October 16, 1963
PAGE 19640
AMENDMENT OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
[Footnotes Omitted]
The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 649) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, to establish the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, to increase grants for construction of municipal sewage treatment works, to provide financial assistance to municipalities and others for the separation of combined sewers, to authorize the issuance of regulations to aid in preventing, controlling, and abating pollution of interstate or navigable waters, and for other purposes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may need on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senator from Maine is recognized.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine yield briefly to me?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. MANSFIELD. If it meets with the approval of the Senator from Maine, at this time I should like to suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. MUSKIE. Certainly.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, Senate bill 649, as reported by the committee, represents the following:
First of all, while retaining the original objectives of the bill, it incorporates significant changes which are responsive to the testimony which was taken in the hearings and to the flow of ideas and discussion which took place in the committee itself.
Second, it incorporates the subject of nondisposable synthetic detergents, which was introduced by Senate bill 1118 and Senate bill 1183, the principal sponsors of which were the distinguished Senator from Oregon [Mrs. NEUBERGER] and the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. NELSON].
I believe it is fair to say that the bill before the Senate represents a strong consensus on the part of the members of the subcommittee and of the full committee.
At the outset I should like to express my appreciation to the chairman of the full committee, the distinguished Senator from Michigan [Mr. McNAMARA], who gave us invaluable assistance, cooperation, and support.
I should like to express my appreciation to the ranking member of the subcommittee on the Republican side, the Senator from Delaware [Mr. BOGGS] for his invaluable assistance. His efforts can best be described as creative and constructive.
Finally, I should like to express my appreciation to members of the subcommittee and to the full committee on both sides of the aisle. I have rarely had a more satisfying experience in the legislative process than I have had in the committee consideration of the bill.
Water is one of our most precious resources. Without it man cannot live. Without it, modern technological society cannot operate.
When this Nation was founded, the rich and abundant supplies of water seemed limitless. The rivers and the lakes were our first highways. They were a source of power for new industry. Pure and wholesome water was available for all for drinking, for livestock, for agricultural use, and for manufacturers. Fish were there in abundance, and wildlife flourished in the virgin woods and by clear waters.
But man is prodigal in his treatment of natural riches. Just as we stripped the virgin timber without thought of reforestation; just as we mined the soil without thought of restoring its life giving properties, we polluted our streams and lakes, and made increasing demands on our water supplies without giving thought to what the future might hold.
Today we know that our supplies of water are not limitless. There are areas in the United States where pure water is in abundant supply. In my own State of Maine, for example, we have miles of pure streams and lakes that are a delight to the eye and a reminder of what our land once was. But even in Maine we have paid and are paying the penalties of our own advance. Our urban centers and our industries are discovering that it is not easy to get high-quality water suitable for home use, for recreation, or for industrial processing.
Let us look at the statistics. By 1980, the total dependable fresh water supply available in the United States will be about 515 billion gallons a day. The most we can ever hope to have available as a result of engineering works not now constructed is about 650 billion gallons a day.
Today we use 355 billion gallons of water a day, and by 1980 our requirements will have climbed to 600 billion gallons a day. This means, at present rates of development, that by 1980 at least 85 billion gallons of water a day will have to be used twice if we are to break even in our demands on available supplies of water.
The Public Works Committee of the Senate is acutely conscious of the fact that the Nation must complete, as rapidly as possible, the engineering works necessary to capture the maximum 650 billion gallons a day. We must treat the water in such a way that each gallon is usable at least twice. I have cited the figures for 1980. The estimated requirements 20 years after that, in the year 2000, will be 1,000 billion gallons a day.
The year 2000 is but 36 years from now -- a mere generation away. We cannot ignore the water problem, and we cannot afford to delay effective action.
If we are to meet the needs of an expanding population for high quality water for human consumption, for recreation, fish and wildlife, for fisheries and agriculture, and for industry, we must increase our efforts to insure an adequate supply of the right kind of water at the right place and at the right time. This is no time to point an accusing finger at one segment of our society or at another. This is not time to talk of what might have been. This is no time to sit and say that this problem will take care of itself.
This is a time for public agencies at the local, State, and National level, for individuals and for industry, to plan together, to work together, and to invest together in a comprehensive program of water supply improvement for the United States.
If we do not work together, we will condemn ourselves to the dangers of disease, urban decay, and economic stagnation.
The Senate Committee on Public Works, under the imaginative leadership of its chairman, the Senator from Michigan (Mr. McNAMARA), has taken steps to reemphasize, to highlight and to initiate new actions on behalf of improving our water supplies. The chairman has named a Special Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution and I have been privileged to serve as its first chairman. The work of the past few months has been inspiring and rewarding to me; for I have had the opportunity of working with colleagues who, regardless of partisan lines and the natural conflict in so complex a problem as water pollution, have worked long and hard to achieve sensible, progressive, and constructive improvements in our water pollution control program.
I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of Senators RANDOLPH, MOSS, METCALF, BAYH, NELSON. BOGGS, MILLER, and PEARSON, who have served with me on the committee and who have contributed to S. 649, which we now have before us.
Mr. President, S. 649, as reported to the Senate, is considerably revised from its original version. It contains the essentials of S. 649, as introduced. It carries out the objectives of the original legislation. But it has been improved, by the clarification of language, by the addition of new provisions, and by the expansion of concepts in dealing with the critical problem of water pollution prevention, control, and abatement. In developing this proposed legislation, the committee has been guided by the following considerations:
First. The problem of water pollution is a national problem, affecting the physical and economic health of the entire country.
Second. The Federal Government has a substantial role to play in research, in the encouragement of cooperative programs, in the stimulation and support of interstate, State and local water pollution control programs, in the encouragement of compliance with water quality standards, and in enforcement on interstate and navigable streams where there has been a refusal to accept public responsibility at a lower level;
Third. The water pollution control problem covers a wide scope of public concerns, including health, economic welfare, recreation and the conservation of fish and wildlife;
Fourth. The administration of such a vital program must be upgraded and accorded proper emphasis within the Federal structure, in order to insure adequate attention and progress in meeting our national water pollution problems.
Fifth. The primary emphasis in corrective action, in planning for future uses, and in long-range programs must remain and, under the bill must remain at the local and State level where the ultimate responsibility rests.
Sixth. We must be alert to the problems created by our rapidly advancing technology, particularly in the development of organic chemicals which pose special and complex pollution problems.
S. 649, the bill we present to the Senate today, has been tested in the light of these considerations. It is, I submit, a sound bill, a constructive bill, and a desirable bill.
In the hearings before our subcommittee there was a healthy clash of views and a substantial difference of opinion. The committee gave close attention to the questions raised in the 6 days of hearings, tried to meet legitimate objections, and worked to improve the legislation in the light of suggestions at both ends of the spectrum of opinion in this field made by a number of the witnesses. We have been gratified by the support given to the final product by groups having substantial differences of opinion over emphasis and the most appropriate approaches to our water pollution problems.
Mr. President, the first such endorsement I should like to invite to the attention of my colleagues is a letter from Mr. Charles M. Parker, vice president for research and technology of the American Iron & Steel Institute. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Parker's letter be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
AMERICAN IRON & STEEL INSTITUTE,
New York, N.Y.,
October 2, 1963.
Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Air and Stream Pollution,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SIR: The American Iron & Steel Institute has a sincere concern with legislation on air and water pollution control under consideration by your subcommittee. For this reason we have been diligently following the proceedings of the Special Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution.
S. 649 as reported by the Senate Public Works Committee has been reviewed by our committee on air and water pollution abatement. The American Iron & Steel Institute wishes to offer our support of this bill. Although we are not qualified to comment on section 12 "synthetic detergents" we believe the remainder of S. 649 represents a positive step toward a sound program of stream pollution control for U.S. waters.
We compliment the committee and its staff on a job well done. Very truly yours,
CHARLES M. PARKER, Vice President,
Research and Technology.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I invite attention, in particular, to the following sentences from Mr. Parker's letter:
S. 649, as reported by the Senate Public Works Committee, has been reviewed by our committee on air and water pollution abatement. The American Iron & Steel Institute wishes to offer our support of this bill. Although we are not qualified to comment on section 12 “synthetic detergents” we believe the remainder of S. 649 represents a positive step toward a sound program of stream pollution control for U.S. waters. We compliment the committee and its staff on a job well done.
