February 2, 1971
Page 1346
S. 523 – INTRODUCTION OF THE NATIONAL WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ACT OF 1971
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, a year ago, when I introduced expanded water pollution legislation I said in complete candor that the Federal water quality program is still lagging behind the goals set by the Congress. Little has happened to change that fact.
It was 6 years ago that the Congress first declared a national policy for improvement of water quality, set up the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, and put in motion the program for high water quality standards.
A year later in the Clean Water Restoration Act, the Congress authorized $3.4 billion worth of Federal grants to assist in the construction of municipal waste treatment plants. The major cities were encouraged to take part in the program.
The results to date are skimpy. Millions of dollars have been spent on research and planning with little effect upon water quality. Standards have been promulgated, but only a minority of States have had standards approved for all interstate waters.
But inadequate funding has delayed implementation of these standards. Of the $3.4 billion authorized for waste treatment plants, only $2.2 billion has been appropriated. Many States and localities have not yet been reimbursed for the Federal share of plants already built and in operation.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration itself has been a stepchild. Short of funds and manpower, its enforcement activities have been spotty. Now, under a new name, it is getting a new start with the Environmental Protection Agency.
While abatement conferences have dragged on in private, citizens have not been fully involved in the struggles for water quality. Vigorous actions against polluters have been commenced but have not been taken to court. Polluters have continued to foul rivers, lakes, and coastal zones.
New problems also have developed. During the past year, the problems of ocean dumping of nerve gas and Navy oil, of mercury in the food chain, of phosphates and nitrilotriacetic acid – NTA – in detergents, were considered by the Congress.
The Senate Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution alone devoted 14 days in April, May, and June to public hearings on more than a dozen bills dealing with some of the old – and some of the new – water pollution problems.
Last year both houses agreed to an appropriation of $1 billion – from an authorization of $1.25 billion – for construction of waste treatment plants in fiscal year 1971.
Fortunately, in my opinion, the $1 billion appropriation is the last available under the 1966 act, On June 30, 1971, unless the Congress takes further action, the authority for the water quality program will expire.
And so, now is the proper time for the Congress to revise the Federal water quality program, to require stricter standards and tougher enforcement, to encourage greater public participation and certainly to authorize adequate funding for construction of waste treatment plants needed in all parts of the country.
To accomplish these purposes, Mr. President, I offer for introduction in the Senate a bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and to authorize $2.5 billion in Federal grants for each of the next 5 years, the Federal share of $25 billion worth of waste treatment plants.
Let me emphasize that I believe a 5-year, $25 billion national program is neither too little nor too much for the country to handle. The administration last year, in my opinion, recommended too little: A 4-year, $10 billion national program with the Federal Government contributing $4 billion.
During the subcommittee's hearings, I asked the National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors to survey the national needs for water pollution control. Their report estimated the needs over the next 6 years at $33 to $37 billion.
The survey covered more than 5,000 cities, counties, and special districts serving 89.4 million persons. It concluded that
A $3 to $4 billion a year Federal program can be easily justified in light of present needs.
Some portions of the bill I introduce today are similar to proposals considered by the Subcommittee during its hearings last year. Some portions of the bill are newly developed from testimony received and from the subcommittee's experience with other environmental legislation.
Among the proposals considered last year and retained in the new bill are:
First. Incentives to encourage river basin development and financing of treatment systems for all sources of waste within the basin.
Second. Extension of the water quality standards program and implementation plans to all navigable waters.
Third. A requirement that all new industrial facilities which use the navigable waters of the United States shall incorporate the best available pollution control technology.
Fourth. A requirement that enforceable effluent standards and compliance schedules be included in any implementation plans for water quality.
Fifth. Tighter Federal enforcement procedures on a uniform, effective basis with quick access to the courts.
Sixth. Greater public participation in the development of water quality standards.
Seventh. Extension of public participation to enforcement by permitting citizen suits against alleged violators of water quality standards and the Administrator of EPA.
Eighth A requirement that Federal water quality criteria for all pollutants be published and revised on a regular schedule as a sound basis for developing water quality standards and implementation plans.
Among the newly developed portions of the bill are the following:
First. A requirement that all water quality standards be adopted within a statutory deadline and attained within 3 years of approval by the EPA Administrator.
