co. and  McKee-Berger-Mansueto,  Inc., "The Eco-
 nomic Impact of the Additional  Demands Caused by New Environmental
 Protection Standards,"  Contract  No.  68-01-0554,  December  1972.

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS           521

in some detail one of the macro studies and summarizes the quali-
tative discussion  on specific bottlenecks.
  Macro Estimate. Very little analytical work has been  per-
formed  examining  the questions  considered  in  this  report. In
particular,  the study described in this section " is only an initial
effort to determine the flexibility of construction supply to meet
increased demand.  As such, the work must  be  considered  pre-
liminary and additional research is necessary to obtain definitive
results.
  The method of analysis used in this study is an econometric
model. The model attempts to reflect the economic behavior of the
construction   industry  through   the  use   of   mathematical
techniques. A model by its  very nature must make certain  sim-
plifying assumptions and specify only some of the many relation-
ships which may bear  upon the economic behavior  of the  con-
struction industry.  Thus  a  model represents an aggregation of
many relationships. Some models  are  more complex  than  others
as they  attempt to specify the behavior of a particular industry.
Accordingly, the results of any model should be viewed with due
respect for the balance between detail and aggregation.
  Before describing the model in more specific terms it is impor-
tant to  be clear about precisely what questions  this analysis
addresses.  The analysis  attempts  to  estimate the  incremental
impact on the level and price of construction  given an  incremen-
tal change in demand due to increased  expenditure  on  water
pollution control.  The analysis does not examine the determinants
of price increases that are  unrelated to changes in construction
demand. EPA does recognize, however, that the recent  devalu-
ation of the dollar has increased the demand for exports (such as
a larger European  demand  for U.S. steel  reinforcing rods)  and
that this change will  increase the  price of domestic construction
and result in some shortages.  Similarly,  EPA  recognizes  that
uncertainty about future prices and deliveries of inputs into the
construction  process  may result in significant increases in the
price of construction.
  Description of  Models. Model 1, an aggregate model of  con-
struction demand and supply, was  estimated  using annual time-
series data for the period 1958-1972.12 It includes two equations.
One represents the demand  for construction as a function of the
  11 George F. Brown,  Jr. and Louis  Jacobson, "An Assessment of the
Sabotka Study," Order  No. P3-01-02905, September, 1973.
  12 The estimation was carried out using two-stage-least-squares (TSLS)
regression procedures.

-------
522          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

price of construction, the price of other commodities, the level
of gross national product  (GNP), and  the mortgage interest
rate. The second equation defines the supply of construction as
a function of the price of construction, other prices, and the size
of the prime-age male labor force.
  Model 2 differs from  Model 1  in  two principal  ways.  First,
Model 2 includes four equations representing the supply and de-
mand of  construction labor measured separately  in  terms of
hours and numbers of workers. The  supply  of labor is specified
as a function of the wage rate in the construction industry, the
wage rate in manufacturing industries, and the size of the prime-
age male labor  force. The demand for construction labor is de-
rived from an analysis of a  model of production in the industry.
Construction input is assumed to be a function of  the levels of
capital  and  labor used as inputs.
  The second difference is that, rather than  examining construc-
tion activity in the aggregate, Model 2  identifies five separate
sectors  and  estimates demand and supply equations for each. The
five  sectors are private  residential  construction, private non-
residential construction, public building construction, public non-
building construction excluding sewers,  and sewer  construction.
Over the period of estimation (1969-1972),  these  five  sectors
accounted  for,  roughly 45 percent, 24  percent,  12 percent,
17 percent,  and 2  percent  of  total construction activity. These
percentages have shown  considerable volatility over time. The
public sectors, in particular, can be expected to respond to various
legislative  programs. Thus, Model  2 consists of  14 equations:
four for construction labor and 10 for construction activity.

Results of  Models

  Demand  for  Construction.  When  viewed  in  the  aggregate
(Model  1),  the  demand for total  construction appears to be in-
fluenced to a far greater degree by overall factors in the economy,
(for example, GNP and the interest rate)  than by the price of
construction. For example,  a 1 percent  increase in the price of
construction is  predicted to  lead to a decrease of  only  0.025
percent in  demand. In contrast,  a 1 percent increase in GNP
would increase  construction demand by 0.47 percent, and a  1
percent increase in the interest rate would lead to a 0.22 percent
decrease in  construction demand.  The overall implication is that
construction demand is quite price inelastic and is more a func-
tion of  the  overall state of the economy.
   This  same conclusion  applies as well to each of the five sepa-

