CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE

September 25, 1967

Page 26665

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I call attention to section 808 of the bill, on page 157, which reads as follows, and I think it might be well to have the actual wording of the section in the RECORD:

SEC. 808. None of the funds authorized by this Act shall be expended for the construction of any waste treatment or waste disposal system at or in connection with any military installation until after the Secretary of Defense or his designee has consulted with the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration of the Department of the Interior and determined that the degree and type of waste disposal and treatment required in the area in which such military installation is located are consistent with applicable Federal or State water quality standards or other requirements and that the planned system will be coordinated in timing with a State, county, or municipal program which requires communities to take such related abatement measures as are necessary to achieve area wide water pollution cleanup.

I should like to ask simply for clarification of this language. The section seems to lay down two requirements. The first is that whatever is done in a military installation by way of waste treatment should be consistent with Federal or State water quality standards.

I think with respect to that point the language is clear, and I have no difficulty with it. I think it is a sensible requirement. However, the second requirement would appear to be this, that the planned system be coordinated in timing.

I should like to pose three hypothetical situations and ask the Senator what he thinks the application of this language to those situations might be.

First of all, let us take the hypothetical situation of a community which has completely defaulted upon its responsibility to do something about the water pollution problem within its jurisdiction.

With respect to that situation, I take it that this language would mean that the Federal Government ought not to go ahead with its pollution control measures until the community has indicated an interest in going ahead with its own.

Mr. JACKSON. The Senator is correct. I think this is a matter of equity between the Federal Government and the local communities involved.

Mr. MUSKIE. The second hypothetical situation which I would like to pose concerns a situation in which the community has not acted, but in which the Federal installation is the major polluter.

In such a situation, a community may very well have failed to take action because of the lack of evidence that the major polluter, the Federal installation, intended to act.

It seems to me that in that situation, the Federal Government has a responsibility to lead. I would like to know what the impact of this language might be on such a situation.

Mr. JACKSON. I would say that where the Federal Government, through one of its instrumentalities, is responsible for a majority of the pollution in a given area, then certainly the Federal Government should move to expedite action on it without regard necessarily to the local situation, as far as the State or community is concerned. However, I would assume even in that situation that when the Federal Government moves, there should be an understanding with the

local or State officials and with the Federal officials, so that some commitment would be obtained that they would at least move on it without delay, but the Federal Government need not move as a condition precedent. I think that is what concerns the Senator the most. This would occur in very few installations where the major contribution to pollution comes from a military installation.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the third hypothetical situation is one which creates the most difficulty for me because I think it is an actual situation in many cases. It concerns the situation in which a local community is ready to move forward with its waste treatment plans and the State also has concurred in that local initiative. However, the Federal Government has failed to make available the Federal matching funds which would be available under existing law.

May I make the situation more specific. Last year's water pollution bill increased the authorization for waste treatment plants to $450 million. For the current fiscal year, the House has approved appropriations for $200 million. The Senate committee has not yet acted. And, of course, the Senate has not yet acted.

It may very well be that Federal appropriations will be less than the total appropriations approved by Congress last year. It may very well be in many communities that the community initiative is frustrated by the failure of the Federal Government to provide money that was authorized last year.

In that situation, it seems to me that if this language in section 808 has the impact which it appears to have, the Federal Government may be in the position of saying no on two counts. The first is that the Congress has not appropriated the full amount authorized under last year's bill. The second is that the Congress is not willing to go ahead on cleaning up pollution from a Federal installation because the local government -- in the absence of full Federal support -- has not gone forward with its program.

I should appreciate the comment of the Senator on that kind of situation.

Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, I think in connection with the third hypothetical proposition proposed by my good friend, the Senator from Maine, that good faith is obviously the crucial factor in this proposition.

It would seem to me that it would be good sense and good judgment for the Department of Defense to coordinate, as provided in the first part of the proposed section 808, with the Department of Interior in setting up their list. of priorities for pollution abatement.

In this way, those priorities so set up could tie in with the funds they are requesting and asking approval for in connection with the regular program.

What I am trying to say is that there is an opportunity to coordinate the military effort with the civilian effort and that they should go hand in hand.

I would concur heartily with my good friend, the Senator from Maine, that there should not be a penalty in a situation where there has been a showing of good faith on the part of the local community.

I should like to emphasize, however, that as we envisage the section, it is the setting up of a program for next year and from here on out because this is permanent law. The Department of Defense would work closely with the Department of the Interior, and their budget request for pollution abatement would tie in with the funds they are allocating to the States so that we could accomplish the two things together.

Mr. MUSKIE. What the Senator is saying is that the judgment may well vary, case by case.

Mr. JACKSON. The Senator is correct.

Mr. MUSKIE. Depending upon the overall priorities and the good sense indicated in a given situation.

Mr. JACKSON. I just wish to make the general comment that what we were really trying to move against was the idea of making the Department of Defense the guinea pig in communities and sections of the country where there had been no real effort to move on pollution abatement.

I am sure that this colloquy will help to establish the record with reference to section 808. I assure the able Senator from Maine that when we go to conference, we will take a good look at the entire problem, in light of what has been discussed on the floor and what the able Senator from Maine has called to the Senate's attention.

Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator very much for this colloquy.

Mr. KENNEDY of New York. Mr. President, the Senator from Maine has made a cogent point concerning section 808 of the Military Construction Act. I should like to add my own views on this matter.

We in Government have begun to recognize the critical work which must be done at all levels -- local, State and Federal -- in ending the pollution of our waters. The Defense Department, and the Administration have shown their recognition that action is needed. Under Executive Order 11288, water pollution programs will be encouraged at military installations.

Section 808 of the Military Construction and Authorization Act is designed to promote coordination between these Federal programs, and those local, or State programs which are underway. It is of course desirable to promote such coordination; such an effort will provide the maximum use of our resources.

But it is also important that action not be delayed by any one level of government, because of the hesitancy of other levels. I am concerned that Defense Department officials may read this act as crippling their antipollution efforts.

Section 808 bars use of water pollution funds until the Secretary of Defense determines that:

The planned system will be coordinated in timing with a State, county, or municipal program which requires communities to take such related abatement measures as are necessary to achieve area wide water pollution cleanup.

The committee report indicates at page 68:

The above provision was therefore adopted to assure insofar as possible that these projects are carried out only in those areas where the local government is also complying with the Water Pollution Control Act.

I would hope that the "coordination in timing" required by the act will not be read to bar the Federal Government from taking any action until local governments actually begin their work.

Once a locality begins to participate in the Water Pollution Control Act, Federal action would be permitted. That is how I read this act, and I would hope the Defense Department adopts this interpretation. The fight against pollution is too important to be blocked by restrictive readings of legislation.