January 28, 1965
PAGE 1503
DEBATE ON S.4, THE WATER QUALITY ACT OF 1965
The Senate resumed the consideration of 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.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, on October 16, 1963, the Senate considered S. 649, a bill to amend the Water Pollution Control Act, as amended. It was a bill which had been subject to rigorous and extensive hearings, producing over 1,000 pages of testimony.
It had been subjected to intensive study by the members of the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution and the members of the full Committee on Public Works. Members of both parties worked on revisions in the legislation. The final product, as reported to the Senate, retained the original objectives of the bill, but incorporated significant changes which were responsive to the hearing testimony and to the flow of ideas and discussions in the subcommittee. The bill was debated in some detail on October 16, being tested by Members of the Senate who had sincere doubts as to some of its provisions.
Following debate, the Senate passed S. 649 by a vote of 69 to 11, and of the 20 Members not voting, 15 announced themselves as favoring its passage. The House Public Works Committee reported an amended version during the closing days of the 88th Congress. However, no further action was taken by the other body.
In the months and weeks before the opening of the 89th Congress, the members of the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution and others interested in the Water Pollution Control Act reviewed S. 649 and the needed changes in the program. S. 4, which is now before the Senate, represents the consensus of that group. It has been cosponsored by 31 of my colleagues, including all members of the subcommittee in the 88th Congress. A hearing was held on the legislation, January 18, 1965. As reported to the Senate, it is identical with S. 649, with two deletions and several perfecting amendments which were adopted by the committee. I shall comment on those changes later in my remarks.
I believe S. 4 is a sound and meaningful legislative approach to the enhancement of the quality of our national water resources. I believe its adoption will strengthen our pollution control and abatement program and will contribute to expanded and more effective efforts at the regional, State, and local level.
I want to express my appreciation to my colleagues who have made a substantial contribution to the development and perfection of S. 4. The chairman of the Committee on Public Works, the senior Senator from Michigan [Mr. McNAMARA], created the special Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution and has given the subcommittee his backing and support. The ranking majority member of the subcommittee, the senior Senator from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH], has devoted considerable time and effort to the legislation, offering many helpful suggestions.
The ranking minority member of the subcommittee, the senior Senator from Delaware [Mr. BOGGS], has been a creative and constructive partner from the very beginning. His patience and good will and his determination to achieve a reasonable meeting of the minds were essential to our success in the 88th Congress and today.
The exchanges on S. 649 and S. 4 have been healthy. The senior Senator from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER], whose disagreement with the majority of the committee has been recorded in our reports and in the debate, has contributed to a more complete understanding of the issues involved.
The development of S. 4, the Water Quality Act of 1965, has been a rewarding experience for me. It is, in my opinion, the product of creative dialog and legislative craftsmanship.
S. 4 is consistent with and supports the objectives outlined by President Johnson in his state of the Union message, in which he called for an expanded conservation program as part of our effort to achieve the Great Society:
For over three centuries the beauty of America has sustained our spirit and has enlarged our vision. We must act now to protect this heritage in a fruitful new partnership with the States and cities. The next decade should be a conservation milestone. . . . We will seek legal power to prevent pollution of our air and water before it happens. We will step up our effort to control harmful wastes, giving just priority to the cleanup of our most contaminated rivers. We will increase research to learn much more about the control of pollution.
These objectives and approaches stated by the President are reflected in S. 4.
As I mentioned previously, this legislation is, with the exception of two deletions and some perfecting amendments, identical to S. 649, as approved by the Senate on October 16, 1963, by a vote of 69 to 11. The two sections deleted were those relating to the control and abatement of pollution from Federal installations and the problem of nondegradable detergents.
The Federal installations section was eliminated from this bill because similar problems with respect to Federal installations are present in the field of air pollution, as well as water pollution. In addition, there were other matters relating to Federal activities in both fields which require separate and more complete consideration. Because of these factors, it was decided to cover these matters in separate legislation.
The detergents section was deleted because the members of the soap and detergent industry have reported changes in their schedules for supplying the market with detergents which will degrade more readily than those presently on the market. In view of this change it was considered advisable to conduct additional hearings on the detergent problem to determine the type or need of corrective legislation.