A similar letter of endorsement has come to us from the National Wildlife Federation. I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Mr. Thomas L. Kimball, executive director of the National Wildlife Federation, be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION,
Washington, D.C.,
October 14, 1963.
Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
Chairman, Air and Water Committee,
Senate Committee on Public Works,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: we should like to take this opportunity to commend you and the members of your subcommittee and the full Committee on Public Works for the fine work in reporting S. 649 to the Senate. This proposal, of major importance in resources conservation, is the result of long deliberation and much thought, and all persons connected with the project are to be congratulated for this fine effort.
The committee has been courageous in taking the step necessary to establish a Federal Water Pollution control Administration within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. It is our belief that this action is imperative to give the program the emphasis it needs and merits.
Under the present organization, water pollution control is not highly regarded in the Public Health Service. At the present time it is one of five divisions within one of seven bureaus or constituent units. Even this has been a concession. As late as 1958 the work was relegated to the status of a branch. Obviously, the Administrator of this program does not have much voice in the formulation of important policy. We believe the program is of such importance that it merits status as an administration similar to Food and Drug.
One of the principal problems has been a so-called medical attitude toward water pollution. The Public Health Service attitude reflects the concept that only health is involved, and neglects the many other benefits of clean water-for industry, for agriculture, and for recreation. In the past this attitude was reflected in inadequate budget requests and virtually no Federal law enforcement. Much of the progress in pollution control which has been made in recent years has been due to the generosity and direction of the Congress and with leadership at the secretarial level.
We are in accord with the other provisions of S. 649, as reported by the committee. We believe the national policy on prevention and abatement of water pollution is strengthened. Grants in the field of separation of sewers are justified. Expanded authorizations for individual and multiple projects are needed. The establishment of water quality standards will strengthen control. A procedure leading to the use of decomposable detergents is urgently needed.
Thank you for the opportunity of making these observations.
Sincerely, THOMAS L. KIMBALL
Executive Director.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, in his letter Mr. Kimball makes this point:
This proposal, of major importance in resources conservation, is the result of long deliberation and much thought, and all persons connected with the project are to be congratulated for their fine efforts.
I suggest that this wholehearted endorsement by both ends of the spectrum on this issue -- industry on the one hand and conservation interests on the other hand -- is an unusual reaction to legislation dealing with water pollution control.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a telegram from Mr. Ira N. Gabrielson, president of the Wildlife Management Institute, be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the telegram was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
WASHINGTON, D.C.,
October 14,1963.
Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
Public Works Committee,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
Conservationists believe S. 649 a step in the right direction. If Congress provides authorized appropriations and supports activities, bill should do much to rid Nation's waters of harmful pollution.
IRA N. GABRIELSON, President,
Wildlife Management Institute.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. Gabrielson calls S. 649 a step in the right direction.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Mr. Carl W. Buchheister, president of the National Audubon Society, be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY,
New York, N.Y.,
October 11, 1963.
Senator EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: Having studied S. 649 and the favorable report by the Public Works Committee, we endorse this legislation and recommend its passage by the Senate.
S. 649 as reported provides several forward looking and needed steps to strengthen the national war on water pollution at every level of government.
Sincerely yours,
CARL W. BUCHHEISTER, President.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, in his letter, Mr. Buchheister endorses the legislation and recommends its passage. Commenting on the bill, he writes:
S. 649, as reported, provides several forward-looking steps to strengthen the national war on water pollution at every level of government.
Various State authorities have endorsed the bill, including A. D. Aldrich, director of the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission of the State of Florida; Mr. Ladds Gordon, director of the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish; Mr. William T. Lodge, director of the Illinois Department of Conservation; Mr. John R. Woodworth, director of the Idaho Fish and Game Department; Mr. Walter J. Fillmore, director of the South Dakota conservation program; and Mr. E. B. Speaker, director of the Iowa State conservation program.
Mr. President, the administration has indicated its support for the basic provisions of S. 649. 1 ask unanimous consent that a letter from Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Anthony J. Celebrezze, dated October 11, 1963, be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE.
Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution,
Committee on Public Works,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in response to your request of October 10, 1963, requesting my views on S. 649, Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1963, reported to the Senate by you on October 4, 1963.
Section 2 of the bill creates a Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, and assigns to that Administration those sections of the Water Pollution Control Act most closely associated with enforcement. As stated in my testimony, existing law would permit the establishment of such an Administration by the Secretary. Public Law 660 places responsibility for the administration of the Water Pollution Control program in the Secretary and, in so doing, gives the Secretary complete authority to prescribe the organization which he deems most conducive to the effective performance of his duties under the act. While the present law is sound in this respect, if legislation is enacted to transfer the enforcement functions of this program to a new Administration within this Department, we would act promptly to implement the legislation.
The establishment of an additional Assistant Secretary for this Department is highly desirable. All of the programs of the Department would benefit from this important and necessary strengthening of the Office of the Secretary, and this provision of the legislation has my full support.
As also stated in testimony, the provisions in the original bill establishing grants for the separation of storm and sanitary sewers seemed premature. The revisions adopted by your committee establishing a modest program of demonstration grants will aid greatly in the development of sound solutions to this very critical problem.
The Department endorses fully the proposed increases in construction grant ceilings, the general principles of incentive increases in the construction grant program for regional planning, and the provisions for the promulgation of water quality standards.
The bill would establish a permit system to be administered by the Secretary to assure effective cooperation in the control of pollution from Federal installations. All Federal departments or agencies would be required to receive a permit from the Secretary before discharging any matter into the waters of the United States, and the permit would be revoked if pollution originating on a Federal installation is found. The effect of the revocation of such permit is not defined, but we assume that this Department could not require the closing of Federal installations if the permit is revoked. We believe it would be desirable if the responsibilities of the Secretary and of the Federal installations concerned in this regard would be clarified in the legislative history of the bill in the Senate.
S. 649, as reported, contains provisions regarding the promulgation of standards and of regulations to control the use of nondegradeable, synthetic detergents. This section, which establishes a technical committee, requires that committee to be composed of an equal number of representatives of the Department and of the industry. This provision of equal representation may lead to a stalemate within the committee and the resulting inability of the Secretary to promulgate effective regulations. If these regulations are violated, no statutory sanctions are provided or provisions for enforcement. Nevertheless, we believe that the general approach of this section of the bill is desirable, and would be likely to have the results desired by the committee.
The overall purposes of S. 649 are highly desirable, and it is our opinion that the bill, which has been reported after the impartial, excellent, and informative hearings held by your subcommittee, has been greatly improved.
Sincerely,
ANTHONY J. CELEBREZZE,
Secretary.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter dated October 14, 1963, from Mr. Phillip S. Hughes, Assistant Director for Legislative Reference of the Bureau of the Budget, be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
BUREAU OF THE BUDGET,
Washington, D.C.
Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution,
Committee on Public Works,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reference to your request of October 8, 1963, for a Bureau of the Budget report on S. 649, a bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as reported by the Senate Committee on Public Works.
In general, the bill as reported by the committee is much improved over the original bill on which we reported and meets certain of the problems cited in our letter of June 20, 1963, to the chairman of the Senate Committee on Public Works. The Bureau of the Budget would therefore interpose no objection to the enactment of legislation along the lines of S. 649.
Sincerely yours,
PHILLIP S. HUGHES, Assistant Director for Legislative Reference.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Comptroller General of the United States, dated October 10, 1963, be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
Washington.
Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution Control,
Committee on Public Works,
U.S. Senate.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your letter of October 9, 1963, requesting our comments on S. 649 as amended and reported by the Senate Committee on Public Works.
The bill proposes to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act so as to provide, among other things, an increase in Federal grants for construction of municipal sewage treatment works and financial assistance to municipalities and others for the separation of combined sewers.
As stated in your letter, we previously suggested to the chairman of the Senate Committee on Public Works, by letter of May 28, 1963, that the bill as then introduced be amended by adding thereto a records and audit section which would require the grantees to keep complete records concerning the disposition of grant funds and which would authorize the Comptroller General and the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare or their authorized representatives to examine such records for the purpose of audit.
The bill as now amended and reported by the committee contains language in section 7 which would give effect to that suggestion and, consequently, we recommend enactment of that section. However, because the primary purpose of the bill concerns a matter of policy for the Congress to determine, we have no comments to offer concerning the merits of the bill.
Sincerely yours.