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS           523

rate sectors in Model 2. For each sector, the estimated price elas-
ticity of demand is less than unity. (However, the estimated  co-
efficients are  not statistically significant for  all  sectors other
than sewers.)  This implies that the percentage change in demand
is smaller  than the percentage change in  price. On a relative
basis, public building and public  non-building construction  re-
spond more to price changes than do either of the private sectors.
This may be  due in  part to the  specific  policy of using public
construction projects to even out total demand.
  The private sectors, which make almost  80 percent of  construc-
tion activity,  respond more  strongly to  GNP and the interest
rate than to price. Other  things being equal a 1 percent increase
in GNP would lead to increases of 4.3 percent and 0.93 percent
in private  residential and private non-residential construction,
respectively. A 1 percent increase in the interest rate also has a
marked impact  on residential  construction—Model 2 predicts a
decrease of  0.49 percent. This is to be expected. The major 'cost'
of purchasing residential construction is the mortgage  payment.
Changes in the  rate  of mortgage interest are likely to  have
greater influence  on  the total cost of  housing than change in
construction price. Similarly,  the major determinant  of busi-
ness investment  in non-residential construction  is the  expected
return from a given  expenditure. The return is likely to fluctu-
ate more closely with the general  level of economic activity than
with the cost of the project.
  However, one might expect the interest  elasticity of demand to
be greater than the value estimated. A possible reason for the low
value is that mortgage money is subject  to considerable  non-price
rationing, particularly at the peak of business activity.  Thus the
relatively high elasticity  of demand with  respect to the level of
GNP may reflect a high correlation between non-market  rationing
of mortgage money and GNP. If so, the analysis should  have
included a measure of the availability of  credit (in addition to the
rate of interest)  in the model. While this variable would  modify
the importance  of the GNP variable, it would not significantly
change the  estimate of the price elasticity of demand.
  The impact of GNP on public construction is also sizeable. A 1
percent increase in GNP leads  to increases  of 1.2 percent in
public building and 0.40 percent in public non-building  construc-
tion. Increases in the interest rate, while also statistically signif-
icant, have  a  smaller absolute impact on the public  sector con-
struction demands. Decreases  of  0.2, 0.37,  and 0.46 percent in
public  building,  non-building,  and sewer construction demand

-------
524          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT 11

are predicted to result from a 1 percent increase in the interest
rate.
    In summary, the models suggest that:

    • Construction  demand is relatively price  insensitive, par-
      ticularly so in  the  private  sector, which makes  up the
      bulk of the industry demand.

    • The level  of  GNP has  a much  more important  impact
      on construction demand, suggesting that the  level  of eco-
      nomic activity is a primary determinant.

    • The availability of  credit may be a more important de-
      terminant  than indicated by this model. However, it ap-
      pears that the interest rate would have to undergo quite
      substantial changes  to impact greatly on construction de-
      mand.

    • The levels of GNP  and the interest rate have  relatively
      larger effects on private demand than on public demand.
  Supply of  Construction.  Viewed in  the aggregate (Model 1),
the supply of construction appears  to be quite responsive  to both
economic factors and the  price  of construction, which,  unlike
demand, responds very little to price changes. A  1 percent in-
crease in the price  of construction leads to  an increase of 6.5
percent in construction volume, while  an increase of  1  percent
in the prime-age male labor  force leads  to  an increase of 3.9
percent in construction supply. On an aggregate basis, this sug-
gests  that construction supply is quite price elastic: Small price
changes lead to large changes in the supply of construction.
  This  same conclusion remains when the  five-sector model  is
considered. The supply of  construction appears to  respond most
to  price  changes in  the  private  residential and  public non-
building sectors.  The prices of construction inputs have,  as pre-
dicted, negative impacts upon supply.  Of the two variables, con-
struction wage rates appear the more important: in four of the
five sectors  the wage  coefficient exceeds the interest rate  coeffi-
cient. The impact  of construction wages appears  particularly
large in the  public non-building sector: a 1 percent increase  in
wages is predicted  to decrease  supply  by  1.9 percent. In no
other category is the estimated elasticity greater than 1.0.
  In  summary, the  supply of construction appears to have the
following characteristics:
    • Relatively small price  changes  elicit  sizeable changes  in
      the supply of construction.

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS           525

    • Construction supply increases with the size of the avail-
      able labor force, but decreases  with  the  price  of inputs.

    • The largest sector  of construction, private  residential, is
      also the sector in which  price  changes elicit the largest
      supply response.

  Aggregate Impact  of  the  Incremental EPA  Stimulated De-
mand.  The  aggregate  demand and supply  curves described  in
Model 1 and estimated from annual time series data can be com-
bined to  assess the impact of additions to demand. An increase
in incremental demand over the baseline is  estimated to be $4.9
billion  for the sewer  component of the aggregated construction
industry   (Table  VII-11). It is  the   component  stimulated  by
EPA. Using the values of the estimated elasticities and param-
eters for Model I to estimate the aggregate  impact on 1976 con-
struction, an increase of $4.9  billion  results in an increase  in
total construction of $4.6 billion and an increase in relative prices
of 1.3 percent. One effect of  higher prices however is to reduce
the amount of construction that would take place in other seg-
ments of the construction industry. This explains why an increase
of $4.9 billion in  demand for one part of  the  construction in-
dustry results in a net increase in total construction of $4.6 bil-
lion.
  This result is  shown graphically in  Figure VII-1. The impact
of an increase in aggregate demand is  to shift equilibrium  price
and quantity from (PI, Ql) to (P2, Q2). The increase in the one
component is shown by the differences between  Q3 and Q2. The
price  increase is shown  by the difference  between P2 and PI.
Due to the price increase there is a decrease in demand by  other
components of the construction industry amounting  to the dif-
ference between Q3 and  Ql.  Thus the  net increase in total con-
struction demand is shown by the difference between Q2 and Ql.
  Construction Labor Market. The supply of construction labor,
measured in terms of either hours or employment,  appears  to
respond  exactly as theoretically predicted.  Wages in both  the
construction industry and in competing occupations  are impor-
tant determinants of labor supply. A  1 percent  increase in con-
struction wages  is predicted to lead to a 2.0 percent  increase in
construction employment and a 2.2 percent  increase in construc-
tion hours, while a 1 percent increase in alternative  (manufac-
turing)  wages is predicted to lead to  a 2.7 percent decrease in
employment and a 3.2 percent decrease in hours. The size of the
male labor force is similarly an important determinant of supply:

-------
526           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

                             TABLE VI1-11
           PROJECTED ERA-STIMULATED AND EPA BASELINE CAPITAL OUTLAYS FOR
                       POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITIES
Facilities                       1974         1975          1976          1977
Municipal*
EPA Stimulated (4-4 plan) 	
Baseline - -. 	 	 	 —
Total 	 	 	
Nonthermal Industrial Costst
EPA Stimulated 	 	
Baseline 	 	
Total - 	 	 	 	
Thermal Industrial Costsi
EPA Stimulated 	
Baseline 	 	 - 	
Total 	 	 	
Total EPA-Stimulated Costs 	

.— 0.8
.... 2.8
.... 3.6

.... 1.5
.-.. 1.0
..-. 2.5

.— 0.5

.... 0.5
— . 2.8
(billions
2.1
2.9
5.0

1.5
1.0
2.5

0.6

0.6
4.2
of dollars)
2.8
3.0
5.8

1.5
1.0
2.5

0.6

0.6
4.9

1.8
3.2
5.0

0.9
1.0
1.9

0.6

0.6
3.7
  "This capital outlay reflects an allotment of $4 billion in FY 1975 and $4 billion in FY 1976.
  tThis capital outlay is based on the $11.9 billion estimate in Chapter 4 to achieve best practicable
treatment. It assumes $2.5  billion capital outlays in years 1973-1976 and a $1.9 billion  capital
outlay in year 1977.
  JThis capital outlay is based on the $2.3 billion estimate in Chapter 4 to meet the thermal effluent
guidelines given the exceptions provided by Section 316 of the 1972 Amendments. It assumes a $0.5
billion capital outlay in year 1974 and $0.6 billion capital outlays in years 1975-1977.

A 1 percent increase in the male labor force is predicted to lead to
a 1.7 percent  increase in employment and a 2.7 percent increase
in hours. All of these estimated coefficients are statistically sig-
nificant.
   These results suggest a large and flexible supply of labor to the
construction industry. Both the expanding labor force and the
rapid supply response to wage changes suggest that the changes
in  construction activity can be conducted  by the existing labor
force. (The data did not enable estimates of production functions
using disaggregated labor  categories.  Hence the wage and em-
ployment figures represent the current aggregate of skill classes
and  are not particularly applicable to predicting specific  skill
shortages that  may occur.) Quantitative  estimates of these im-
pacts can be deduced from the  reduced  form employment and
hours equations,  which result from "solving" the demand and
supply equations to give equations relating the endogenous  vari-
ables to the exogenous  variables  in the model. From these re-
duced form equations, the  elasticities  of construction hours and
wages are estimated to  be  0.86 and  0.20,  respectively. Given the
estimates of a $4.6 billion  in  aggregate construction,  these elas-
ticities  imply an impact of increasing construction hours by 2.8
percent  and of increasing construction wages by 0.7 percent.
   One additional observation about the construction labor market
comes from the estimated  labor demand equations. The elastici-
ties of  total construction activity on employment and hours are
0.69 and 0.89, respectively. This suggests that the  demand  reac-

-------
                WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
527
                             FIGURE Vll-l
    SUPPLY-DEMAND RELATIONSHIPS OF THE  CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
c
o
(/) p
c "-
8 P.
                          QJ — Qi = Increase m Total Construction
                          Q i —Q3 = Decrease in Baseline Construction
                                             Aggregate Demand Plus
                                             Incremental EPA Demand
                                             Aggregate Demand
                            Q..Q.  C-
                      Quantity of Construction

-------
528          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

tion may be more heavily concentrated on increased hours  per
worker than on additions to the construction labor force. Thus,
the potential  for  expansion  of  hours suggests  further capacity
for handling short-term fluctuations in construction activity.
  Model 2 was augmented to permit estimation of  demand  and
supply for four important skill categories of construction labor—
bricklayers, iron  workers, plumbers,  and  electricians. They ac-
count for 15 percent of year-long sewage plant construction  jobs
and 30 percent of the construction trades jobs (Table VII-12).
  A 1  percent increase in  wages  will  lead  to  increases of 3.0
percent in the number of plumbers, 1.8 percent in  the  number
of electricians, 3.3 percent in the number of  bricklayers,  and 1.8
percent in the number of iron workers.  These predictions closely
correspond to the 2.0  percent  increase predicted in  aggregate
construction labor.
  As was the case for aggregate labor, hours respond even more
rapidly than employment. A 1 percent increase in wages is pre-
dicted to lead  to an  increase in hours worked of 3.7 percent for
plumbers, 2.9 percent for electricians, 4.0 percent for bricklayers,
and 2.4 percent  for iron workers, versus  the overall  aggregate
estimate of 2.2 percent. This might suggest that  barriers to entry,
either union-induced or the result of the  higher levels of skills
required,  lead to  proportionately  larger increases   in hours in
these four categories than in the other categories. The possibility
that these barriers  may be somewhat  union-induced  is further
                            TABLE VII-12
        ON-SITE YEARLONG JOBS REQUIRED FOR SEWAGE PLANT CONSTRUCTION (1971)*