S. 4 includes the following proposals:
First. To establish an additional position of Assistant Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to help the Secretary to administer the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Second. To create a Federal Water Pollution Control Administration to administer sections 3, comprehensive programs; 1, interstate cooperation and uniform laws; 10, enforcement measures; and, 11, to control pollution from Federal installations, of the act.
Third. To authorize appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1965, and for 3 succeeding fiscal years in the amount of $20 million a year for grants for research and development to demonstrate new or improved methods for the control of combined storm and sanitary sewer discharges.
Fourth. To increase grants to individual sewage treatment projects from $600,000 to $1 million, and to allow multi municipal combinations grant increases from $2,400,000 to $4 million.
There is also a provision which provides a 10-percent bonus on construction grants for treatment plants where such construction is part of a comprehensive metropolitan plan.
Fifth. To provide procedures for the establishment of water quality standards applicable to interstate waters.
Sixth. To authorize action by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to initiate abatement proceedings where he finds that substantial economic injury results from the inability to market shellfish or shellfish products in interstate commerce because of pollution of interstate or navigable waters and actions of Federal, State, or local authorities.
Seventh. Provisions for audits where Federal funds are utilized under the act, and provisions, under the Water Pollution Control Act, for appropriate application of the authority and functions of the Secretary of Labor with respect to labor standards.
The two perfecting amendments to the bill, as adopted by the committee, relate to the quality standards section of the bill.
The first clarifies the procedure relating to the revision of water quality standards, so that the same provisions for hearings and consultation, followed in establishing standards in the first instance, will be followed in the revision of those standards. There is, connected with that amendment, another amendment which provides a more logical sequence of paragraphs in the standards section.
The second committee amendment requires the hearing board, under the enforcement procedure, to give consideration to "the practicability of complying with such standards as may be applicable." This language is identical with that added to the court review section of the Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, in S. 649 in the 88th Congress. It is considered a clarification of a protection the committee intended to be present in the enforcement provisions of the act.
I have outlined, Mr. President, the provisions of S. 4, its origins, its development, and its senatorial sponsorship and support. In addition, this year, it has the support of the administration, as indicated in the January 18, 1965, letter to Chairman McNAMARA from the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. In that letter he wrote, in part:
The overall purposes of S. 4 are highly desirable, particularly insofar as they are consistent with the President's goals and objectives noted above. We favor, therefore, the enactment of this legislation as necessary for the effective conduct of the national water pollution control program and the accomplishment of its important alms and purposes.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the Secretary's letter be printed at this point 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,
Washington, D.C.,
January 18,1965.
Hon. PAT V. McNAMARA, Chairman,
Committee on Public Works,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR Ms. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in response to your request of January 11, 1965, for a report on S. 4, a bill, 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.
In his state of the Union message, delivered to the Congress on January 4, 1965 (H. Doc. No. 1, 89th Cong.). President Johnson set forth important national goals and objectives for the prevention, control, and abatement of water pollution. The President proposed "that we end the poisoning of our rivers," and to this end he recommended legal power to prevent pollution before it happens and further asserted that we will step up our effort to control harmful wastes, giving first priority to the cleanup of our most contaminated rivers and will increase research to learn much more about the control of pollution. We view the purposes of S. 4 as consonant with these goals and objectives and therefore highly desirable.
The provisions of S. 4 are identical with those of S. 649, 88th Congress, passed by the Senate on October 16, 1963, except for the deletion of the provisions for permits for waste discharges from Federal installations and for measures for the control of synthetic detergents. Our comments on these identical provisions were submitted to you in our letter of October 11, 1963.
As stated therein, we fully support the provision of an additional Assistant Secretary position for this Department. This important provision will contribute to the necessary strengthening of the Office of the Secretary and will benefit all the Department's programs.
The proposed program of grants to assist municipalities in the development of projects which will demonstrate new or improved methods of controlling discharges of sewage and wastes from storm sewers and combined storm and sanitary sewers will aid greatly in resolving this very critical pollution problem. A recent report prepared by the Public Health Service, entitled, "Pollutional Effects of Stormwater and Overflows from Combined Sewer Systems; a Preliminary Appraisal," reveals the following significant aspects of this problem: Approximately 59 million people in more than 1,900 communities are served by combined sewers and combinations of combined and separate sewer systems. Storm water and combined sewer overflows are responsible for major amounts of polluting material in the Nation's receiving waters, and the tendency with growing urbanization is for these amounts to increase. Both combined overflows and storm water contribute significant amounts of pollutional materials to watercourses.