JOSEPH CAMPBELL, Comptroller General of the United States.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I shall refer to the detailed comments in these letters as I discuss specific portions of the legislation.
The first provision of S. 649 states the purpose of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. In the words of the bill:
The purpose of this act is to enhance the quality and value of our water resources, and to establish a national policy for the prevention, control, and abatement of water pollution.
This statement of purpose defines our goals and sets the tone for the administration of the Water Pollution Control Act. It recognizes that there are many uses for water, that all water need not be of the same quality, and that judgments have to be made on our specific water needs and requirements. It also recognizes, that it is only through the enhancement of the quality of water that we can assure maximum utilization of this resource. I submit, Mr. President, that this is a reasonable goal to which all reasonable men can subscribe.
The second major provision in S. 649 provides for improved administration of the water pollution control program through the authorization of the appointment of an additional Assistant Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to supervise the program, and authorizes the establishment of a Federal Water Pollution Control Administration which would have specific responsibility for comprehensive programs, interstate cooperation and uniform laws, enforcement measures to abate pollution and to establish and obtain compliance with standards of water quality, and the control of pollution from Federal installations. Other functions relating to water pollution are retained within the secretary's discretion, who may additionally assign them to the new administration or to other sectors within the Department.
In incorporating these provisions in S. 649, the committee is cognizant of the power now held by the Secretary to take administrative steps to establish a Water Pollution Control Administration, and to reassign such functions in the program as he sees fit. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1961 gave him such authority. Under the act, former Secretary, and now our Senate colleague [Mr. RIBICOFF] placed enforcement activities under his direct supervision. In the light of testimony before the committee, it is our considered judgment that legislative action is required to initiate the upgrading of the water pollution control program and to insure the kind of broad policy direction which we consider essential to the success of the program.
Members of the Senate who followed the hearings may recall that the Bureau of the Budget and the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare raised objections to the original proposal in S. 649 for a Federal Water Pollution Control Administration headed by a Commissioner. In its letter of October 14, the Bureau of the Budget has advised us that it no longer interposes any objections to the bill in its present form. in his letter of October 11, 1963, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Celebrezze has written that:
While the present law is sound in [giving] the Secretary complete authority to prescribe the organization which he deems most conducive to the effective performance of his duties under the act * * * if legislation is enacted to transfer the enforcement functions of this program to a new Administration within this department, we would act promptly to implement the legislation.
The committee is fully aware of the contributions the Public Health Service has made in the field of water pollution control. We respect this time-honored agency of our Federal Government for its high tradition of service to the Nation. We believe it has an important role to play in water pollution control as it relates to environmental health. But we are convinced that the problem of water pollution is much broader than health, and much more important than its position in the organizational structure the Public Health Service now implies. I would like to invite attention to the following language from the report of the Committee on Public Works:
The Public Health Service has a primary interest in the protection of health. In the field of water pollution it has made a major contribution to our understanding of the nature of water pollution, its effect on individuals, and appropriate measures of pollution control. The basic orientation of the Public Health Service, however, is toward cooperative health programs with the States. It is not oriented toward the broader problems of public welfare, including the economic, and technical problems of industrial pollution.
The Public Health Service should be free to concentrate on its primary concern with health in the water pollution field, as it is in other areas. It should be in a position to speak with an independent voice on such matters, unhampered by the problems which arise from enforcement proceedings. On the other hand, the administration of the water pollution control program should not be subordinated to considerations which are important to the Public Health Service, but are not directly related to the sound application of this act.
The appointment of an Assistant Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, with primary responsibility in the field of water pollution control, would meet two needs within the Department. The first relates to the upgrading of the status of this program, and the second relates to the need of the Department for additional policymaking positions commensurate with the wide-ranging activities and responsibilities of the Department. As Secretary Celebrezze has written:
The establishment of an additional Assistant Secretary for this Department is highly desirable. All of the programs of the Department would benefit from the important and necessary strengthening of the Office of the Secretary, and this provision of the legislation has my whole support.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. ELLENDER. If the proposed Office of Under Secretary is established, am I to understand that the Secretary will retain some of his present responsibility relating to water pollution work?
Mr. MUSKIE. Under the act, the Secretary would continue to retain all responsibility, but he is in a position to delegate some of it.
Mr. ELLENDER. Why should he retain some of the authority? Why should he not turn it all over to his Under Secretary?
Mr. MUSKIE. He retains the authority and, under the bill, would delegate some of it, as in his judgment he might desire. We have not specified how much of it he would delegate to the Assistant Secretary and the Commissioner of the proposed Water Pollution Control Administration.
Mr. ELLENDER. I asked the question because I thought perhaps the committee had some reason for permitting the Secretary to retain some of this authority.
Mr. MUSKIE. The 1961 act placed the responsibility in the Secretary, I believe for the first time. The reason was that in the field of water pollution, and particularly in connection with enforcement, we are dealing with a highly controversial matter in the field of Federal-State relations and in the field of Government-industrial relations. We felt that it was such a delicate problem in terms of dealing with conflicts that the Secretary ought to have primary responsibility, and that he should keep his finger on this aspect of the problem.
If at the same time we recognize the vastness of his Department, we realize that he must delegate some of the responsibility to an Assistant Secretary or other officials under him. But the Secretary, under the 1961 amendments, would retain in his office the actual final decision with respect to enforcement action in interstate streams.
Mr. ELLENDER. Does any other department of Government have anything to do with the subject we are now discussing?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. The Department of the Interior, in the Geological Survey, since the last century has worked in this field. I believe the Corps of Engineers of the Army has worked in this field for all of this century. And, of course, the Department of Agriculture has an interest in this field.
Mr. ELLENDER. Would the bill take away from those departments any of the functions they are now exercising?
Mr. MUSKIE. It would not.
Mr. ELLENDER. What has been done toward coordinating efforts of the various departments to see that there is no duplication?
Mr. MUSKIE. As I understand, and as the Secretary testified, excellent cooperative arrangements have been developed among the departments. The Geological Survey, of course, has been concerned primarily with research; and such research efforts, which have been undertaken over such a long period, with slight modifications in scope, ought to be continued.
The Corps of Engineers of the Army has a rather limited area of control over abatement that naturally falls in this field, and we feel that should be continued.
Mr. ELLENDER. The Senator feels that there is no conflict in the jurisdiction of the various departments; is that correct?
Mr. MUSKIE. There has been no testimony to suggest that there has been.
Mr. ELLENDER. How much of an appropriation would be required to put the proposed act into operation?
Mr. MUSKIE. The present authorization under existing law would not be changed, with one exception. The exception is a proposed program of demonstration grants to research the problem of separating storm waters from sewers. This is one of the really difficult, complex, and unanswered problems in the field of water pollution at the present time. The bill authorizes $20 million a year in grants for demonstration projects of this kind.
With that one exception, the bill would not increase the present authorization.
Mr. ELLENDER. The bill authorizes $20 million a year for research?
Mr. MUSKIE. And demonstration projects.
Mr. ELLENDER. Will the Senator be good enough to give us an example of some of the demonstration projects to which he refers?
Mr. MUSKIE. First let me give the Senator some idea of the magnitude of the problem. In the city of St. Louis, which, I think, has a metropolitan-areawide antipollution program that is a model for the country, $1 billion is needed to separate storm waters from its sewers. It now has combined sewers.
As the Senator undoubtedly knows, in the case of combined sewers, whenever storms hit, the usual result is that the storm waters bypass the treatment plant and, in addition, flush out the sewers to the point that the sludge suddenly hits the receding stream and in many instances exceeds the normal flow of that stream. It is an enormous problem.
Two suggestions have been made, and they were advanced in the hearing: One, the separation of the two. This is extremely expensive.
For a city like New York, which has deep underground sewers which were built years ago, to separate them would be extremely expensive.
The other suggestion is to build storage tanks and to build delaying time into the system -- that, is to trap the storm waters -- and to supplement that operation with treatment plants which are separate and deal with the storm waters.
The latter seemed to be the most likely prospect.
The two suggestions were made by Mr. Gerald J. Remus, general manager of Detroit's metropolitan water supply system and sewage treatment system.
These seemed to be the two possibilities developed up to this time.
I point out that some 95 communities in the country are addressing themselves to this problem, of which 45 are in the planning stage.
It is for the purpose of encouraging them and enabling them to meet the problem that we would like to have this provision in the bill.