Administrative & Supervisory 	 	
Supervisors & General Foreman .-
Professional & Technical 	 	
Clerical 	
Construction Trades _ .. . .__ .._ .. _..
Bricklayers 	
Carpenters _ 	 	 _. ._. . . .
Electricians 	 	
Iron Workers 	
Operating Engineers 	
Painters 	
Plumbers 	
Cement Finishers _ - 	 	 	
Other Skilled Trades 	
Labor Foremen 	
Laborers! 	
Other Occupations^ 	
All Occupations 	 - . - - 	
Number/billion dollars
of sewage construction
	 2,260
	 (1,740)
	 	 (200)
	 	 (320)
	 13,000
	 	 (450)
	 (3,200)
	 (870)
	 	 (1,120)
	 (4,565)
	 (320)
	 	 (1,290)
	 	 (645)
	 (570)
	 570
	 7,365
	 1,590
	 24,800
Percent of
total
9.1
(7.0)
(0.8)
(1.3)
52.5
(1.8)
(12.9)
(3.5)
(4.5)
(18.4)
(1.3)
(5.2)
(2.0)
(2.3)
2.3
29.7
6.4
100.0
  'Based on 1,800 man-hours a year per Job.
  •{•Includes laborers, helpers, tenders, pipelayers, flagmen, and watchmen.
  {Includes truckdrivers, oilers, and power tool operators.
  Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND  REPORTS            529

supported by the fact that the estimated elasticities  of  employ-
ment and hours for the size of the male labor  force are below
those obtained for aggregate labor.
  In terms of the impact on wages, a 1 percent  increase in  total
construction activity will lend to increases in the  wages of plumb-
ers by 0.06 percent, of electricians by  0.20 percent, of brick-
layers by 0.02 percent, and of iron  workers by 0.14  percent.
These estimates are slightly below those  obtained  for aggregate
labor. Given the  $4.6 billion increase in  overall construction in
the peak year, the model predicts rises of 0.2,  0.7, 0.1,  and 0.5
percent in the wages of plumbers, electricians,  bricklayers,  and
iron workers,  respectively, from EPA-stimulated demand.
  In summary, the labor market  flexibility  predicted in the ag-
gregate analysis appears to carry over to these four skill  cate-
gories. An increase in the demand for labor is met to a greater
extent by increases in hours and  a lesser extent by increases in
numbers of workers at least in the short  run.
  Impact of Capital Markets on Construction. An  earlier section
of the report  concluded that the  impact  of the  EPA-stimulated
demand on interest rates would likely be quite  small.  (For ex-
ample, peak  year incremental  funding  requirements represent
only about 3.0 percent  of  1970 gross private  domestic invest-
ment and 1.0  percent of 1970 mortgage  debt.)  In addition, the
results presented  earlier suggest that only very  large  interest
rate changes would substantially impact on construction activ-
ity.  Even if EPA-stimulated  demands cause interest  rates to
rise as much  as  1  percent, overall construction  would probably
decrease by only 0.22 percent, with a maximum  decrease (but of
only about 0.49 percent) in the private  residential construction
category.  These liberal estimates of the impact via  the capital
markets  suggest that  impacts induced  by  interest  rates  will
probably be negligible.
  Sector Impact.  In assessing the impact of the  EPA-stimulated
demand on the five construction sectors contained  in  Model 2, it
is important to note that the overall impact is predicted to be a
decrease of $0.3 billion in the  peak year. The private residential
and the  public non-building sectors are estimated to have the
largest  relative decrease in construction activity due  to  their
(relatively) high  demand elasticities and  (relatively)  low supply
elasticities. Of the predicted decrease in baseline construction,
$0.16 billion would be  concentrated  in  the private  residential
sector and slightly less  than  $0.15 billion in  the  public  non-
building sector. (A conceivable  reason for  the high demand elastic-
ities  for  the  public  sectors is that public works projects are
timed somewhat to smooth the overall level of construction  activ-