These discharges affect all known water uses adversely in the receiving watercourses. Complete separation of storm water from sanitary sewers and treatment of all waste is the ultimate control measure to provide maximum protection to receiving waters. Total costs for complete separation based on scattered information are estimated to be in the $20 to $30 billion range.
The report recommends demonstration projects identical in purpose with those specified in S. 4 as an attack on the problem and to provide information for future action. While we fully endorse the objectives of this provision of the bill, we wish to advise the committee that the administration will be proposing a community facility grants program. The organizational and coordinating arrangements for this and related existing programs are still under consideration, and will be dealt with in future recommendations to the Congress.
We agree with the desirability of increasing the existing dollar ceiling limitations on the amount of a single project grant from $600,000 to $1 million and from $2,400,000 to $4 million for a project in which two or more communities jointly participate.
This amendment will provide a more equitable measure of assistance to those projects involving disproportionately higher costs and substantially stimulate the construction of necessary waste treatment facilities by larger communities, where the attendant needs are commensurately greater.
The bill provides that the amount of a grant for a project may be increased by 10 percent of that amount if the project is certified as conforming with a comprehensive plan for the metropolitan area in which the project is to be constructed. We believe that a direct financial incentive such as this is desirable to encourage municipalities to coordinate and conform, if practicable, to the facility plan for the metropolitan or regional area, both in the interests of effective water pollution control and because of the substantial savings in expenditures that may be realized to all levels of government as a result of such area coordination. This provision of S. 4 and the proposed increases in the dollar limitations for any single or joint construction project implement the recommendations of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations in its October 1962 report on "Intergovernmental Responsibilities for Water Supply and Sewage Disposal in Metropolitan Areas."
The provisions for establishment of standards of water quality to be applicable to interstate waters would appear to have for their purpose the prevention of pollution before its inception. Sound water quality standards are capable of serving as valuable guidelines for municipalities and industries in providing for effective treatment and disposal of their wastes so as to prevent pollution situations from arising. We are in agreement, therefore, as to the necessity and desirability of these provisions.
Such industries as the commercial shellfish and fishing enterprises, which are importantly engaged in the shipping and marketing of seafood products, are particularly susceptible to the deleterious effects of pollution. In addition to the immediate health hazards involved, the uncontrolled discharges of waste matters in proximity to shellfish bed and commercial fish habitat areas inflict grave economic losses upon these industries through the resultant necessary closing of such areas to harvesting operations. The proposal of S. 4 directing the application of enforcement authority and procedures in such instances would provide corrective relief measures presently unavailable to those operators whose economic livelihood is imperiled through such pollution.
The overall purposes of S. 4 are highly desirable, particularly insofar as they are consistent with the President's goals and objectives noted above. We favor, therefore, the enactment of this legislation as necessary for the effective conduct of the national water pollution control program and the accomplishment of its important alms and purposes.
We are advised, by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program.
Sincerely,
ANTHONY CELEBREZZE,
Secretary.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the provisions of S. 4 also have the support of the Federal Water Pollution Control Advisory Board, by resolutions adopted by the Board on June 12, 1963, and November 10, 1964. This distinguished panel of public-spirited citizens maintains a continuing relationship with the water pollution control program and has an intimate knowledge of its operation within the Public Health Service and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the names and titles of the members and the resolutions of the Board relating to the creation of a Water Pollution Control Administration in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare be printed at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADVISORY BOARD
Chairman, ex officio: Hon. James M. Quigley, Assistant Secretary, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington, D.C.
Executive secretary: Mr. Robert C. Ayers, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Earle G. Burwell, former member, Wyoming State Stream Pollution Committee, Casper, Wyo.
Mr. M. James Gleason, commissioner, Multnomah County, County courthouse, Portland, Oreg.
Mr. Raymond A. Haik, attorney-at-law, Minneapolis, Minn.
Mrs. Burnette Y. Bennington, national secretary, National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, Inc., Northside Station, Jackson, Miss.
Mr. Gerald A. Jackson, vice president, Champion Papers, Inc., Chicago, Ill.
Mr. Lee Roy Matthias, executive vice president, Red River Valley Association, Shreveport, La.