Mr. ELLENDER. Would the $20 million a year be in the form of grants?
Mr. MUSKIE. It would be on the basis of 50-50 grants, with a ceiling on any project of 5 percent of the total amount.
Mr. ELLENDER. For how many years would it continue?
Mr. MUSKIE. The authorization would be for 4 years.
Mr. ELLENDER. With respect to the method of contribution to the municipalities, local, or State governments, a certain formula has been established. Has that in any manner been changed?
Mr. MUSKIE. Does the Senator mean the allocation of the funds?
Mr. ELLENDER. In proceeding with water pollution control.
Mr. MUSKIE. With respect to the demonstration grants, there is no attempt to distribute the funds
Mr. ELLENDER. I am not talking about demonstration grants. I am talking about distribution of contributions made by the Federal Government.
Mr. MUSKIE. There is a proposed change. The proposal is to increase the ceiling on such projects from $600,000 to $1 million, and on combined projects from $2.4 million to $4 million. In addition, the bill provides that for metropolitan areas which will combine joint plant requirements in this field, there will be provided a 10-percent incentive in addition to the grant. Our feeling is that in the long run we would save money, because if we could stimulate metropolitan areas to jointly plan sewer and water treatment projects into the future, the end result would be more efficient and economical installations.
Mr. ELLENDER. Is that the only change that the committee made?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is the only change in the present program.
Mr. ELLENDER. Otherwise the various agencies which now have something to do with the subject are not in any manner affected. Is that correct?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct.
Mr. ELLENDER. I thank the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator for this very useful colloquy.
Mr. President, the third major provision of the bill is the authorization of research and development grants in the amount of 50 percent of the estimated reasonable cost of projects which will demonstrate new or improved methods of controlling the discharge into any waters of untreated or inadequately treated sewage or other wastes from sewers which carry storm water or both storm water and sewage or other wastes. This section of the bill authorizes appropriations of $20 million a year for 4 years for the purpose of making demonstration grants. A grant for any single project is limited to 5 percent of the total amount authorized for any one fiscal year.
Testimony before the committee indicated that there are 1,131 communities whose entire waste collection systems are of the combined sewer type serving a population of 20.9 million people, and that another 810 cities, with a total population of 37.8 million, have systems which partially consist of combined sewers.
Complete separation of combined storm and sanitary sewers would entail estimated expenditures of $8 billion.
Witnesses before the committee discussed alternative measures which would appear to present feasible, and in some instances, preferable answers. The committee, therefore, determined that research and development grants were desirable and necessary to encourage a solution to this vexing problem.
On this section of the bill, Secretary Celebrezze has written:
As also stated in testimony, the provision in the original bill establishing grants for the separation of storm and sanitary sewers seemed premature. The revisions adopted by your committee, establishing a modest program of demonstration grants, will aid greatly in the development of sound solutions to this very critical problem.
The third major provision of the bill modifies the present ceilings on Federal construction grants for single projects and joint projects for several communities. The present program of grants for construction of municipal waste treatment plants provides for a Federal grant of 30 percent of the estimated cost of construction, but not to exceed $600,000 for a single project, and $2,400,000 for a joint multimunicipal project.
The committee has been impressed by the fact that while the sewage treatment plant grant program has been successful in stimulating action on the part of the smaller communities, larger municipalities, whose needed facilities are of greater size, are finding it difficult to meet the increasing costs of sewage treatment plant construction.
For example, in the current backlog of 5,831 communities with unmet sewage treatment needs, there are included approximately 90 large communities of over 50,000 population. These 90 communities account for one-quarter of the total $2.2 billion costs involved in the backlog, and for approximately one-half of the total population with waste treatment facility needs.
The increase from $600,000 to $1 million in ceilings on individual project grants, as recommended by the committee, would mean that these 90 larger communities would use, at the maximum, some $36 million in grant funds which would not be obtainable under the present program. This represents, even if fully used, less than 10 percent of the remaining $400 million in authorized Federal grants under the Water Pollution Control Act. It should be noted that even with the increased $1 million in the individual community ceiling, larger communities would still not receive anything like a 30 percent share. In their cases, Federal grants would account on the average for only 15 percent of their total project cost.
The committee believes that an increase in the ceiling from $600,000 to $1 million in the case of individual projects, and an increase from $2,400,000 to $4 million in the multicommunity project ceiling is desirable. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has endorsed this proposal.
The committee recognizes the importance of comprehensive metropolitan planning in developing sound and economical projects for community facilities. Desirable patterns of orderly development of municipal areas must be planned and followed to eliminate factors which lead to the breeding of slum and blight-impacted areas, and to effect those economies and efficiencies ordinarily made possible through the coordination of common interests and needs.
The committee has recommended, therefore, that the amount of grants for projects, which are found to comply with comprehensive plans, be increased by 10 percent. This would mean, for example, that a community eligible for a $100,000 grant for a sewage treatment project, would be eligible for an increase in the grant to a total of $110,000, if it was found that the project was part of a comprehensive plan for an area. We believe that this incentive will give added encouragement to the communities to improve their planning and to save money, both for themselves and for the Federal Government on overall costs in a given area.
The fifth provision of the bill authorizes the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to institute enforcement proceedings on his own initiative to abate pollution of interstate or navigable waters which prevents shellfish products from being entered into interstate commerce.
Under the cooperative program for certification of interstate shellfish shippers, the Public Health Service, in cooperation with State and local governments in the shellfish industry, has developed an effective barrier to the transportation and sale in interstate commerce of shellfish, such as clams, oysters, and mussels, not meeting approved sanitary standards.
The necessary ban on introduction of such pollution-affected products in interstate commerce and the foreclosure of gathering and harvesting operations in affected waters, denies the means of livelihood and gainful employment to the harvesters and shippers of shellfish. The injured person, who must sustain economic losses through no fault of his own, has no direct recourse against the polluters. Measures to restore the harvesting of shellfish in such waters are hampered and rendered ineffective by the continuance of pollution. The committee believes that Federal enforcement powers should be made available, to provide that pollution sources are abated and restorative measures allowed to proceed more promptly and effectively.
In my remarks, Mr. President, I have commented on the increasing demands on our water supply. The committee has been made aware, through its staff study, through the hearings, and through the results of our film report on "troubled waters" that we must use many rivers for multiple purposes, including industrial, agricultural, recreational, public water supply, and fish and wildlife. In other cases, the uses on a river or portions of a river will be more limited, depending on the nature of the waterway, the intensity and history of use, and the alternative sources of water in the area. We believe there ought to be a constant effort to improve the quality of the water supply.
We recognize that improving the quality of water makes it available for more uses.
The committee is conscious of the need for the prevention of damaging pollution before it builds up. We are convinced that the soundest approach to our pollution problem is to encourage compliance, rather than to impose enforcement. Therefore, we have included in S. 649, as reported, a provision for discretionary authority for the Secretary to establish standards of water quality to be applicable to interstate waters or portions thereof.
The standards would be formulated in accordance with accepted administrative procedures calling for notice, public hearing, and consultation with affected Federal, State, interstate, and local interests. The standards would be designed to carry out the purposes of the act. The Secretary is directed to encourage the establishment of State and interstate standards which carry out the purposes of the act. It is not intended that he should classify or establish rigid quality standards on every interstate water in the Nation, but rather that he should use this tool selectively as a device to reduce the need for abatement and enforcement proceedings.
As the committee report points out:
Water quality standards would provide an engineering base for design of treatment works by municipalities and industries. Such standards would enable municipalities and industries to develop realistic plans for new plants or expanded facilities, without uncertainties about waste disposal requirements on interstate waters.
It should be noted that we have amended the basic act to make the discharge of matter which reduces the quality of water below the established standards, either at the State or Federal level, subject to abatement under the present enforcement procedures. Should such enforcement procedures result in court action, the court, in receiving evidence, is to give due consideration to the practicability of complying with the applicable standards. The bill clearly states that the authority to establish standards does not extend the jurisdiction of the Secretary over waters not covered in the basic act.
The seventh basic provision in the bill tightens up on the control of pollution from Federal installations. It is the considered judgment of the committee that the Federal Government cannot encourage pollution abatement and control by industries and local communities if it is not willing to assume its own responsibilities in the treatment of pollution from Federal installations. We have provided, therefore, for a system of permits to control the discharge of such pollution from Federal installations, under the supervision of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. It is anticipated that in those cases where the Federal agencies refuse to comply with the recommendations of the Secretary, the Secretary is forced to withdraw permits. He will call this to the attention of Congress and that the Congress will take appropriate action.
