November 2, 1971
Page 38837
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk. It is offered on behalf of the Senator from Massachusetts and myself. If it is convenient to do so, I should like to call it up at this time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Does the Senator from Alaska have a short amendment?
Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
On page 43, line 13, delete "$1,000,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$2,000,000".
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield myself as much time as I may need. I will make my presentation as short as possible.
First, I commend the chairman of the subcommittee, the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE), and the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER) for their great interest in the program initiated by the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY) and me last year. We find, however, that the authorization is insufficient because new facilities and new techniques have had to be developed in order to try to put sewage and water control facilities into the very remote areas of my State.
That is the reason we have sought an increase by $1 million. We will first have to go to the Committee on Appropriations for the money. I am indebted to the chairman for his comments that he will seek to help us in this regard.
I do have some questions for the Senator. We may take the time out of the time on the amendment. I will try to make them very short.
I point out to the chairman that Alaska has 56 percent of the total coastline of the country and 50 percent of the fresh water supply in this country remaining uncontaminated.
As I read section 305, a heavy duty is placed on my State.
It states:
Each State shall prepare and submit to the Administrator by July 1, 1974, and shall bring up to date each year thereafter, a report which shall include–
It then has subsections (A), (B), and (C). The first is a description of the water quality of all navigable waters in such State. The second is an analysis of the extent to which all navigable streams of such State provide for the protection and propagation of fish and wildlife. The third is an analysis of the extent to which the elimination of the discharge of pollutants and the level of water quality provides for the protection of fish.
I appreciate the goal the Senator seeks. My State particularly appreciates it. We have pure water and we want to keep it. However, as I understand the comments of the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation, our people feel that to comply with this section in our State, as vast as it is, would require us to dedicate our whole available budget for water pollution control and for the protection and preservation of our presently pure water to prepare a report to be submitted annually to the Administrator.
I would very much like to develop some legislative history here that would find a way to exempt our State from this deadline or else take some recognition in the bill of the situation in which Alaska finds itself. It is not an easy problem to solve for the chairman, I am sure, since we want to get a national standard. However, no other State in the Union has this problem.
I know of no real pollution in our State of any vast nature. As a matter of fact, we have the toughest State-passed water pollution and environmental quality measure in the Nation.
We seek some understanding on the part of the chairman and on the part of the committee of this vast problem and burden that this measure would place on the State of Alaska.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the important and key bit of information sought under section 305 is to identify and make an inventory of all point sources of discharge of pollutants into all navigable waters and the waters of the contiguous zone.
The Senator knows his State better than I do, of course. Notwithstanding the tremendous coastline or the magnitude of the water resources in Alaska which, it is my understanding, are clean and undefiled, we have simply asked for an identification of the source of pollutants. That is an enormous task with respect to a State such as mine. I am sure that we have more sources to identify and more water to evaluate than perhaps Alaska. That is the important and key piece of information we seek.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we would be most happy to deliver that information. I think we could qualify under that without any question. We would keep track of that. That is subsections (A) and (B). The second, which is subsection (B) would be part of our State water plan.
However, the first one, subsection (A), is an absolute burden on my State that Alaska cannot comply with in that period of time, I am informed.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I am not a technician, and I would not want anything I say to presume that I qualify as having that kind of expertise. It would seem to me that as to the waterways in the State, there would not be too much difficulty in describing those. It is with respect to what natural quality has diminished or has been modified by the discharge of pollutants that diminish activities that we get into difficulties in evaluating.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, subsection (A), if I could point out to the chairman, deals with seasonal, tidal, and other variations of all navigable waters and the waters of the contiguous zone in relation to the quality of the water required by the objectives of this act.
That will require us to undertake a massive report that the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation says we could not accomplish without massive funding. Probably it would require half of the funding under the act, and we will not get that, I am sure.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I say that what this act is trying to get at is man's activities as they defile the environment. It does not strike me from anything the Senator has said, let alone any impressions I had, that waterways of Alaska have been so defiled by man's activities as to constitute such a condition. We are not asking any State to purify the water above its natural state. We are trying to eliminate the consequences of man's activities.