Mr. Blucher A. Poole, director, bureau of environmental sanitation, State board of health, Indianapolis, Ind.
Mr. William E. Towell, director, Missouri Conservation Commission, Jefferson City, Mo.
Mr. William E. Warne, director, California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, Calif.
RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADVISORY BOARD ON JUNE 12, 1963
Whereas the Federal Water Pollution Control Advisory Board was created by Congress and members are appointed by the President for the purpose of reviewing the water pollution problem of this country, appraising public opinion on the subject and making recommendations which would lead to the formation of policies which would effectuate better water pollution control throughout the Nation; and
Whereas there is now pending before the Congress legislation which would transfer the administration of the Federal water pollution control program out of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; and
Whereas there is also pending before the Congress legislation which would establish a separate administrative agency within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare for the Federal water pollution control program; and
Whereas this Board is previously on record in favor of the establishment of such a separate administrative organization within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare: Now be it
Resolved
1. That considering the availability of highly qualified water pollution control personnel now in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and considering the wealth of knowledge and experience accumulated within that Department in this area this Board strongly urges and recommends that the administration of water pollution control be retained within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; and
2. This Board specifically endorses and urges the adoption either by administrative action by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare or by congressional enactment, that section of S. 649 and H.R. 3161 (or similar pending bills) which relates to the establishment of a separate administrative agency for water pollution control within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare: and be it further
Resolved, That the Chairman of this Board is requested to bring the contents of this resolution to the attention of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and the chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Water and Air Pollution and the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors and Public Works so that they may be fully appraised of this Board's deep concern for the need of the immediate upgrading of the water pollution control program within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
RESOLUTION CREATING A WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE
Resolved, That the Federal Water Pollution Control Advisory Board, in executive session this 10th day of November 1964, at Chicago, Ill., recommends the creation of a separate Water Pollution Control Administration within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the proposed legislation has the support of the distinguished Governor of California, Edmund G. Brown, who testified before the committee. It is supported by the U.S. Conference of Mayors and other civic organizations. It is supported by the National Wildlife Federation and other conservation groups. Industrial representatives who appeared before the committee and who consulted with us have indicated that while they may not agree with all of its provisions, they believe S. 4 is reasonable in its approach.
Mr. President, I believe S. 4 deserves the high priority accorded it by the administration and by the Senate leadership. Two years have passed since its basic provisions were presented to the Senate. A year and a quarter has passed since the Senate approved S. 649. The improvements that this legislation offers are needed today more than ever.
The need for the acceleration of sewage treatment plant construction and for the correction of the problem of combined sewers is no less urgent than when I introduced S. 649 in January of 1963, or when it passed the Senate in October of that year. As a matter of fact, the delay in enactment of legislation has created a greater backlog of needs in correcting the Nation's water pollution problems.
The committee recognizes that the increased authorizations in S. 4 do not go as far as some members would like. We are conscious of the problems confronting our larger cities where even the $1 million project authorization contained in S. 4 will not approach 30 percent of the project cost. We are also conscious of the growing needs of smaller communities, where the cost of collection sewers -- not eligible for aid under the Water Pollution Control Act -- is often larger than that of the sewage treatment works. There are many other fiscal and developmental problems connected with the sewage treatment grant program which must be examined. But none of these questions can be considered adequately without giving attention to the problem of overall grant authorizations. It is the committee's intention to give timely and intensive study to this problem. The views of all interested parties will be solicited in an effort to arrive at a sound and fair total authorization and to correct any inequities which exist in the present grant program.
Today our older cities are faced with the necessity of separating their combined storm and sanitary sewers, or devising means whereby the discharge of runoff from city streets is gradually fed through treatment plants to prevent overloading of treatment systems and the discharge of untreated sewage into public waterways. The correction of the problem of combined sewers requires huge expenditures on the part of communities. Current estimates place the cost of separation in the order of $30 billion. The $20 million annual authorization in S. 4 would help launch a research and development program to find improved methods of dealing with the combined sewage problem. Hopefully, this program will also cut the costs of corrective action.