-------
530          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

ity. Thus these estimates could be somewhat in error if the prac-
tice of contracting for public building in periods of slack activity
[low prices]  is not continued.)
  Bottlenecks. To supplement the studies  discussed above which
examined the flexibility of the  construction industry, additional
studies were carried out that attempted to  examine the possibility
of bottlenecks developing  that  could  not  be foreseen using the
more formal  techniques.13 These studies were based primarily on
an examination of the institutional framework  of the construc-
tion  industry. Possible supply  bottlenecks examined  were man-
power, entrepreneurial skills, and construction materials.
  Manpower. The ability of the  economy to supply sufficient man-
power to meet the needs generated  by the increased demand for
pollution control construction was  examined by a special report
prepared for EPA by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).  The
conclusions of this  study  can  be summarized by  the following
quotations from the BLS  report: "The construction  industry  in
the past had demonstrated a  remarkable capability  to expand
its work force to meet short-term  spurts  in demand. Shortages
in certain  construction occupations do occur, however,  in some
geographical locations  during periods of  peak demands or as a
result  of  shifts in the composition of  construction engineer-
ing." 14 These findings  are consistent with the results generated
by the formal model of labor supply. While there is clearly a po-
tential for a bottleneck to develop,  the labor market in  the  past
has been  able to adjust adequately. The BLS study  did suggest
expansion  of formal training programs in the certain construc-
tion trades to prevent future bottlenecks.
  The Sabotka  study  also examined labor supply conditions and
reached similar conclusions with regard to the overall sufficiency
of supply. However, the  study pointed  out that the degree  of
union  power is very large and  may lead  to significant price in-
creases, particularly if the growth of construction output is sus-
tained at a high rate.
  A  major  problem  not  specifically addressed in  the  above
  13 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor,  Manpower Implica-
 tions of Alternate Levels of Sewer Construction, Agreement No. EPA-IAC-
 V0240(D), Oct., 1973.
  Stephen Sabotka and Co. and McKee-Berger-Mansueto, Inc., The Economic
 Impact of the Additional Demands Caused by New Environmental Protec-
 tion Standards, Contract No. 68-01-0554,  Dec. 1972.
  " Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor,  Manpower Implica-
 tions of Alternate Levels of Sewer Construction, Agreement No. EPA-IAC-
 V0240(D), Oct., 1973, p. 38.

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND  REPORTS            531

studies  is the possible impact  of  Davis-Bacon type  legislation.
This legislation  calls for the  payment  of the "prevailing" wage
on government-supported  construction projects. The prevailing
wage has come  to be denned  as the union scale.  In many labor
markets this represents a significant increase in the construction
wage over the  actual prevailing level. Frequently this  inhibits
non-union contractors from bidding on  contracts.  This institu-
tional arrangement means that even if sufficient  capacity  exists
for an expansion of construction output it will be used only if
there is a considerable price increase. In  fact, a large increase in
Federally-assisted construction,  such as  called for in the  1972
Amendments, may lead to large increases in construction prices.
One  study has estimated that a 10 percent increase in the propor-
tion  of  Federally-financed construction  would increase  union
wages by 6.8 percent relative  to wages of production  workers in
manufacturing.15
  Entrepreneurial Skill. The large number of contract construc-
tion  firms, the  ease of  entry,  and the relatively  general skills
needed to produce water pollution abatement facilities have been
pointed out  as factors facilitating  the expansion of this type of
construction. However, there  is  the  possibility that several bar-
riers to expansion exist. The small firm size  makes the  possi-
bility of business failure very high. This means  risk premiums
add significantly to the cost of construction. These take the form
of performance  bonding, which is  a type of insurance and high
interest rates on bank loans. Also,  "tight  money" conditions may
make an expansion of construction output very difficult.
  In addition, the riskiness of construction may cause firms to
greatly  increase their  bids on  slightly  unfamiliar  tasks.  The
Sabotka Study  indicates that while this  inhibits  expansion it
does not inhibit expansion significantly.
  Construction Materials.  The Sabotka report indicates that the
supply of construction materials "could expand  to meet any fore-
seeable  demand  for the next decade though there  might be lags
and  local shortages." In light of the recent  fuel shortages  and
devaluation  of the dollar this  optimistic view may need revi-
sion.  Such commodities, such as steel reinforcing rods,  timber
products, and even concrete, may greatly increase in price.

Equipment  Supply
Meeting the new effluent  standards will  have  an  impact on in-
  15 John P. Gould, Davis Bacon Act: The Economics  of Prevailing Wage
Laws, Special Analysis Number 15 (Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise
Institute, 1971)  p. 38.

-------
532          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

dustries  supplying water pollution abatement equipment,  espe-
cially during the critical period of construction activity extending
from  1972 through 1980.16
  Since  industrial  activity in  the  water  pollution abatement
equipment field cannot be forecast with precision,  the demand
and impact  analyses were performed assuming three alternative
futures:  (I)  a  Baseline scenario  that extrapolates  pollution
abatement activity from a base year predating1 major  environ-
mental legislation; (II) a Federal Compliance Schedule that simu-
lates  on-time  enforcement of existing standards; and  (III)  an
Expected Compliance  Schedule that  reflects  forecasts  of  what
may alternatively occur.
  The following analysis was  completed in 1972. It was based
on statements of equipment suppliers and secondary statistics.
Its primary focus was  on the productive  capacity of the  industry
rather than the  availability of raw material and  skilled  labor
inputs. The latter categories may cause,  as recent evidence indi-
cates, some  disruptions in short-time  supply.
  Pollution  Abatement  Equipment  Industry.  More  than 400
firms participate in the  water  pollution abatement  equipment
industry. The four  volume leaders  hold  about 20 percent of the
market,  which totaled about  $475  million  in 1971—about $275
million  for  wastewater  treatment  and  $200 million  for water
treatment.
  The market structure of the industry is complex,  frequently
involving multiple layers of municipal  governments,  consulting
engineering firms, contractors, local health departments, and fed-
eral  agencies. One  effect of this marketing structure is an ex-
tended delay (3 to  5 years)  between the decision to buy equip-
ment and its delivery. A second,  and  maybe  more important,
effect is  the pressure on these parties to protect their respective
positions by conservative decision-making. As a result, the munic-
ipal  water pollution control market is generally  slow to  respond
to federal compliance pressures and to technological change.
  The industry has  enjoyed glamour status, largely due to the
great publicity afforded  water pollution  control problems and
programs. Its performance, however,  has thus far been a relative
disappointment. The pollution abatement equipment business  is
attractive enough however, to encourage the development  of  as
  ™ Arthur D. Little with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—December
 1972, Economic Impact Study of the Pollution Abatement Equipment Indus-
 try, Contract No. 68-01-0553.

