November 2, 1971
Page 38836
Mr.BYRD of Virginia. Mr. President, I have had queries expressing the fear that the bill will take away from the States their right to control their own antipollution efforts and that the bill will have the effect of diminishing the States' own initiative in the area of water pollution.
Does the Senator from Maine believe that the presence of the sections granting extensive power to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in the areas of preparing guidelines and accepting plans, will have the effect of reducing the role of the States?
Mr. MUSKIE. I am sorry, but I did not hear all that the distinguished Senator said. Did the Senator have reference to a particular section, may I ask?
Mr. BYRD of Virginia. I made particular reference to the power being granted the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in preparing guidelines and accepting plans, and whether that would have the effect of reducing the role of the States – that is, reducing their initiative.
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me say, in the first place, that I am aware some State authorities believe that it does. I do not. In the 1965 law, we codified the legislation for the first time and emphasized that State and local authority would be the primary authority. I still regard it as that. But there is a Federal role, and an important one. Most of the controversy surrounds the specific authority now being exercised by the Federal Government under the Refuse Act of 1899. As the Senator probably knows, under that act, resurrected last year by the administration, direct enforcement authority against polluters can now be applied by either a permit, the withholding of a permit, or under the conditions of a permit.
In the bill, we codified that authority in order to reestablish a balance between State and Federal authority, so that I think, with respect to the Refuse Act of 1899, the pending legislation restores the balance that we wanted to try to establish in 1965.
I am not sure that my answer would satisfy the people who have been making this point to the Senator; but my own view is that the State role is very great, indeed, under this bill, and the burdens will be very great, indeed.
Mr. BYRD of Virginia. The State will still have the initiatives under this proposal?
Mr. MUSKIE. It will have initiatives under several features of the bill.
Mr. BYRD of Virginia. It is the view of the chief patrons of the bill, the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH), that it does not diminish the role of the States?
Mr. MUSKIE. Not in my judgment.
Mr. BYRD of Virginia. I thank the Senator from Maine.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, may I supplement what the Senator from Maine has said?
Mr. BYRD of Virginia. I would appreciate having the Senator from West Virginia do so.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I have listened to the colloquy between the able Senator from Virginia and the chairman of our subcommittee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I ask for an additional minute.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. RANDOLPH. In the earlier period of the consideration of the bill, I had some misgivings, as the Senator from Virginia has expressed. But as we worked our way through the bill in the subcommittee and later in the full committee, I think the role of the States was one that we recognized must be strengthened and must be one of partnership; and also that the responsibilities must be recognized and participation encouraged. I believe that has been accomplished in the bill.
Mr. BYRD of Virginia. I thank the Senator from West Virginia. That is precisely the information I sought.