For the program of sewage treatment facilities to be of greater benefit to our larger communities, the limitation on individual and multi municipal grants needs to be raised. The present ceilings are unrealistic when applied to the considerably greater expenditures which a larger city must bear in installing necessary treatment works. In application, the grants approximate as little or less than 10 percent of the costs involved, and thus they fail to achieve what is at once a primary and necessary objective of the grant program -- the incentive to develop local projects for the control and abatement of water pollution.
S. 4 would authorize the establishment of an additional Assistant Secretary to help in the responsibility of the Department to oversee this important sphere of activities. There would also be authorized a Federal Water Pollution Control Administration to carry out certain functions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, thus accomplishing two purposes:
First, the new Administration would elevate the status of our water pollution control and abatement programs to a more appropriate and effective level in the Department.
Second, it would free the Public Health Service to concentrate on its primary concern with health in the water pollution field, as it is in other areas.
The importance of establishing water quality standards in our interstate water system is gaining more recognition and support.
While this would be a new provision in Federal legislation, it is by no means a new or novel approach to aiding in the improvement of water quality and in the proper management of our water resources. We all recognize that the availability of water of good quality is a necessity for our economic and industrial growth. It is essential to the achievement of the Great Society.
The development and application of water quality standards would enable us to establish objectives and guidelines on the use of our waters and to prevent the misuse and abuse of this vital resource.
Water quality standards would provide techniques which could, in many instances, help us to avoid the necessity for enforcement action. Under present law and procedures nothing is done until pollution has reached the point where it endangers the health or welfare of many people when there then are imposed unconscionable burdens upon industry and others responsible for dealing with it.
Then abatement action is taken and efforts are made to correct a situation which could have been prevented if standards of water quality had been established; municipalities and industries could develop realistic plans for new plants or expanded facilities, without uncertainties about waste disposal limitations which may be imposed.
In my own State, as in others, our previously abundant shellfish producing waters have been immeasurably harmed through disposal of deleterious wastes.
The economic losses to shell fishermen have been catastrophic. S. 4 could provide them with effective protection for the first time.
These, Mr. President, are the basic provisions of the Water Quality Act of 1965, as amended by the committee. I urge the Senate to approve S. 4 as a major contribution to the quality of American life.
WATER POLLUTION MORE SERIOUS EACH YEAR
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President I strongly support this legislation being brought before the Senate by the leadership of the distinguished junior Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE].
Water pollution is high on the list of our urgent national priorities. Increasing population and industry will necessarily increase water pollution; increasing reuse of the scarce water supplies of a basin will compound pollution problems.
A recent survey showed a national backlog of over $2 billion of waste treatment works needed to be built now; several hundred millions of dollars should be spent annually to keep population growth from increasing water pollution.
The bill before the Senate today is another modest improvement in the water pollution effort the Federal Government has been engaged in for several years. It provides research and development grants for work on the problems of combined storm-sewage systems increases the maximum grants possible to communities under the sewage treatment works construction program, and improves the administrative authority over the water pollution program including procedures for establishing quality standards for interstate waters. All of these are reasonable and prudent steps that represent progress. Pure water is necessary for a healthy people. Impure water lowers the health level of a people, and increases the death rate. Clean water makes for clean people.
For all of us who labor here in Washington, the need for faster progress in water pollution prevention is illustrated by the Potomac River that so enhances the majesty of this great city. The Potomac is a beautiful river -- until one gets close to the stinking thing. So far as I am concerned, none of us can feel content with what has been done against water pollution until there are again bathing beaches on the Potomac within sight of the Capitol. Then we can feel that the needed job is being done.
I commend my colleagues who have labored so diligently in this field; I assure them of my support for continued efforts to combat water pollution across the Nation.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I wish to join with the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the very able junior Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], in the remarks he has just made regarding S. 4, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1965. 1 also want to express my appreciation to him and other members of the committee for the great amount of work which has gone into the preparation of this legislation and its ultimate referral from the committee to the Senate floor for action.
As the Senate knows, an almost identical bill to this passed the Senate in the last Congress but, unfortunately, did not receive final consideration by the other body. The bill presently before the Senate is the result of many days of work by members of the committee and many conferences held between State governments, industries, and Federal officials. It is my considered opinion that in this legislation we have a good bill which will go a long way in protecting the wise use of our water resources.
As I think everyone is well aware, the waters of our Nation are one of our most precious natural resources. They are in fact essential to all aspects of our well-being.
With the population growth and the increasing uses of our available waters, their essentiality is becoming more and more evident.