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS           533

much long-term supply as may be needed through 1980. There
are several reasons that support this conclusion:

    • The profit margins enjoyed  by pollution control companies
      on  their  pollution  business have generally exceeded the
      margins on their other businesses in the same  industrial
      categories.

    • Companies in which pollution control is a significant activ-
      ity  (greater  than  5  percent  of sales)   have  slightly
      higher  return on  assets than companies  in which pollu-
      tion control is a minor activity.

    • Comparing the returns on assets, companies "in" the pollu-
      tion business have  out performed those in  closely related
      SIC's.

    • Examination of the returns of selected companies in two
      industries which have indicated strong interests in enter-
      ing the business—the chemical and aerospace industries—
      shows that the  returns of water  pollution control  spe-
      cialty chemical companies were greater than their rates of
      return.

  Demand From, Municipal Sector. Aggregate needs for munic-
ipal sewage and ancillary facilities were developed from figures
in EPA's Economics of Clean Water reports. Current market and
product mix estimates  were based on  surveys made by the De-
partment  of Commerce. Projections of changes in product mix
were  developed  by the contractor's staff with assistance from
persons within  the  industry.  On a constant dollar basis, the
recent history of municipal expenditures has been disappointing.
The average annual growth since 1965 has only been 0.6 percent
per year.  This plateau of municipal demand has resulted pri-
marily from the waiting  by  municipalities  for  promised Fed-
eral assistance—assistance which  has  not been  up to those  ex-
pectations. The  aggregate demand  for total municipal sewage
system expenditures between 1972 and 1980  is estimated at $27
billion. The mix of expenditures between treatment plants, ancil-
lary facilities, and collection systems  were  further  adjusted  to
reflect EPA's survey  of  specific  municipal  needs.  The results
of the demand analyses under the three alternative futures are
shown in Table VII-13 and Figure VII-2.
  Case I—Baseline. The starting line for the baseline projection
was 1965, which marked the first  promise of significant  Federal
funds for  municipal construction and correspondingly  marked

-------
534           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

the beginning of a plateau in municipal spending that only re-
cently has been exceeded. From the 1965 level of expenditures, the
baseline was  updated to 1971 by a multiplier (about 1.04)  cor-
responding  to the growth  in municipal  water  usage over  that
period. Similar multipliers  were used to  grow the baseline  over
the 1971-80  period. Figure VII-2 shows that  the baseline ex-
ceeds the level of activity  in  Cases II and  III  until  1974,  thus
emphasizing  the impact that the municipal waiting game  has
had upon not only the  progress of the national water pollution
control program but upon  the operation rates and profits of the
water pollution control  equipment industry.
   Case II—Federal Compliance Schedule.  This case  reflects at
least  some flexibility  in  waiving  compliance  to contemplated
water effluent standards in selected situations, particularly in rec-
ognition  of the  long  delay  between Federal  grants  and  final
equipment  delivery in  the  municipal market.  The Federal  com-
pliance schedule portrays  a  fast  growing  industry that peaks
quickly and then falls  to a presumed situation  of low operating
rates and low profits.
   Case III—Expected Compliance Schedule.  The expected growth
of municipal  sewage treatment demand encompasses a continua-
tion of lower  growth rates in  annual investment  through 1973, an
acceleration of expenditures  in 1974-76,  and the tapering off to
an acceptable  growth  rate  through 1980. Hidden within the
curves in Figure VII—2 are the greater growth rates of specialty
equipment  indicated in Table VII-13. These higher growth rates
                             TABLE VII-13
     ESTIMATED ANNUAL SHIPMENTS, 1972-80 OF POLLUTION ABATEMENT EQUIPMENT INDUSTRY

                       Annual Shipments (Millions of 1972 Dollars)     Growth (%/Year)

                     1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1971-75 1975-80
MUNICIPAL SEWAGE TREATMENT
Case 1: Baseline
Specialty equipment 96 100
Instrumentation 11 12
Case II: Federal compliance schedule
Specialty equipment 110 126
Instrumentation 17 21
Case III: Expected compliance schedule
Specialty equipment 110 114
Instrumentation 17 19
104
12
159
28
123
21
109
13
221
39
152
26
114
13
292
54
186
33
119
14
368
78
222
42
125
15
300
65
239
48
132
15
211
52
255
54
138
16
113
23
277
62
145
17
73
15
293
69
4.3
4.3
27.6
33.0
14.1
17.9
5.0
5.0
-24.4
—23.0
9.5
15.9
  INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
  Case I:  Baseline
        Specialty equipment   56  59   63  66  69  73  77  81  86   91  5.4   5.4
        Instrumentation      13  14   14  15  16  17  18  19  20   21  5.4   5.4
  Case II: Federal compliance schedule
        Specialty equipment  172  192  211 228 239  248 151  85  75   63  8.6  -23.4
        Instrumentation      26  31   35  38  42  44  28  17  14   13 12.7  -21.0
  Case III: Expected compliance  schedule
        Specialty equipment  172  184  197 207 213  217 198  124  80   73  5.5  -19.3
        Instrumentation      26  30   32  34  36  38  36  23  16   15  8.5  -16.1