The bill also contains two provisions relating to the accountability of financial assistance and labor standards enforcement. The first, resulting from a recommendation of the Comptroller General, provides for a system of audits on sewage treatment grants and other grant programs. The second, recommended by the Secretary of Labor, insures coordination of administration of the Davis-Bacon Act by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950.
The final major provision of the legislation, as reported by the committee, allows the regulation of synthetic non-decomposable detergents in interstate commerce. In its hearings on water pollution control matters the committee considered S. 1118, introduced by Senator METCALF, and S. 1183, introduced by Senator NEUBERGER for herself, Senator DOUGLAS, Senator LONG of Missouri, Senator MAGNUSON, Senator McINTYRE, and Senator NELSON. Both bills dealt with the increasing problem of the so-called hard detergents. Testimony presented to the committee indicated that although modern detergents have eased our problems of cleaning in homes, farms, factories, and commercial buildings, they have complicated the problem of pollution abatement and control. Because the synthetic detergents are not, at present, biodegradable, present-day water and sewage treatment processes are incapable of breaking the compounds. These processes are able to reduce only partially the surfactant content. As a result, detergent wastes often impair the efficiency of treatment plants, persist in surface waters as long as 20 days, and persist indefinitely in ground water because of the lack of available oxygen. The testimony of witnesses and correspondence with members of the committee, of public officials, private individuals, and representatives of industry all agreed that something had to be done. Industry representatives assured the committee that soft detergents will be available in the latter part of 1965. The committee accepts these assurances.
How did the committee consider the problem? It did so on the context of the general question of modern organic chemicals which have introduced a new dimension in waste treatment problems. The committee did not think that it would be justified in singling out a particular industry as a culprit in pollution control. But neither did it think it would be justified in ignoring the problem or in not establishing sound procedures for a solution to this problem. The result is a proposal which we think may form a pattern for possible solutions to the waste discharge problem as it concerns other industries producing similar products for general use.
Briefly, the bill authorizes the appointment of a technical committee made of an equal number of representatives of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the soap and detergents manufacturing industry. The technical committee will serve in a liaison capacity to evaluate progress in the development of decomposable detergents and to recommend the standard of decomposability to be met by such products. On or before January 1, 1965, and June 30, 1965, the Secretary is to report to Congress on measures taken toward the resolution of the detergent pollution problem, the nature of delays encountered, and his recommendations for additional legislation, if necessary, to regulate the composition of detergents transported or sold in interstate commerce.
When the technical committee has recommended standards of decomposability and certified to the Secretary that detergents are generally available to manufacturers of detergents which conform to desirable standards of decomposability, the Secretary may, if he concurs in the findings of the committee, establish such rules and regulations as are necessary to prevent the transportation or sale in interstate commerce of detergents not meeting the standards of decomposability. He is also required, in conjunction with the Secretary of the Treasury, to issue rules and regulations preventing the importation of detergents not meeting the standards of decomposability. These regulations are to take effect on December 31, 1965, or 6 months after the issuance of such regulations, whichever is later.
It should be noted that this procedure accepts the assurances of the industry relative to the progress on the development of soft detergents. The bill establishes an orderly procedure for consultation and cooperation between the Federal Government and the industry in developing such decomposable detergents. It gives the Secretary the authority, if he finds it necessary, to issue rules and regulations to protect responsible members of the industry and the public from the actions of those not willing to meet such standards as have been developed by the industry and by the Government. No sanctions are authorized in the legislation. We believe such sanctions are unnecessary at this time, and the committee is willing to rely on the good faith of manufacturers within the framework of the procedures established by the bill.
The committee will follow the progress of this program, and if additional legislation is necessary, it will be prepared to recommend it to Congress.
These, Mr. President, are the major provisions of the legislation. I believe it represents a solid step forward in the direction of meeting our water supply needs. We have tried to present to the Senate a balanced program which will win the cooperation and the support of all those who have the desire to provide our Nation with the high quality of water it needs for its continued growth and prosperity.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will the senator from Maine yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. PROXMIRE. First, the Senator from Maine has made an excellent, persuasive speech. The bill appears to have much merit. Is it true that neither the President nor the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare has asked for the legislation?
Mr. MUSKIE. I have placed in the RECORD today reports commenting on the bill as reported to the Senate. Those reports are favorable. The initial reports from the executive agencies were critical and in some respects unfavorable.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Perhaps I did not hear clearly everything the Senator said, but I understood him to say that the Secretary would do his best in administering the legislation to make it effective. But has the Secretary committed himself in favor of the bill, or has he made no commitment one way or the other as to whether the bill should pass or be defeated?
Mr. MUSKIE. The comment to which the Senator refers was directed to one particular section, relating to the Federal Water Control Administration. As to the other particular provisions, the Secretary has indicated a positive attitude which is favorable.
Mr. PROXMIRE. On pages 6 and 7 of the committee report, the committee discusses the increase in grants from, as I understand, $600,000 to $1 million for a single project and from $2,400,000 to $4 million for joint projects. How much will this additional authorization, in the estimate of the committee, cost the Federal Government?
Mr. MUSKIE. It will not operate to increase the total authorization for the program. It will merely mean some reallocation in the available authorization between the smaller cities and cities of medium size.
Mr. PROXMIRE. It is difficult for me to tell from the report, but is the 30-percent limit affected at all by the proposed legislation?
Mr. MUSKIE. It is not affected in any sense, except to the degree that the 10-percent incentive for metropolitan areawide planning would increase it, although I suspect that the smaller cities, which enjoy the 30-percent matching formula, would not generally be involved in the metropolitan areawide provision.
I doubt that most of them could be classified as emerging metropolitan areas.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Would the Senator from Maine say that the only ones which would be able to take advantage, generally, of the 10-percent provision would be those with such a large population that the $1 million grant limitation would be for less than 30 percent of the Cost of their projects? And that this provision would provide a balancing benefit to them, as compared to the 30-percent benefit for smaller communities?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is correct. The Metropolitan areas are defined in the bill in two ways. The first is the standard metropolitan statistical area, which is a definition of the Bureau of the Census; and it includes, among other criteria established by the Bureau of the Census in its definition, a requirement of a population minimum of 50,000. Under that definition, no community with a population of less than 50,000 could share in the 10-percent incentive, because by definition it would not be a part of a metropolitan area.
The other definition would provide some flexibility, so as to authorize the Secretary to include in "metropolitan areas" some communities which are not clearly within this standard, but clearly are emerging metropolitan areas. In other words, some of the missile sites such as Cape Canaveral and others are obviously emerging metropolitan areas. So the second definition of the bill is designed to give the Secretary some flexibility in that connection.
However, by and large, a population of 50,000 is the limit, or the floor.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Would the new 10-percent provision affect the cost to the Federal Government; or would it also come out of the amount which would be authorized and would be expected to be expended under this program?
Mr. MUSKIE. That would also come out of it, although my own conception is that the 10 percent would not even come out or reduce the amount available for the incentive program, because this part would reduce the cost of the sewage treatment plants for the other areas.
Mr. PROXMIRE. There has been some criticism to the effect that there has not been systematic appearance at the hearings on the proposed legislation by representatives of the States, even though they would be directly and seriously affected. I wonder whether first of all, the officials of any State government testified against the proposed legislation; and, second, whether there was any effort by representatives of the States to be heard, or whether the Senator from Maine knows of any very substantial objection by the States to this proposed legislation, on the ground that they have not had an opportunity to have their views presented.
Mr. MUSKIE. The impression the committee received generally was that the State water pollution control agencies looked with disfavor upon the bill, particularly upon the section which would create the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. But that position seemed to us to be a little inconsistent, because in the States themselves the trend, in the organization of their own water pollution control efforts, has been to take them out of their State health agencies and to set up separate administrations which give the program a broader impact.
The latest word we have had on the attitude of the State water pollution control agencies is incorporated in a report from the Water Pollution Control Federation, which purports to be a report of a meeting held in Seattle, Wash., on October 10 -- only a few days ago. In the report, four criteria for Federal legislation are established.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the report printed at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the report was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FEDERATION,
Washington, D.C.,
October 16, 1963.
