November 2, 1971
Page 38825
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1971
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill (S. 2770) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SCHWEIKER. Mr. President, I should like to inquire of the Senator about the reimbursement provision of subsection 206(b) relating to projects constructed in the period between June 30, 1956 and June 30, 1966. I assume that the difference in the language used in subsection (a) and subsection (b) is significant. Subsection (a) – dealing with projects constructed between 1966 and 1971 – talks about projects that were "initiated in a State after June 30, 1966" whereas the pertinent portion of subsection (b) reads "was constructed with, or was eligible for, Federal financial assistance under this act between June 30, 1956 and June 30, 1966." The choice of different phraseology would not appear to be inadvertent. Thus, projects which were constructed largely or in part after June 30, 1956 and which were otherwise eligible for Federal financial assistance at that time would qualify for reimbursement under subsection 206(b).
Since, as I understand it, the entire reimbursement provision is remedial and intended to place on an equal footing all cities which, at an early date undertook to meet the problems of their areas, I assume that a community which entered into negotiations and which signed a contract prior to June 30, 1956 for water treatment facilities, but in which the bulk of the construction occurred after June 30, 1956 would be entitled to reimbursement for that portion of the construction which would occur after the June 30, 1956 date to the extent eligible for such Federal funding had the limits in the law not applied and had funds been available. This, of course, would be subject to the requirement that the project met the other criteria for eligibility, namely, that the project was approved by the State water pollution control agency and that the project would meet the requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. I would also assume that the eligibility, under such circumstances, would be on a pro rata basis so that the community would only receive reimbursement for that portion of the construction that occurred after June 30, 1956.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator's understanding is correct.
Mr. BEALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. BEALL. I invite the Senator's attention to page 77 of the bill, section 302(a), under "Water Quality Related Effluent Limitations," and note that this section allows a State or the Administrator to establish effluent limitations relating to water quality for specific portions of navigable waters to assure the protection of public water supplies and agricultural and industrial uses and the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and provides for recreation in and on the water.
I am wondering if it is intended that all navigable waters shall support body contact and recreational activities. If that is the case, it seems to me it is inconsistent with protecting the waters for agricultural and industrial purposes, and if that is so, the word should be "or" rather than "and."
Mr. MUSKIE. No. The objective is to protect water for the highest possible use, not the lowest.
We are talking, not about protecting any of these activities in their present use, but to make the water of such quality as to be available for these purposes. There is a difference between the two.
If water is clean enough to be used for drinking water, it is also clean enough to be used on the land for agricultural purposes. But if it is clean enough only to be used, say, for the absorption of cannery wastes, it is not clean enough to be used for agricultural purposes.
In other words, what we are trying to achieve here is the highest possible level of water quality as this program develops. That highest level obviously makes it possible to apply that water to all uses below that level. But it is not the intention of the language to protect the present use of that water without regard to what that use is doing to the quality of the water.
Mr. BEALL. I thought the purpose was to try to achieve that standard by 1985, which is the date in the bill, but at the same time there would be a recognition that the use for agricultural activities might take place, rather than for certain body contact with the water for which it was not developed or which might be inconsistent with having effluent limitations which would not support body contact recreation.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator must read the language differently with respect to non-point sources, to be eliminated by 1985, and the bill as it applies to point sources, to be accomplished by 1981.
With reference to non-point sources, the Senator is correct. We have not yet developed the technology to deal with any of those problems. The bill undertakes, in other portions, to begin the process of developing those answers, which would involve land use and other controls of that kind.
Mr. BEALL. I am not quite sure I understand the answer to my question.
Mr. MUSKIE. Perhaps if the Senator would repeat his question, I might be able to focus on it for a better answer.
Mr. BEALL. I am interposing on the generosity of the Senator from Wisconsin. Perhaps, to clarify the record, I could ask the question and the answer could be clarified for the record.
The word "reasonably" appears on line 8 of page 78 of the bill, and that perhaps answers my question. Does the Senator think that the word "reasonably" grants the kind of flexibility that might be needed in accomplishing the objective of this section?