-------
             WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
535
  LU
  (E
  O
  <
  a.
        UJ
       _ o
(3 eg
  UJ
  ac.
  D
  Ul
  a.
  X
  Ul


  <
  a:


  5
  O
  U
        Q
        Ul
        X
        u
        in

        u
       = °

       u <
                         i  I   I  r F T I  F  I   I T I  i
                           m         CM         r-\        o
                             suo|||ig)

-------
536          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT 11

for the equipment proportion of the total  are due to changes
in product mix and the relative proportion of total investment
represented by treatment plant expenditures. From the point of
view of  either specialty equipment or total  expenditures, the
pattern of growth in Case  III presents  a  more favorable  future
for the water pollution  control equipment industry.  However,
Case III will  also suffer a declining  market after 1980,  providing
new legislative targets are not set by  then. The 1972 Amend-
ments  affect  more the source of monies  for  municipal sewage
treatment than targets of  control.  Thus, the backlog of needs
remain roughly the same, $27 billion.
  Demand From Industrial Sector. Reliable information  on in-
dustrial wastewater treatment expenditures was difficult  to ob-
tain. Department of Commerce surveys were used for estimating
the level of current equipment shipments and  the  product  mix.
From  this information,  the 1971  market  for  specialty  equip-
ment and instrumentation  was estimated at about $192 million
(current dollars). Aggregate demand estimates for the 1972-80
period were, with slight modifications, based  on  Economics  of
Clean  Water reports. The  aggregate  demand  for  industrial ex-
penditures estimated  for  the  period  was  estimated to be  $9.7
billion. Demand was also forecast for the market for  industrial
wastewater treatment.
  Case I—Baseline. Again, 1965  was selected  as the base year.
The baseline (Figure VII-3) was constructed using the level  of
shipments in 1965, a growth index  reflecting industrial plant
investment (at 5.4 percent per year),  and a  constant product
mix of equipment.
  Case II—Federal Compliance Schedule. Since  industry responds
more quickly to  Federal  enforcement  than municipalities, the
majority  of  industrial wastewater treatment is assumed to  be
taken  care of by 1976, Indeed, the apparent  level of expendi-
tures by industry in 1971  is already so high that it took only a
small  growth rate to achieve the needed expenditures by  1975
(about 7.2 percent).
  Cose ///—Expected Compliance Schedule.  Industry will ap-
parently have no great difficulty in accomplishing most  of the
backlog  (as  now measured) by  1976.  This is partly based  on
estimates  that industrial  expenditures  are already at a  level
($1.2  billion) which, with only  a modest  growth, could reach
the estimated target by 1976-77. As a result, in industrial waste-
water treatment, the possibilities of  a  declining market  during
the  1970's exist  in Case III just  as they  do in Case II.  This
implies that  either industry is close  to solving its water pollu-

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
                                                       537
  °?
  CVJ
  (V
  Oi
  in
  UJ
  Q
  Z
  UJ
  CL
  X
  UJ

  UJ




  cc.
= 5
> O

UJ°
O UJ
  or
  H
         D
         Q
         UJ
         I
         U
         at

         uj
       _ u
  Q
  UJ

  u
  I/I
  UJ
- o



3Si
S|

  o
  u

  <
  a:
  w
  a
  u
  u.
  UJ
  <
  ce


  §
  Q
  Z
  ui
- z
UJ J
(/} Ul
                                                         Q



                                                         D


                                                         t
                                 I  I   I  I   I  I   I  I  I  I

                                 o           in           o
                             suoMMS)

-------
538          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n

tion  problems under present objectives  (excluding the  implica-
tions of the 1972 Amendments) or that the cost of control have
been  greatly  underestimated.  Again, specialty equipment ex-
penditures will grow at a faster rate than total  expenditures be-
cause of the trend toward advanced treatment.
  Impacts. The impact analysis focused upon balancing estimates
of demand against the supply capabilities of the pollution abate-
ment equipment industry. The analysis was hindered by a serious
lack  of reliable data on industry supply capacities if capacities
are restricted to physical  plant and  equipment. "Supply" was
looked upon in terms of not only physical plant and  equipment
(the impact of capital) but  also  in terms of the input of labor and
materials.
  By combining traditional production theory with basic  account-
ing practice, total revenue was assumed equal to the sum of total
payments for labor, capital, and materials.  The proportions of
these three production  factors (as a part of  total  revenues)
were estimated from  data on selected SIC industries in the
Census of Manufactures and from contacts with leading manu-
facturers. Three to  five companies in each of the industry sectors
(also employment  agencies) were  surveyed to  determine the
supply elasticities  of  different kinds of  labor and  materials.
This survey was not exhaustive. It was made primarily to assure
that the  supply  elasticities used  in this  analysis were of the
right magnitude. An analysis of the elasticity  of interest  rates
for corporate borrowing over  time  was made separately  to as-
certain the effects of increased capital costs  upon the  final price
to customers. These analyses  of the capital markets  for this
industry  were confirmed  through  conversations  with leading
financial institutions.
  The elasticity information from  these surveys was  then com-
bined into individual supply curves  for skilled labor,  production
labor,  materials,  and capital. These supply curves were used as
annual short-run supply curves, relating increased cost premiums
against increases in factory requirements over a given year.
  A major simplifying assumption was that the short-run supply
curves  (actually developed for  1972) would be  characteristic
of the short-run  factor supply markets for the  rest of  the dec-
ade. The second  major  assumption was that, except  for  opera-
ting effects, the Census of Manufactures breakdowns  of the fac-
tors of production will  also remain constant.
  The supply curves were generally quite elastic. Supply  curves
for materials were more elastic than those for  production labor,
which in turn were more elastic than the skilled labor curves.