(NOTE. -- The following report of the legislative analysis committee was unanimously adopted by the board of control of the Water Pollution Control Federation at its annual meeting in Seattle, Wash., October 10, 1963. The board represents 37 U.S. member associations, totaling nearly 10,000 individuals concerned with water pollution control. (Individual members include professional engineers, municipal officials, education and research personnel, industrial representatives, waste-water treatment plant superintendents and operators, regulatory personnel, equipment manufacturers, and others interested in water pollution control.)
The legislative analysis committee is charged with the responsibility of studying legislation pertinent to the interests of the federation and serving the board of control in an advisory capacity.
In carrying out this charge the committee wishes to call attention to the fact that the Water Pollution Control Federation in adopting its statement of policy assumes responsibility to the public as well as to its membership, for pursuing in an aggressive manner the objectives so stated. In view of the many pieces of legislation involving numerous aspects of water pollution control which have been introduced during the current session of Congress, with the distinct likelihood of this being continued in the future, it is of utmost importance that the Water Pollution Control Federation take definite positions with respect to proposed legislation, if the Water Pollution Control Federation is to fulfill the obligations assumed in the policy statement. The committee therefore recommends that the board of control authorize the establishment of the necessary procedures for the Water Pollution Control Federation to be represented in considerations of water pollution control legislation.
In connection with the current proposed legislation which has been reviewed during the past year and which, it is understood, is still under consideration but possibly changed in some respects, the committee recommends that the position of the Water Pollution Control Federation be the following:
1. With regard to the establishment of a national policy on water quality preservation, the Water Pollution Control Federation recognizes the need for controlling the discharge of pollution wastes into the waterways of the Nation and, to this end, that decisions as to the type and degree of treatment, and control of wastes must be based on thorough consideration of all the technical and related factors involved in each portion of each drainage basin.
2. With regard to the administration of the Federal water pollution control program, the position of the Water Pollution Control Federation is that the primary objective of pollution control is the protection of the health of the public. This is reflected in the language of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act stating that pollution is measured by its effect on public health or welfare. Consequently, the Water Pollution Control Federation believes that the Public Health Service has, by virtue of its long experience in dealing with all facets of water pollution control, including the protection of public health, has demonstrated that it is best fitted to administer national water pollution control functions, and therefore urges that administration of water pollution control at the Federal level remain with the U.S. Public Health service.
3. Concerning the proposal to allocate Federal funds to abate pollution caused by existing combined sewers, the Water Pollution Control Federation takes the position that if this situation is of sufficient significance to warrant national recognition then the problem should be more thoroughly investigated as to the engineering and economic aspects that might be involved. The Water Pollution Control Federation believes that the separation of sewer systems relates to one specific engineering solution, whereas there may be other local acceptable alternatives for the control of this pollution problem.
4. The Water Pollution Control Federation recognizes the desirability of determining uniform water quality criteria for specific uses; however, because of the differences in the needs of specific river basins, the Water Pollution Control Federation recommends the establishment and use of such criteria as a cooperative effort by industry, State, local, interstate, and Federal agencies for and within specific river basins.
The ad hoc committee recommends that the board of control instruct the president and executive secretary to implement the recommendations contained in this report and to oppose any legislation or provisions thereof contrary to the statement of policy and/or the recommendations contained herein.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I shall be happy to permit the Senator from Wisconsin to examine the report.
Three of the criteria set forth in the report are consistent with the provisions of the bill in its present form. So, with respect to those three criteria of the report, the bill has been amended so as to conform with them.
The fourth criterion reads as follows.
3. With regard to the administration of the Federal water pollution control program, the position of the Water Pollution Control Federation is that the primary objective of pollution control is the protection of the health of the public.
That statement goes contrary to the attitude of the States which created these very agencies, because since World War II, in an increasing number of States, there has been recognition that there are broader considerations than public health -- important though public health is -- which have dictated to an increasing number of States the need to separate their water pollution control agencies from their health agencies.
So, with the exception of that one criterion, the bill is in conformity with the objectives set forth in the statement I have just placed in the RECORD.
Mr. PROXMIRE. And I suppose -- in view of the way the bill is drafted -- the States would be consulted first.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes; that is mandatory.
Mr. PROXMIRE. And, in connection with consulting them, the municipalities would be consulted, I suppose -- although that is a different matter, of course. If they disagree -- even if a large number were to disagree -- it is a fact, is it not, that the Department will determine whether these standards shall be put into effect?
Mr. MUSKIE. But the Department now determines that, and this point is very important. Under the proposed section 10 -- which I shall read -- the Secretary now has authority to establish the standards.
Mr. PROXMIRE. On what page does that appear?
Mr. MUSKIE. On page 27 of the committee report, it reads as follows:
ENFORCEMENT MEASURES AGAINST POLLUTION OF INTERSTATE OR NAVIGABLE WATERS
SEC. 10. (a) The pollution of interstate or navigable waters in or adjacent to any State or States (whether the matter causing or contributing to such pollution is discharged directly into such waters or reaches such waters after discharge into a tributary of such waters), which endanger the health or welfare of any persons, shall be subject to abatement as provided in this Act.
Under the provisions of existing law, the Secretary can take action in regard to a navigable stream within a State, upon request of the Governor; or the Secretary can take action in regard to an interstate stream, upon request of the Governor of a downstream State which is offended by pollution originating in an upstream State; or the Secretary can take action on his own motion when there is danger to the health or welfare of any person. When he takes such action, obviously he has to do so in accordance with some standard in regard to the quality of water which then exists, the quality of water which will be obtained, and the amount of pollution which would be permitted.
At the present time, he determines all this on his own motion or in his own office, without notice to the users of the water or to the State or States concerned; and he takes such action without notice or without disclosing -- insofar as his initial move is concerned -- what objectives as to quality he has in mind.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. COOPER. I should like to challenge the Senator's statement that the Secretary has authority to fix water standards under existing law. Under existing law, if the Secretary believes a condition of water pollution should be abated -- insofar as it affects interstate waters or a tributary from which an effluent reaches interstate waters -- he can make recommendations to the State and the State can comply, if it desires to do so. If the State does not believe that the recommendations of the Secretary suit the circumstances, then the Secretary may establish a hearing board, which must include representatives of the States affected, as well as representatives of the Department of Commerce and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Mr. MUSKIE. That procedure would be retained.
Mr. COOPER. The Hearing Board under present law hears all the facts and makes findings and recommendations for abatement. That is not the duty of the Secretary, but of the Hearing Board.
After the conference, the Secretary then asks the State if it will follow the findings made by the Hearing Board. If the State does not follow the findings of the Hearing Board, the Secretary can then ask the Attorney General to go to the courts.
That is an entirely different method of fixing standards than that which has been provided in this bill. Under the pending bill it is true that the Secretary is required to consult with the States. The Secretary would be required to give the State an opportunity to put in force his findings as to standards of water quality. If they did not, he could impose his findings. For all practical purposes, the intervening conference would not fix standards, as it does now.
Mr. MUSKIE. I beg to differ with the Senator, but I shall cover the point after he has finished his statement.
Mr. COOPER. If this bill is enacted there would be no intervening conference which would have jurisdiction, as it now does, to make findings regarding water quality. It is true the Hearing Board is retained, but the chief question that would be left to it is whether or not a discharge into water has altered the quality of the water below a standard which the Secretary had fixed. That is the reason I have for opposing the bill.
In my judgment, this bill would transfer to the new Administrator -- although his voice would be that of the Secretary -- full control over the establishment of water standards all over the United States, and would strip the States of any effective participation in prescribing standards.
Mr. MUSKIE. I know why the Senator has opposed the bill. I have heard him make that statement before. With all respect to the Senator, the statements are as erroneous today as they were when he first made them.
Mr. COOPER. I shall be glad to have the Senator point out wherein they are erroneous.
Mr. MUSKIE. I have done it before; I shall be glad to do so again.
In the first place, the present law reads -- and I read it again:
The Secretary has authority in situations which endanger the health and welfare of any persons.
Someone must determine whether there is an endangerment. The Secretary would call the conference. When would he call the conference? When he determines that there is a belief on his part that there is pollution endangering the health and welfare of any persons. No one else is involved. When there is a belief in his mind that there is an endangerment to the health and welfare of any persons, he may call a conference, which is the beginning of the enforcement proceeding. That is clear.