Second. A prohibition against any degradation of present water quality.
Third. Authority for the EPA Administrator to assure protection of water quality in the territorial sea and the contiguous zone through regulation of ocean dumping.
Fourth A requirement that new industrial facilities must be certified by State and Federal governments to comply with water quality standards, and closed cycle systems must be used as they become available.
Fifth. Authority for the EPA Administrator, whenever he finds a violation of water quality standards, and State enforcement is inadequate, to order abatement or go to court for an injunction against the violation.
Sixth. Civil penalties for negligent violation of water quality standards of $10;000 a day. A knowing violation would be subject to a criminal penalty of $25,000 a day, or up to 1 year in prison, or both. After the first conviction, the penalties would be doubled.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have an analysis of the bill printed at this point in the RECORD.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BENTSEN). The bill will be received and appropriately referred; and, without objection, the analysis will be printed in the RECORD.
The bill (S. 523) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, introduced by Mr. MUSKIE. (for himself and other Senators), was received, read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Public Works.
The analysis of the bill presented by Mr. MUSKIE is as follows:
ANALYSIS OF THE BILL
1. State assistance grants.– Beginning in fiscal year 1972, the bill doubles the authorization for grants to State and interstate water pollution control agencies to $20 million annually.
The bill provides that this money be used to supplement, not supplant, State and interstate funds.
The bill adds a new requirement that Federal assistance funds be used to help develop and carry out effective plans for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of water quality standards and effluent requirements under the water quality standards program. If a State fails to have its plans approved or implement them in timely fashion, grant money can be forfeited.
2. Waste treatment construction grant program.– The bill continues the present direct grant program for construction of waste treatment works for five fiscal years (1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, and 1976) with several changes designed to improve the program, achieve more efficient waste treatment, and make it more consistent with national water quality standards program.
The bill increases the authorization from $1.25 billion in fiscal year 1971 to $2.5 billion annually through fiscal year 1976. If fully funded, this authorization would generate the construction of $25 billion worth of municipal waste treatment works.
The bill also extends the reimbursement provisions of the Act to June 30, 1976. Funds allotted to a State would be available for new treatment works to reimburse communities for works constructed since 1966.
The present provision of the Act for allocation of the first $100 million appropriated each year on the basis of a formula designed to help rural areas is retained. The bill requires that funds not obligated within six months after the beginning of the fiscal. year because of a lack of State approved and certified treatment works shall be reallotted to States eligible for 50 to 60 percent grants.
The present grant program authorizes 30, 40 and 50 percent grants for treatment works depending on the level of State assistance and water quality standards.
RIVER BASINS
As an additional incentive to river basin planning the bill authorizes a Federal share of 60 percent of the cost of treatment works located in basins designated by the Administrator. 40 percent of the cost of construction would be shared by the participating States, communities and industries located in the basin.
The Administrator would designate basins eligible for these increased grants and would make such increased grants after a finding that an effective and economical system for the collection and treatment of all waste discharges in the basin has been established consistent with approved water quality standards.
CONSTRUCTION PRIORITIES
Under the present system, each State sets its own priorities for the funding of treatment works construction. This bill requires that the criteria for determining these priorities must at least be consistent with the State plans for implementation, maintenance and enforcement of water quality standards. The Administrator is authorized to withhold grants from States that do not have priority systems consistent with this plan.
3. Water quality standards.– The bill establishes that the purpose of water standards is to protect and enhance the existing quality of all waters; encourages public participation in the development, enforcement and revision of such standards; extends the water quality standards program to all navigable waters and their tributaries in the United States; requires that all standards be adopted with statutory deadlines and attained within three years of approval; prohibits degradation of present water quality; requires that all standards include effluent requirements and compliance schedules; requires a review and, where appropriate, a revision of standards by the States at a minimum of every five years; extends water quality standards to the waters of the contiguous zone; and authorizes the Administrator and his representatives to enforce all standards.
4. Ocean dumping and new sources.– Discharges into the ocean would be regulated through permits granted by the Administrator to assure protection of water quality of the territorial sea and the contiguous zone.