I think it is also well to keep in mind, Mr. President, that commendable progress in pollution control has been made by industry, municipalities, States, regional authorities, and the Federal Government, and it is only because of the scope, number, and complexity of the problems of pollution that I feel this legislation is timely and provides for a more realistic and effective water pollution control program.
As the distinguished Senator from Maine has pointed out, it provides for an "effective national policy for the prevention, control, and abatement of water pollution."
Much concern has been evidenced over the standards section of this legislation; therefore, I would like to make this comment.
It is my firm belief that the establishment of standards as provided for in this legislation will reduce the need for enforcement proceedings and facilitate treatment programs because full knowledge would be available as to water quality needs. This authority to establish standards in appropriate cases does not extend the jurisdiction of the Federal Government over water not now covered by existing law. In fact, Mr. President, the members of the committee and the staff have worked diligently in preparing language to make it abundantly clear that the States, interstate agencies, and industries will be fully protected from any arbitrary action by a Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare regarding established standards. Senators will note that the report as well as the language of the bill make it abundantly clear that the review authority contained in existing water pollution control laws shall take into consideration the practicability of complying with such standards as may be applicable.
(At this point Mr. TYDINGS took the chair as Presiding Officer.)
Mr. BOGGS. I should like to mention one further thing, Mr. President, and that is the fact that the proposed legislation, unlike S. 649 of the past Congress, does not include a section dealing with water pollution control at Federal installations. Both the chairman of the subcommittee, the junior Senator from Maine, and I, along with others, have introduced a separate Piece of proposed legislation dealing with pollution abatement at Federal installations. I feel very strongly that legislation to control pollution at Federal installations is a "must," and that we at the Federal level must place our own house in order before we can expect others to do likewise. I would hope and believe that the Federal installations bill would receive early consideration by the subcommittee and that we would see it enacted into law in this Congress.
Again, Mr. President, let me most sincerely commend the junior Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], the chairman of our subcommittee, for his leadership in this field of water pollution control and for the many kindnesses and courtesies, he has extended to me during all of our deliberations in the creation of a meaningful proposal in the field of water pollution control.
I urge my colleagues in the Senate to consider this proposed legislation most favorably, and look toward its passage. This proposed legislation will be a reasonable and practical step toward the protection and wise use of our water resources.
I thank the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], the distinguished Senator in charge of the bill, for yielding to me.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank my good friend the Senator from Delaware for his helpful and useful statement, lucid as, always, and for his kind, personal remarks.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. MILLER. First, I commend the Senator from Maine for his excellent statement on the pending bill. The Senator will recall that last year, when a similar bill was considered by our Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution Control, a considerable amount of attention was devoted to what might be called the problem of judicial review with a view to making very clear the procedure that would be followed if the bill became law. I should like to ask the Senator a few questions.
On page 9, the bill contains a provision indicating that violations are "subject to abatement in accordance with the provisions of this section." The section reference is to section 10 of the basic Federal Air and Pollution Control Act, a part of which is amended, along with additions, by the pending bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. The present section 8 will become section 10, if the bill is passed.
Mr. MILLER. That is correct.
Let us assume that action for abatement were taken because of what appeared to be a violation by some individual. What would be the first step involved?
Mr. MUSKIE. The first step would be the calling of a conference, notice of which would be given to States, State agencies, interstate agencies, industries, and municipalities. Any parties in interest would be brought into the conference for the purpose of considering all matters dealing with the problem of pollution in the waters involved. I emphasize that the waters must be interstate waters, under the act.
Mr. MILLER. If the conference procedure, which I presume would be relatively informal, did not result in an abatement, what would be the next step?
Mr. MUSKIE. The conference procedure would be informal. It would not be an adverse procedure in any sense at that point. Its purpose is to establish a factual basis upon which the Secretary may determine whether or not to proceed with an abatement order.
The conference would make its report to the Secretary. The Secretary, following the conference, would be required, under the law, to prepare and forward to all water pollution agencies attending the conference a summary of the conference discussions.
In effect, this is a notice to the agencies involved, State and interstate, of the findings of the conference on this very point.
The Secretary is then required to allow at least 6 months for the States or interstate agencies to act upon any recommendations he may make in connection with the conference report. The period is at least 6 months.