I asked Mr. Stein, who now heads the enforcement activity of the agency, "What is meant by 'welfare'?" Presumably, we know what is meant by "health," but what is meant by an "endangerment to welfare?” That is what Mr. Stein spoke about on page 54 of the record:
Mr. STEIN. Well; I think we can supply a list on that. Of course, there is public water supply and this is involved with health, but obviously there is industrial water supply. There is recreational use, fish and wildlife, industrial use and recreational and agriculture, which are the main uses of water affected by pollution. Of course, there are other uses such as navigation and power which conceivably can be affected.
If the quality of water is such that it interferes with these uses, we look into the matter.
So that if the Secretary believes under that interpretation of the present law that there is an endangerment to any persons in terms of their potential for enjoying waters for recreational purposes -- not health, but recreational purposes, for that is what the act provides the Secretary can begin the enforcement proceeding. He must do so in connection with at least his own subjective standards.
He must have some idea why he believes there is an endangerment to someone's health or welfare, as defined by Mr. Stein. Then he may call a conference. He calls the conference, and then there is a consultation under the enforcement procedure which the Senator has described, and which would be retained if the bill S. 649 were enacted.
What would the bill do? The bill S. 649 provides that instead of leaving the standard to the subjective judgment of the Secretary before he calls a conference, an orderly procedure could be established for defining what is meant by "injury to health and welfare." The whole procedure in the bill S. 649 is designed to substitute for the Secretary's judgment before the conference which invokes the enforcement proceeding the judgment of the Secretary, the States, the communities, the industries, and everyone else involved. They develop their judgment. The bill provides, first, for a conference called by the Secretary in accordance with the notice requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. There would be notice to the States, the communities, industry, and other interests affected, for the purpose of considering standards.
Presumably, in most instances the States which are called in will already have established standards. Those standards are a part of the agenda for discussion at such a conference. As a result of such a conference certain standards are developed. Even if the standards are developed as a result of such procedure, the Secretary cannot put them into effect unless and until we give the States an opportunity to establish comparable standards of their own. If the standards are thus established, they do not increase the Secretary's authority to initiate enforcement proceedings. Rather they merely define the conditions under which enforcement proceedings can be invoked. The enforcement proceedings are exactly the same as under present law. Again a conference would be called. If the Secretary believed that there was a violation of standards endangering health and the welfare of any persons, again he would have to can a conference like the one to which the Senator has referred. That procedure would have to be followed.
Finally. If the procedure ended in court, the court would be required, under the provisions of the bill, S. 649, to consider the practicability of the standards, in addition to the practicability of abating the pollution.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from West Virginia, who has devoted many hours to the committee deliberations on S. 649. He has been a strong and constructive force in improving the legislation.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I have listened to the colloquy of the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] and the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER] in reference to standards. During the years of my association on the Public Works Committee with the able and conscientious senior Senator from Kentucky, we have not often found ourselves in disagreement. I regret that it is necessary on this issue.
However, with the exception of my esteemed friend from Kentucky, S. 649, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1963, is a bipartisan measure as it emerged from the Public Works Committee. It was extensively revised during many executive sessions of the Special Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution and the full committee, on which I have the responsibility to serve.
The chairman of the subcommittee [Mr. MUSKIE] deserves the highest commendation, not only for the manner in which he conducted the hearings but equally for the exhaustive analysis he gave to its separate provisions and for his responsiveness to all the legitimate interests involved in the complex problem of water quality control. I was privileged to work closely with the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], and other diligent Senators on this legislation. I state with accuracy that I know this legislation received careful committee analysis. Our chairman, Senator PAT McNAMARA, can attest to this fact.
Mr. President, in 1956, with the enactment of Public Law 660, we made a start, though a tardy one, on combating the problems of water pollution. The pending measure will give acceleration to our efforts and will incorporate them in a more comprehensive and consistent Federal program.
The separate provisions of the pending bill have been presented by the Senator from Maine, and are explained in detail in the committee report. My comments, therefore, have been to reemphasize that water pollution is created by people, and with our continued population growth -- which is anticipated to reach 322 million by the year 2000 -- and with our constant trend of urbanization, the Nation cannot solve the growing problems of water pollution control and abatement with any legislation less comprehensive than that now before the Senate.
Mr. President, in conjunction with this legislation I have spent many hours with representatives of West Virginia industries whose plants are located on our streams and rivers. Their general response has been one of acknowledgment of the Federal responsibility in this field and a cooperative approach in the hope that industry's problems will also be acknowledged within the provisions of the bill. It is my belief that this measure strikes a reasonable and effective balance among all those who have responsibility for improving water quality in America.
I believe it is exceedingly important for us to realize that at present the Federal authority may actually move in, call a conference, and, in effect, set standards on an ad hoc basis solely at the determination of the Federal Government. Under the pending proposal, however, the setting of standards would follow from a conference in which all parties would be represented -- Federal, State, and local governments as well as industrial, agricultural, and recreational users. Their combined judgments would be represented in the standards.
I can visualize a situation in West Virginia in which a company might wish to locate a plant in a certain area, but if the company were on notice of the standards that would be required in connection with the disposal of its waste which would flow into a stream, it might very well come to the realization that it could not go into the area where it had anticipated establishing that facility.
But it seems to me that the Senator from Maine has spelled out the fundamental difference, which is that under present law the Federal agency operates within its own jurisdiction, without extensive reference to the judgments of other parties or control agencies.
Under the pending proposal the Federal jurisdiction would be joined with the interests of industrial and other users and the States in the conference structure and in the subsequent standards. This is a procedure which is wholly to the benefit of the economic well-being of the municipalities as well as local industrial interests.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator from West Virginia touches upon a very important point; that is, the standards are a protection. On interstate streams communities and industries are left in some doubt as to what the ultimate standard for water quality in the streams may be. They know that the prospect of Federal enforcement action bangs over them. They have no idea as to what criteria will trigger Federal enforcement action. They know that there are differing standards in many instances, as between the upstream and the downstream States.
There is left an area of uncertainty.
I believe this is one of the reasons why the American Iron & Steel Institute has endorsed S. 649. They like the prospect of knowing where they will stand when they are operating on the banks of an interstate stream.
Mr. SYMINGTON, Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I am glad to yield.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I congratulate the able Senator from Maine for his presentation. It has been interesting and impressive, and I am only sorry it is being given during the lunch hour, because other Senators would have liked to listen.
Am I correct in understanding that the distinguished Senator from Maine and the distinguished Senator from West Virginia believe under the proposed bill there would be more authority for the State and less for the Federal Government?
Mr. MUSKIE. I would not say that under the bill the Federal role would be diminished. It would not. With respect to standards, it would not. But the role of the States would be enlarged, as I see it. The role of the States in setting standards, with the opportunity to influence the standards or the opportunity to work cooperatively in establishing standards and enforcing them, would be enlarged.
Mr. SYMINGTON. The final decision still would be in the conference?
Mr. MUSKIE. The final decision on the standards would rest with the Secretary.
Mr. SYMINGTON. The Secretary himself?
Mr. MUSKIE. But he would be subject to the test of practicability, which would be followed in the courts under the provisions of the bill. May I read the provisions of the bill?
Mr. SYMINGTON. I wish the Senator would, but before that, let me ask this question: Would the Secretary, under the new bill, have more authority than he has under the present law?
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not so consider. The language in the bill is:
Nothing in this subsection shall (a) prevent the application of this section to any case to which subsection (a) of this section would otherwise be applicable, or
And I emphasize this (b) extend Federal jurisdiction over water not otherwise authorized by this Act.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine yield for another question?
Mr. MUSKIE. I am happy to yield.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Under the proposed law the Secretary, in effect, would be required to give more consideration to problems of individual States and municipalities than he does under the present law?
Mr. MUSKIE. Exactly.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I thank the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator from Missouri has touched upon the point that was very much discussed by industry representatives before the committee. They complained -- whether with justification or not is beside the point at the moment -- that the Federal enforcement arm moved into interstate waters rather arrogantly, without adequate advance notice to the States as to what they could expect.
This proposal would establish the advance notice as to what could be expected. This would establish the guidelines. I believe this would establish a more cooperative relationship among the States in the whole field. I believe it would minimize enforcement action.