Mr. STEVENS. This section has been interpreted, and in reading it I agree with our Department of Environmental Quality, to require an inventory of all navigable waterways of the State without regard to man's activities. If this is just in the area where the activities of man would change the water quality, we can comply with that without question.
Mr. MUSKIE. In this bill we are seeking to identify activities which have diminished the natural quality of water, to be alert to new activities, to establish for the record in accordance with a reasonable schedule a record of a water quality that exists as of a given time so that we can have a benchmark against which to measure in the future the result of man's activities. I am sure the administrative judgment on what is required under the section would be related to the actual situation in the State.
Mr. STEVENS. If the Senator is willing to limit section A to an inventory of those waters which are involved in subsection C which deals with those which are polluted by man's activities, I can understand it. If we have to prepare an inventory of all available water supplies of our State, together with a graded system on the quality of that water as it exists on the first day of each year after 1974, I can tell the Senator that we are one-fifth the size of the United States and it cannot be done in that time.
We have a fantastic coastline and I believe our waterline is 50 percent that of the entire United States. I am willing to rely on the record that we will be in compliance if it grades those areas affected by man's activities and the report is presented to the Administrator on that basis.
Mr. MUSKIE. I have no desire to mislead the Senator or apply anything but the rules of commonsense to what the committee bill requires. I am not the Administrator. If I were to try to begin issuing guidelines for every State represented here, I would be accepting an impossible task.
I am trying to suggest that the key piece of information is this: I think at some point that Alaska, or any other State, would be interested in having a record of its water in the natural state so that they can anticipate the result of man's activities, as man encroaches on them. It seems to me that the Administrator will require how much information he wants in a given time. I would not think he would make that burdensome.
Mr. STEVENS. I will move to another section, section 402. We have been involved with the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs in connection with the land planning bill and the Committee on Commerce in connection with the ocean dumping bill.
I note that section 402 of this bill will cover navigable waters, including contiguous zones, and since I have asked questions on the other two bills pending, and we have an amendment to one of them that will protect this area, I would like to ask the chairman if my understanding is correct with respect to those people who are engaged in fishing. That is the major business of my State and it is a very large business in the Northwest. I understand those people involved in fishing and canning activities related to fishing will have to have a permit from the State, EPA, and the Coast Guard to dump waste from the activity, that is, the residue of the fish from the canning process, the waste from the canneries, and the cleaning of the fish onboard ship.
Am I correct? Will we have to have three permits, one from the State, one from the Environmental Protection Agency, and one from the Coast Guard to continue what we are doing now without a permit?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Coast Guard is under the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee, and of course, the State is sovereign, but this would impose a requirement on substances discharged, yes.
Mr. STEVENS. As I understand section 402 it requires the establishment of a system of elimination of discharge. I am referring to page 158 of the bill. I wonder if the chairman has considered exempting those activities which are not, in fact, dealing with the type of pollutants involved here.
We, in our part of the country, and I am sure the people of Maine, would think that the product of cleaning fish is not pollution when it is dumped back in the ocean. It is considered food for the balance of the fishery resources in the area.
As I understand it, this definition covers those vessels which transport the discharges of fishing boats and canneries.
Mr. MUSKIE. With respect to the permit referred to on page 158, line 10, that provision was inserted at the request of the Committee on Commerce, as the Senator may know. They are involved in jurisdiction over this area. An agreement was worked out that was satisfactory to both committees. That particular language is inserted at the request of the Committee on Commerce. It did not originate from any policy decision in this committee.
Mr. STEVENS. I am aware of that, but at the same time the Committee on Commerce adopted a position that the disposition of waste from the fishing activities back into the ocean is not pollution. I do not see that in this bill. That is my point at this time. The bill is couched in terms of discharge into the territorial sea, and we, in fact, do discharge the portion of the fish remaining when they are cleaned, the heads and the tails, as they are processed. We do not consider that pollution.
