September 21, 1965
PAGE 24560
WATER QUALITY ACT OF 1965 CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of conference of the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the House to the bill (S. 4) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, to establish the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, to provide grants for research and development, to increase grants for construction of municipal sewage treatment works, to authorize the establishment of standards of water quality to aid in preventing, controlling, and abating pollution of interstate waters, and for other purposes. I ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of the report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. RUSSELL Of South Carolina in the chair). The report will be read for the information of the Senate.
The legislative clerk read the report(For conference report, see House proceedings of today.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the report?
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the report.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the conference report on S. 4 represents a reasonable and sound compromise on the Water Quality Act of 1965. As my colleagues know, it was not easy to obtain agreement on this legislation. On the primary issue of water quality standards there were strong opinions on both sides of the table. In the end, however, the agreement we reached represents both a middle ground and, in many respects, an improvement over the original version as it passed the Senate.
I want to take this opportunity to express my appreciation and gratitude to the Senate conferees, Senators RANDOLPH, MOSS, BOGGS, and PEARSON. The unanimity we reached on the basic issues in S. 4 strengthened our hand immeasurably and added to the quality of the discussions in conference. Through the months since the House enacted its version of S. 4 the Senate Members of the conference and their staffs reviewed the two proposals. Many of their suggestions were incorporated in the final version and contributed to the successful agreement between the representatives of the two bodies. Partisan differences were forgotten in the common effort to develop a meaningful act for the enhancement of the quality of our national water supplies.
The discussions in the conference were vigorous, but amicable.
The delay in agreement is a measure of the strong feelings related to matters of principle rather than to any unwillingness to reach a consensus. I could not report to my colleagues on the conference without paying tribute to the House conferees for the contribution they made to this legislation on behalf of the House of Representatives and particularly to Congressmen JOHN BLATNIK and ROBERT JONES for their leadership on S. 4 and in the general effort toward water pollution control and abatement.
I shall not take the time of my colleagues to review in detail the entire conference report on S. 4. That report, and the report of the managers on the part of the House, can be found on pages 24583-24587 of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD for September 17, 1965.
In brief, the conferees agreed on the establishment of a water pollution control administration in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, headed by an Administrator and supervised by an assistant secretary. The Senate conferees accepted the House version, which transfers all of the activities of the present division of water supply and pollution control to the new Administration and spells out in detail the procedures to be used in transferring personnel. We believe an orderly transition can be made from the present arrangement under the Public Health Service to the new Administration.
The managers for both the Senate and the House agreed that the selection of the Administrator is crucial to the success of the program and that his grade level and status should reflect the importance the Congress attaches to this program in establishing it as a separate Administration.
The Senate conferees accepted the House proposals on increased authorizations for sewage treatment grants. These include an increase to $150 million a year for the next 2 years in the total authorization and an increase to $1,200,000 in individual project authorizations and $4,800,000 for multi-community projects. Funds appropriated in excess of $100 million in each of the next 2 fiscal years will be allotted to the several States on the basis of population and individual project authorization limitations will not apply on the use of such funds where States match the Federal contribution.
The Senate conferees agree to these provisions as a temporary measure because of the demonstrated crisis in such States as New York. I know that Senators JAVITS and KENNEDY are very much concerned about this problem. At the same time, the Senate conferees made it very clear that the increases in authorizations and the modifications in the allocation formula do not represent a judgment as to the realistic levels of Federal grants or formula in the years ahead. The Senate Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution is examining this problem and will make recommendations in the next session of the Congress.
The next major provision in the act is the water quality standards section. As it passed the Senate, S. 4 authorized the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to establish water quality standards on interstate waters or portions thereof in the absence of effective State standards, following a conference of affected Federal, State, interstate, municipal, and industrial representatives. Violation of established standards would be subject to enforcement in accordance with the present enforcement procedures in the Water Pollution Control Act.
The House version of S. 4 contained a provision for States to file letters of intent on the establishment of water quality criteria, with a pollution control grant penalty for failure to file such a letter of intent. There was no provision for the establishment of water quality standards.
The conferees agreed to amend the Senate version to give the States until June 30, 1967, to establish water quality standards on interstate waters which the Secretary determines are consistent with the purposes of the act. In those cases where the States fail to establish such standards the Secretary is authorized to call a conference of affected, Federal, State, interstate, municipal, and industrial representatives to discuss proposed standards, after which the Secretary is authorized to publish recommended standards.