-------
              WATER—GUIDELINES AND REPORTS           539

Supply curves for borrowed capital were actually stepwise curves
indicating that above  a certain  annual increase in capital re-
quirements the interest rate would jump from a lower to a higher
level.
  The objectives  in balancing demand forecasts with empirical
supply curves were to indicate what price increases would result
if  direct  cost increases  created by  supply  constraints  were
passed on to the customers. The demand forecasts were balanced
with empirical supply curves. In short, a cost 
-------
540          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
                           TABLE VI1-14
    COMPARATIVE INFLATIONARY IMPACT, 1972-80, FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT
                     Case I
                                    Case
                                                   Case

1972
1373
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
Inflated demand
1971-1980
(millions 1972)
dollars)
4- Base Demand
1971-1980
(millions 1972
dollars)
=Average Inflation
(inflated demand)
base demand
Baseline
Cumulative index
1.0007
1.0013
1.0020
1.0026
1.0033
1.0039
1.0046
1.0053
1.0060



$1,909.4



$1,903.0

0.3%

Federal compliance
schedule
Cumulative index
1.0013
1.0026
1.0046
1.0090
1.0131
1.0141
1.0100
1.0087
1.0087



$3,677.0



$3,655.4

0.8%

Expected compliance
schedule
Cumulative index
1.0006
1.0013
1.0026
L0038
1.0054
1.0054
1.0054
1.0054
1.0059



$3,640.0



$3,636.0

0.3%

statistical analysis of manpower requirements. Based on average
sales per employee ratios for leading companies in the business
and the  demand estimates  developed,  estimates were prepared
of the gross manpower  requirements  for 1972, 1975,  and 1980
(Table VII-15).
  In Case III, the total employment is expected to  increase from
20,000 in 1972 to 27,000 in 1975 and 30,000 in 1980. Employment
in Case II is projected to increase to 35,000 in 1975 (up about
65 percent  from 1972)  but then  decline to 17,000 people (less
than current levels) by 1980.
  Federal legislation has had a positive employment impact when
the estimate of 20,000 people employed in 1972 under  expected
compliance  schedules is compared to the estimated 14,000 people
under  baseline  conditions.   By 1975,  the  expected compliance
schedule corresponds to  an  employment almost 170 percent that
of baseline  conditions. And by 1980 is one and  one-half times as
great.
  A major cause of the present overcapacity in the  pollution
control industry has  been  the expectation  of  promised  action.
To the degree that  standards and deadlines are set realistically
and enforced on schedule, future overcapacity should be reduced.

-------
               WATER—GUIDELINES AND  REPORTS
              541
                              FIGURE VII-4
                      EFFECTIVE "SUPPLY" CURVES
                          Water Pollution Control
    1 075
S,  1.050
                               Specialty Equipment and
                               Specialty Chemicals
o
5   1.025
£  1.000
     .975
                   J_
                               I
                                           I
       -40
                   -20         0          +20

                         Market Growth in One Year, %
                                                     + 40
                                                                 -60
   1 075
   1.050
                             Instrumentation
                             (Air and Water)
o
o
   1.025
   1 000
    .975
                               I
                                           I
        40        -20          0          +20
                         Market Growth in One Year, %
+ 40
+ 60

-------
542
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT 11
                      H§
                                   3 O tDO  00 O   O
                                       Stoo  ?-H o   in
                                       i-iai  «*O   CO
                                   coo  CD (*•»  ™ r**   o
                                   mco  »H^-  cocM   «-•
                                     SO  coo  coe
                                     co  coo  t±u
                                   «~no   en  «i-
                                   coo  cnc
                                   cnr^.  ice
                                   CMi-H   0
                                   ooo  oo  oo

                                   KS  °°S3  SS
                                            CMO
                                            COCO
                                            CM 00
                                     ; <*  S«  §«
                                    g°  £°  E£
                                             SB





                                             $£_  I


                                             l!l  1

-------

-------

-------
'fe Environmental  Protection Agency
 Region V,  Ijh.-fi.-'Y
 230 iouln Dvjrborn r.treet  .^^
 Chicago, jtiiro'^

-------
  RECEIVED
    CEO 18 1974

Office ot i/ungress/onal and
Intergovernmental Relations
     EPA - Region V.

-------