Mr. MUSKIE. That word relates to the fact that at the present time we are not able to establish direct links between water quality and the particular effluent discharge, especially when there is a multiplicity of effluent systems. We hope to develop those. As we do, we can perhaps more effectively establish water quality standards. That is what the word "reasonably" relates to.
Did the Senator have in mind the question of whether the controls we are discussing in the bill, in section 302, would have the effect of inhibiting general agricultural activities?
Mr. BEALL. Or general activities, or agricultural use.
Mr. MUSKIE. No. The discharge standard applies to point source control. Agricultural runoff is one form of agricultural activity that is a nonpoint source. It is a runoff into water that occurs perhaps miles away from the land that adjoins it.
There is no effective way as yet, other than land use control, by which you can intercept that runoff and control it in the way that you do a point source. We have not yet developed technology to deal with that kind of a problem. We need to find ways to deal with it, because a great quantity of pollutants is discharged by runoff, not only from agriculture but from construction sites, from streets, from parking lots, and so on, and we have to be concerned with developing controls for them.
TITLE I
Mr. BEALL. Section 101(b) on page 3 states the policy of Congress as protecting the States' responsibility to plan the "use" of water resources, but several subsequent provisions appear to deny the continued recognition of "water use" as a basis for water quality control. Is it the intention of this legislation to abandon the basis of many of the present State laws which are built around the concept of designating legitimate uses for specific waters and relating the quality and effluent limitations to support those uses?
Mr. MUSKIE. The bill redirects the program of water pollution control from one of application of effluent controls through cause-effect relationships to one of application of effluent limitations directly on all point sources based on technological responses. The bill does provide water quality objectives ultimately to restoration and maintenance of the natural chemical, physical, and biological integrity and in the interim water quality necessary to protect and propagate a balanced population of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water. To the extent existing State programs are compatible with these objectives, they would not be affected by this act.
Mr. BEALL. Section 106 (h) (7) on page 31 would prevent the Administrator from making a grant to the State unless it has "procedures to assure the maintenance and enhancement of the quality of any waters in such State." Is not this a potential limitation on future industrial development of some regions or localities unless there is some modification of this language to recognize the need to balance social and economic benefits with social and economic costs?
Mr. MUSKIE. The question refers to a restatement of the nondegradation principle which has been an essential element of the 1965 act and which has been specifically reserved in this bill.
Nondegradation does not prevent economic development. Rather it assures that such development will be made compatible with the environment.
TITLE II
Mr. BEALL. Section 201 (b) on page 46 would require that "waste treatment management plans" provide for the application of the "best practicable water treatment technology" before any discharge into the receiving waters. The first expression of what the "best practicable water treatment technology" might be comes some 35 pages later in the bill in section 304(b) (1), but this expression is stated as complying only with section 301(b) (1). Should not the same factors stated in section 304(b) (1) for assessing "best practicable technology" apply to section 201 (b)?
Mr. MUSKIE. The information published under section 304(b) (1) sets forth the factors related to point sources of discharge other than waste treatment works. Information published under section 304(d) sets forth the factors related to the control requirements placed on treatment works in phase I and phase II under the act.
Mr. BEALL. Section 306 (a) (1) on page 90 defines the term "standard of performance" in terms of the greatest degree of effluent reduction achievable using "best available control technology."
Section 304(b) (2) (B) specifies the factors to be taken into account in assessing the "best available technology" in order to comply with section 301 (b) (2). Should not these same factors apply to assessing "best available technology" in section 306 (a) (1) ? If so, this could be done easily by cross-referencing section 304(b) (2) (B) in section 306 (a) (1) after "best available control technology."
Mr. MUSKIE. Section 304 (b) (2) (B) establishes the information necessary for existing point sources other than treatment works. Section 304 (c) sets forth the information necessary to comply with standard of performance applicable to new sources established under section 306.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time of the Senator from Maine has expired. The Senator from Delaware has 56 minutes remaining.