If a State fails to establish standards consistent with the purposes of the act within 6 months after promulgation of the standards -- unless the Governor of an affected State requests a public hearing within that period -- the Secretary is authorized to promulgate his proposed standards. The Governor of an affected State would be permitted to petition for a public hearing within the 6-month period after publication of the proposed standards and up to 30 days following promulgation of the Secretary's standards. The Secretary is required to call such a hearing and to appoint five or more members to the board. The Secretary of Commerce and the heads of other affected Federal departments and agencies are to be given an opportunity to select one member of the board. The same right is accorded the Governor of each affected State. It is the intent of the conferees that the hearing board represent a balance of Federal and State interests.
The hearing board may recommend either: First, establishment of the Secretary's standards; or second, modification of those standards. The Secretary must adopt the board's recommendations. If the board recommends adoption of the Secretary's standards they become effective immediately on the Secretary's receipt of the board's recommendations. If the board recommends modifications in the standards the Secretary must modify them in accordance with the board's recommendations and promulgate them.
The revised standards become effective on promulgation. Revisions in established standards can be considered and proposed by the Secretary on his own motion or on request by the Governor of an affected State in accordance with the foregoing procedures.
Violations of standards under the provisions of this act are subject to Federal abatement action. If the Secretary finds such violation, he must notify the violators and interested parties, giving the violators 6 months within which to comply with the standards. If, at the end of that period, the violator has not complied, the Secretary is authorized to bring suit, with the consent of the Governor of the affected State in the case of intrastate pollution, through the Attorney General of the United States under section 10(g) (1) or (2) of the amended Water Pollution Control Act.
This enforcement procedure differs from the procedure followed under the present act by omitting the conference and hearing board stages. Because there is a conference and hearing board under the standard-setting procedure the managers for the House and Senate did not consider a repetition of these proceedings necessary in cases of violations of standards. The conference and hearing board stages remain in enforcement proceedings arising out of endangerment of health or welfare where water quality standards have not been established, as under existing law.
In court proceedings resulting from a suit for violation of water quality standards established under this act, the court is directed to accept in evidence the transcripts of proceedings before the conference and hearing board and to accept other evidence relevant to the alleged violations and the standards. The court is to give due consideration to the "Practicability and physical and economic feasibility" of complying with the standards in making judgments in such cases.
There was one final set of compromises in the conference. The House managers agreed to recede on the House "subpoena section" and insisted that the Senate recede on the Senate "Patents section."
Measures contained in both versions were: a 10-percent bonus in sewage treatment plant grants for those projects carried out in accordance with an area wide plan; a 4-year, $20 million per year research and development program for new and improved methods of controlling the discharge of inadequately treated combined storm and sanitary sewage; authorization for the Secretary to initiate enforcement proceedings in cases where he finds substantial economic injury results from the inability to market shellfish or shellfish products as a result of water pollution, record keeping and audit provisions; authority for the Secretary of Labor to set labor standards on projects financed through this act under Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950; and an additional Assistant Secretary in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Mr. President, I believe this act, as amended, will give strong impetus to our efforts to control and abate water pollution and to improve the quality of our water supplies.
The conference report is signed by all the conferees on the part of the Senate and by all of the conferees on the part of the House.
Congressional staff members have an important role in any legislation. In the development of S. 4 and in the achievement of the conference report the Senate and House staffs made an invaluable contribution to our success. I am particularly indebted to Ron M. Linton, chief clerk and staff director of the Senate Committee on Public Works, William Hildenbrand, legislative assistant to Senator BOGGS, and my administrative assistant, Donald E. Nicoll, for their imagination, patience, and skill in making suggestions and drafting successive versions of the bill. A similar contribution was made by the able and cooperative House staff members: Richard J. Sullivan, chief counsel of the House Committee on Public Works; Maurice Tobin, assistant to Congressman BLATNIK; Clifford W. Enfield, minority counsel of the House Committee on Public Works; and Robert L. Mowson, assistant legislative counsel for the House. Without their assistance we could not have this report.
Mr. President, I move the adoption of the report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference report.
The report was agreed to.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I am most pleased that the conferees on S. 4 have reached an agreement. The bill was passed by the Senate last January, and by the House in April, and I know that great differences had to be resolved before a final measure could be presented to the Congress.
The measure is of particular importance to the drought-stricken Northeast which must begin extensive water pollution control programs immediately, and is particularly vital to the State of New York, which will begin a $1.7 billion program with the aid of these funds.
I would also like to call attention to two changes in the final version of the bill which I sought to have adopted here in the Senate. The first raises the dollar limitation on any single project from $600,000 to $1,200,000. The second provides $50 million a year to the grants program, such additional money to be distributed on the basis of population alone.
The conferees and the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] are to be commended for their fine work on this measure. On behalf of the people of the Empire State, I express my most sincere thanks for their efforts in securing final passage during this session.