If everybody knew where he stood and what he could do in a stream after standards were established, he would be better off. This is an important point, because the standards which would be established would be only a guide until such time as enforcement procedures were instituted. In the enforcement proceedings, the practicability of the standard itself would be an issue. Not until the standards had been tested by the courts could we say they were finally and immutably in effect.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I am not sure that the Senator from Maine would agree with me, but in further answer to the inquiry of the Senator from Missouri, it is important for us to realize that, in some respects the relative role of the Federal Government would be diminished by the pending measure -- at least to the extent that the proposed conference procedure enlarges the roles of other parties.
Mr. SYMINGTON. That was the point of my questions.
Mr. RANDOLPH. The Senator from Missouri has presented a very pertinent question, which the Senate must determine.
Mr. MUSKIE. To the extent that the bill would enlarge and reemphasize the role of the States, that is true. I could not disagree with that. But the bill would not absolutely reduce the role of the Federal Government.
Mr. BOGGS rose.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I now yield to the distinguished Senator from Delaware [Mr. BOGGS]. I should like, again, at this point to express my warm personal appreciation for the constructive partnership and effort which he has contributed to the work of the committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. For how much time does the Senator from Delaware desire to be recognized?
Mr. BOGGS. For 15 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. BOGGS. I thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the very able junior Senator from Maine, not only for his kind remarks but also for the very able, full, and careful presentation which he has just made in behalf of S. 649. His full and careful explanation enables me to make my remarks fairly brief.
Mr. President, in discussing the pending legislation, S. 649, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1963, it is well to have in mind that the waters of our Nation are one of our most precious natural resources. They are essential to all aspects of our national well-being. With the population growth and the increasing uses of our available waters, their essentiality is becoming more and more evident. The economic, health, and welfare needs of our Nation in the foreseeable future dictate every reasonable and practical step toward the protection and wise use of our water resources.
It is well also to keep in mind, I believe, the commendable progress in pollution control which has been made by industry, municipalities, States, regional authorities, and the Federal Government.
Yet the problems of pollution have developed in scope, number, and complexity much faster than have our efforts to deal with them. Therefore, this legislation is timely and would provide for a more realistic and effective water pollution control program.
This legislation would provide for an affirmative national policy for the prevention, control, and abatement of water pollution.
It would provide for strengthening the administration of the program by authorizing an additional Assistant Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to supervise the water pollution control activities under the direction of the Secretary.
It would establish within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare a Water Pollution Control Administration which would have specific responsibility for enforcement measures to abate pollution; establishing and obtaining compliance with standards of water quality; and controlling pollution from Federal installations.
It would provide an authorization for research and development demonstration grants for new or improved methods to meet the problem of pollution resulting from overflows of combined storm and sanitary sewers. The testimony before the committee indicated that this was an important exploratory area. Research and demonstration projects are needed to soundly point the way for successfully meeting this problem.
This legislation would provide realistic limitations in the existing program for construction of municipal waste treatment plants. This program has been very successful, especially in smaller municipalities; but, due to the limitation of funds for a single project, the larger municipalities could not receive the full benefit of this program. The increase in single project grants does not increase the overall authorization for this program.
Encouragement for comprehensive metropolitan planning has been included by the provision allowing a 10-percent increase in the grants authorized for treatment plant construction in appropriate instances.
This legislation carries a provision authorizing enforcement proceedings to abate pollution on interstate waters where the pollution prevents shellfish from being marketed in interstate commerce. This is a small but very important provision because many times gainful employment and growth of an industry is prohibited and the injured person or persons can do nothing about it. So this provision is not only sound, but is fair and most equitable.
This legislation provides that the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare may establish standards of water quality on interstate waters or portions thereof if the appropriate State or regional authority has not established standards.
The Secretary must give the State or regional authorities reasonable time to develop and establish standards if they wish to do so. In establishing standards, the Secretary may -- and I repeat the word "may" -- do so only after notice and public hearing and consultation with Federal, State, interstate, and local interests. It is believed that this provision will help to clear up some of the confusion which now results from the commencement of enforcement proceedings at the conference where ad hoc requirements are set. It is believed that the establishment of standards will reduce the need for enforcement proceedings and facilitate treatment programs because full knowledge would be available as to the water quality needs. This authority to establish standards in appropriate cases does not extend the jurisdiction of the Federal Government over waters not now covered by existing law.
Another provision of this bill provides for more effective control on Federal agencies whose installations may be causing pollution.
There have been strong demands for legislative action to prohibit the production and sale of hard detergents, which are a serious pollutant problem. The detergents industry gave most encouraging assurances that it was working hard to lick this problem and expected to have new soft detergents on the market by the latter part of 1965. Industry is to be commended not only for recognizing the problem but for taking the initiative in trying to solve it. It was my first thought that on the basis of industry's assurances, legislation at this time would not be desirable. However, recognizing the public interest and concern, and recognizing that West Germany has already outlawed hard detergents and could possibly dump hard detergents in this country, I now believe that this provision of the bill is to the best interests of our Nation. This provision provides for a technical committee composed equally of representatives from the detergent industry and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. This technical committee would work with the Secretary on this problem.
The Secretary would keep the Congress advised and when the problem was solved, the technical committee would recommend appropriate standards which the Secretary would establish and advise the Secretary of the Treasury so that appropriate regulations preventing the importation of detergents not meeting these standards of decomposability could be put into effect. It seems to me that even though this provision may not be absolutely necessary, yet it is desirable.
The Federal role in water pollution control has been evolving over a period of years. In 1948, and from time to time since then, Federal water pollution control legislation has been passed. In all this legislation emphasis has been placed on the States maintaining the primary responsibility for water pollution control. The legislation we are now considering upholds this concept while at the same time providing for appropriate Federal encouragement to the States and backing up the States and regional authorities when and where the circumstances may justify. This legislation is not intended to duplicate, overlap, or supersede State or regional authority, and I am convinced, properly administered, it would not.
In my own personal experience I have reached the conclusion that the States acting alone cannot successfully meet the water pollution control problem on interstate streams. Neither can regional authorities. In the first place, the States have as much or more than they can do in water pollution control matters strictly intrastate. There is a tremendous job to be done on intrastate waters. In the second place, no matter how fine a job a State may do on a portion of interstate waters, its efforts may be negated by activities beyond its control. So, I think it is most proper that the Federal Government make clear its policy, program, and enforcement proceedings, and that is exactly what this legislation endeavors to do.
I support this legislation and urge my colleagues to support it.
It is a privilege to serve on the subcommittee under the chairmanship of the distinguished junior Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE.] The subcommittee, under his leadership, along with the other members of the committee and the staff, worked objectively and diligently to develop this legislation.
The goals and objectives of each member of the committee were the same, that is, to recommend legislation consistent with our Federal-State system of Government to more effectively meet the water pollution problem and help in the conserving of our great water resources.
I say again, I think this is a good bill and I believe that industry, municipalities, the States, and regional authorities will find, as it was intended, that it will be helpful; and greater progress will be made in our overall water pollution control effort.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is open to further amendment.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment,
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, is the Senator proceeding on his own time? I am running short of time.
Mr. COOPER. Yes.
Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 226.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky will be stated.
The LEGISLATIVE: CLERK. It is proposed to strike all after line 15 on page 11 through line 8 on page 13 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
(c) In order to carry out the purposes of this Act, the Secretary shall, after reasonable notice to State, Interstate, and local water pollution control agencies, manufacturers, and industries involved, and other interested individuals or organizations, conduct public hearings for the purpose of making, recommendations to the Congress on measures which should be taken to achieve a prompt and effective resolution of water pollution, including but not limited to
(1) the necessity for, and feasibility of, establishing national standards of water quality, to be applicable to interstate waters and portions thereof,
(2) the nature and scope of delays presently being encountered in preventing, controlling, and abating water pollution;
(3) legislation relating to water pollution abatement proceedings considered necessary and desirable;
(4) measures to provide necessary financing for the prevention, control, and abatement of water pollution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the unanimous consent agreement, the Senator from Kentucky is granted an extra hour on one of his amendments. Is the Senator now discussing that amendment?
Mr. COOPER. Yes.
I modify my amendment, in line 3, page 1, by striking out the word "manufacturers" and inserting in lieu thereof the word "municipalities." On page 2, line 2, I modify my amendment by inserting after the word "Congress" the words "by January 1, 1965."
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator modifies his amendment accordingly.