If at the conclusion of the period which he allows -- and that period is stated, so that all parties are on notice -- such remedial action has not been taken, the Secretary shall call a public hearing, to be held before a hearing board appointed by the Secretary.
Mr. MILLER. Do I understand that in the proceedings before that hearing board, it would be expected that the procedure would indeed be an adversary type procedure?
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me read the provision of the act. I am speaking of the present law, and not of S. 4. It reads:
Each State in which any discharge causing or contributing to such pollution originates and each State claiming to be adversely affected by such pollution shall be given an opportunity to select one member of the Hearing Board and at least one member shall be a representative of the Department of Commerce, and not less than a majority of the Hearing Board shall be persons other than officers or employees of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. At least three weeks' prior notice of such hearing shall be given to the State water pollution control agencies and interstate agencies, if any, called to attend the aforesaid hearing and the alleged polluter or polluters. On the basis of the evidence presented at such hearing, the Hearing Board shall make findings as to whether pollution referred to in subsection (a) is occurring and whether effective progress toward abatement thereof is being made. If the Hearing Board finds such pollution is occurring and effective progress toward abatement thereof is not being made it shall make recommendations to the Secretary concerning the measures, if any, which it finds to be reasonable and equitable to secure abatement of such pollution. The Secretary shall send such findings and recommendations to the person or persons discharging any matter causing or contributing to such pollution, together with a notice specifying a reasonable time (not less than six months) to secure abatement of such pollution, and shall also send such findings and recommendations and such notice to the State water pollution control agency and to the interstate agency, if any, of the State or States where such discharge or discharges originate.
I have read the provisions of the present law in detail in order to emphasize the point that the hearing board, established by the Secretary, does not in itself have the power to direct enforcement action against a polluter. The board is to hear the case as it is developed up to the time when the case is presented to it. Then the board is to make recommendations based upon its findings.
Mr. MILLER. The recommendations are to go to the Secretary. The Secretary, if he thinks such action is indicated, I presume, could then refer the matter to the Department of Justice for enforcement.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. The provision for not less than 6 months' notice, is to give a State or interstate agency an opportunity to move in with its own enforcement board. If they fail to act, in the case of a pollution of waters which is endangering the health and welfare of persons in a State other than those in which the discharge or discharges take place, the Secretary may request the Attorney General of the United States to bring a suit on behalf of the United States to seek abatement of the pollution.
Mr. MILLER. In that action, there would be what might be termed a judicial review. Is that not correct?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. This is the first adversary proceeding in the whole process, in the sense that we lawyers understand the term "adversary proceedings." It is at this point that the polluter is confronted with the enforcement power of the Government.
Mr. MILLER. At that stage of the proceeding, it would be proper for the person aggrieved and the person against whom the abatement action is being brought to argue the reasonableness of
the standards under which the abatement action had been taken?
Mr. MUSKIE. Precisely.
Mr. MILLER. I understand further that in this bill, we have specifically written in another matter than can be considered. It provides on page 10, subsection (d), that the practicability of complying with such standards as may be applicable is also relevant matter. Is that not correct?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. I ought to explain what the provision in the bill which the Senator has just read means. Under S. 4 as originally drawn and S. 649 as passed by the Senate, the court was given the power to consider the practicability of complying with the act. This language would give like power to a hearing board in connection with the functions we have described. I think the board had that power under S. 4 as written, but to make it clear, we have inserted it in the language in the section dealing with the powers of the hearing board.
Mr. MILLER. I appreciate the Senator's extended reply to my question. It will help in making clear what the legislative intention of this language is.
One further observation. The Senator has said that at least a 6-month delay must occur to give State agencies an opportunity to proceed in an abatement action. I assume that the procedures under the State laws involved would embrace judicial review. Is that correct?
Mr. MUSKIE. I did not hear the last part of the question.
Mr. MILLER. I assume that the procedures under the State laws involved would admit of judicial review.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. MILLER. So, either way, the aggrieved person, whether it be in a procedure before a State agency or a procedure under the law proposed by S. 4, has the assurance that there will be an opportunity for judicial review under which the reasonableness of the standards and practicability of compliance therewith will be considered?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield first to the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER].
Mr. COOPER. I say to my friend from Iowa that the amendment which I will propose goes to the very point that has been discussed. I shall not discuss it at this time. I disagree wholly with
the thesis on which the Senator from Maine bases his argument.