The bill directs the Administrator to issue regulations requiring that any new building or facility subject to water quality standards use the latest available pollution control technology. New facilities must be certified by the State and Federal governments to comply with water quality standards, and closed-cycle systems must be used as they become available.
5. Enforcement. – The bill provides that the discharge of any wastes in violation of water quality standards, effluent requirements, schedules for compliance, or prohibitions of discharges of hazardous substances is prohibited. Whenever the Administrator finds such a violation, and that State enforcement is inadequate, he is authorized to order abatement or go to court to seek an injunction against the violation.
The bill provides that a negligent violation of a water quality standard, a requirement of an implementation plan, or an order of the Administrator would be liable to a civil penalty of $10,000 per day of violation. A knowing violation of a water quality standard, a requirement of an implementation plan or an order of the Administrator, or any violation of a prohibition of discharge of a hazardous substance, would be subject to a criminal penalty of $25,000 per day of violation or imprisonment for up to one year, or both. The penalties are doubled after the first conviction.
The Administrator is granted broad powers to enter and inspect effluent sources, to sample, and to require monitoring and reporting of effluents and other relevant data, and to make such information available to the public.
6. Imminent endangerment.– The bill authorizes the Administrator to bring suits in the United States district courts in cases where he has evidence that an effluent source presents (a) an imminent or substantial endangerment to the health of persons or fish and wildlife, or (b) substantial economic injury to persons marketing shellfish or shellfish products. This provision should enable the Administrator to act promptly to protect people, fish and wildlife, and our commercial shellfish industry.
7. Citizen suits. Any person may sue a polluter to abate a violation of water quality standards, effluent requirements, schedules for compliance, or prohibitions of hazardous substance discharges, or such person may sue the Administrator to seek enforcement or the performance of any duty under the Act. Costs of litigation, including attorney and expert witness fees, could be awarded to any party.
8. General.– The bill abandons the conference procedure in favor of the quicker and more effective enforcement of water quality standards.
In the case of pollution that endangers the public health or welfare of another Nation the bill provides that the Administrator, at the request of the Secretary of State, shall convene a hearing board to recommend appropriate action to abate the pollution.
9. Employee protection. – The bill protects workers who give information in any proceeding under the Act, including testifying in a proceeding to enforce water quality standards, by making the discharge or discrimination of such worker illegal. The Secretary of Labor shall review cases and investigate. If the Secretary finds illegal discharge or discrimination, he shall issue a decision ordering the rehiring or reinstatement of the employee compensation.
10. Federal procurement.– The Federal government would not purchase goods or services from a person convicted of a knowing violation until the condition was corrected. The President would be required to issue an executive order implementing the policies of the Act in the procurement practices of the United States.
11. Hazardous substances.– The bill provides that any discharge of a hazardous substance designated under Section 12 of the Act would be prohibited, and any discharge would subject the person responsible to liability for all damages caused by the discharge, including clean-up costs, without regard to negligence or willfulness.
12. Also the bill provides for a study of run-off from agricultural areas and from highways and roads.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, it is an honor for me to join the distinguished Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) in cosponsoring this important bill to clean up our Nation's rivers and lakes. It is legislation that will prevent the creation of new dead seas off our coast or in our lakes, and revive those waters that now are dying.
Senator MUSKIE has offered a bill that contains many important concepts discussed last year within our Subcommittee an Air and Water Pollution. Many of the provisions and mechanisms, for example, run parallel to those that we established in last year's amendments to the Clean Air Act.
But, in addition, this bill offers several innovative proposals that deserve very careful attention before current authorizations expire June 30.
Within the next week or so, President Nixon will send to the Congress his environmental message, to be accompanied by a series of significant pollution-control measures. While I have not had the opportunity to read the specific provisions the President will offer, I know that they seek the same goal as this bill: A cleaner, healthier world.
It is my intention to cosponsor the President's proposals when they are sent to the Senate. And I hope many of my colleagues will join with me at that time.
The Committee on Public Works and its Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution have established an effective foundation for environmental enhancement during the past several years. This progress has, in great measure, been accomplished because of a cooperative approach by all Members in a knowledge that the most effective legislation could only be achieved through a careful evaluation of all proposals.
I am honored to cosponsor these bills, as well as those of the administration, in an effort to assure that these concepts receive the fullest evaluation.