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.
------- |