Mr. MUSKIE. I have been reading from the provisions of the present law. I have not interpolated any words of my own.
I yield now to the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS].
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I wish to speak very briefly on another matter, but before I do so, I congratulate the Senator from Maine for taking up this very important issue, Increasingly we have interstate problems in dealing with water pollution. The Mississippi is a polluted stream, but eight or nine States are involved in the pollution, and it is difficult to obtain united action on this problem. The same problem exists on lower Lake Michigan as between Indiana and Illinois. The Senator from Maine has made a fine contribution to the solution of this problem.
[Other Senate business intervenes]
WATER QUALITY ACT OF 1965
The Senate resumed the consideration of 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.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, let me congratulate the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] and the members of the Senate Public Works Committee for the speed with which they have considered and reported S. 4. Abatement of water pollution and improved standards of water quality control are most worthy objectives.
In Missouri, we are proud of the fact that we have made great progress in construction of sewage treatment plants, and thus the abatement of pollution of our interstate waters.
In this effort, however, some of our communities, particularly smaller communities such as Caruthersville, Mo., are finding it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to finance the necessary sewage collection and treatment plants.
A community in an economically depressed county, Caruthersville is a city of approximately 8,600 with a high rate of unemployment. Of the 10,443 households in the county, 1,013 are on welfare and 3,518 have been receiving surplus food.
This city is under order from the Missouri Water Pollution Control Board to stop dumping raw sewage into the Mississippi River. The citizens want to meet this requirement. In fact, in August of 1963, they voted by a majority of 659 to 4 to authorize the sale of revenue bonds to pay $484,000 of the estimated cost of $908,000 for construction of the sewage treatment plant, interceptor and outfall mains, plus some extension and modernization of the present sewage system.
The city was counting on the accelerated public works program for grants of $424,000 to pay the balance of the cost. Unfortunately money was exhausted before these worthy applications could be approved.
The city has filed an application for 30 percent of the cost of interceptor, outfall and treatment works, a cost estimated at $657,000; but it does not appear that such a grant would provide sufficient funds to do the job.
Mr. President, I can understand that in the effort to move rapidly on this present bill, S. 4, the Public Works Committee did not go into problems such as that presented by the city of Caruthersville.
I do note, however, that on page 7 of the committee report -- Senate Report No. 10 -- on this bill that the committee states:
It is the intention of the committee to give early and thorough attention to the financial and technological problems confronting communities, large and small, as they endeavor to control and abate municipal sewage.
The committee is confident that out of the experience we have gained under the present act and from information derived from hearings and technical studies it will be able to develop a sound and expanded program of pollution control and abatement grants designed to meet realistic goals of water quality enhancement.
I would ask the distinguished Senator from Maine if this means that consideration will be given to an increase in the percentage of the allowable grant on the cost of sewage treatment plants and the necessary interceptor and outfall sewage mains connected thereto?
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me say to the Senator from Missouri that it is our desire and intent to go into that question. So far as the larger States are concerned, they are not getting a sufficiently large proportion of the total cost of sewage treatment projects from the Federal Government. I believe that is a legitimate concern. In the development of this Program, we have moved toward higher and higher ceilings in that respect, but we still have a problem.
Then there is the question of the percentage of Federal support, particularly in distressed areas. That has been a problem.
The accelerated public works program has been of great assistance in this connection. We have been able to generate Federal grants of 50 percent or more in the past. That experience will be useful to our committee in considering changes in the formulas in the Federal Pollution Act itself.
I assure the Senator from Missouri that it is the full intention of the committee to go into this subject thoroughly, in the hope of developing proposals which will help relieve communities and States, to an even greater extent than in the past, of the burden of dealing with this problem.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I thank the able Senator from Maine. May I ask if this is planned to be done fairly soon?
Mr. MUSKIE. We intend to do it in this session.
Mr. SYMINGTON. In this session?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I thank the chairman. I appreciate his courtesy in acceding to my request in this particular case, and I am sure that will be true in other cases that will arise in the State of Missouri.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes; and I expect to hear other remarks on this subject today.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I, too, commend the Senator from Maine and his subcommittee and the full committee for the very fine work they have done on this timely subject and troublesome question, to which some solution must be found.