Mr. MUSKIE. I assume it depends on where it is discharged. If it were in my backyard, it would be pollution; if it were in an estuary otherwise crowded with other activities, it might be pollution. If it were discharged several miles off the coast, it might be considered otherwise. This jurisdiction goes out to the 3-mile limit, not beyond; and beyond that, it is in the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee. Perhaps we ought to adjust the jurisdiction of these committees, but it was not easy to work out the agreement which we worked out.
Mr. STEVENS. I beg to call the chairman's attention to page 152. I thought that was the agreement, but section 402 covers the waters of the contiguous zone, or the oceans, and that is beyond that 3-mile limit. We had an agreement on the contiguous zone and the estuary water. We had an agreement in the Commerce Committee that when we dump outside of the bays, where there is tidal action, it is not a pollutant. In the bays, I agree that it may be a pollutant, but outside, where there is tidal action, it is not a pollutant. Perhaps it is something that can be worked out, but I would like to be certain that the agreement we have worked out in the Commerce Committee would be reflected in this bill as it goes into conference. We are not seeking to pollute anything. We are seeking to dump natural waste of fish back into the ocean bottom, where it is not a pollutant.
Mr. MUSKIE. I refer the Senator to the definition of the word "pollutant" on page 164, and I understand this is very similar to the one in the Commerce Committee. It reads:
The term 'pollutant' means, but is not limited to, dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemicals wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment.
And so on.
Provided, it does not mean (1) "sewage from vessels" within the meaning of section 312 of this Act; or (2) water, gas or other material which is injected into a well to facilitate production of oil or gas, or water derived in association with oil or gas production ...
And so forth.
The term 'pollution' means the man-made or man-induced alteration of the natural chemical, physical, biological, and radiological integrity of water.
Again, I do not get into the business of defining or applying these definitions to particular kinds of pollutants. That is an administrative decision to be made by the Administrator. Sometimes a particular kind of matter is a pollutant in one circumstance, and not in another. That is a decision to be made. I am very reluctant to try to make it on the floor of the Senate.
Mr. STEVENS. Perhaps I can approach it in this way. As I read the bill, it refers to the discharge of any pollutant, into the territorial sea. If I am wrong, perhaps I can reexamine it, but we did work out a provision in the two companion bills that this bill is related to. One of those bills is the ocean dumping bill and one is the coastal zone management bill. We would like to see the same guidelines in these three acts coming along so the fishing people know where they are.
Unfortunately, if we get one standard into the ocean dumping bill and the same into the coastal zoning bill but this is not reflected in the bill now before the Senate, we will be required to provide three permits in order for a barge underneath a cannery to take the remains of the fish to the high seas and dump them.
Mr. MUSKIE. This bill does not prohibit the discharge; it prohibits the discharge of any pollutant. So we get back to what a pollutant is under a particular set of circumstances. I cannot interpret all of the circumstances. The Administrator can do so. I would like to do that, to be helpful to my colleague, but we are going to have to leave it to the judgment of the Administrator.
I agree also with what the Senator said about proliferation of permits. The world is becoming increasingly integrated, and it becomes increasingly difficult to define the jurisdiction of the committees. The Commerce Committee takes jurisdiction outside the 3-mile limit. Within the 3-mile limit, we take jurisdiction. We try to operate within the jurisdiction of the committee, and say that fish entrails, under certain conditions, are pollutants, no matter how natural they are, just as the disposition of human bodies might be pollutants, no matter how natural they are.
Mr. STEVENS. Does the chairman say that the bill does not apply to the oceans or beyond the 3-mile limit?
Mr. MUSKIE. Except for outfalls that originate on land and are discharged.
Mr. STEVENS. Has section 402 (a) (1) been amended? Is there to be a competing system of permits different from what is provided in the two bills that I spent months working on? In this system that applies only to the 3-mile limit, we can understand why there is a prohibition for dumping fish entrails within the 3-mile limit, and why it is authorized under the ocean dumping bill. But my understanding is that this is overlapping.
Mr. MUSKIE. All I can say to the Senator is that the 3-mile limit, except for outfalls, outlines the limits of this committee's jurisdiction, and the Senator has that legislative history. We will try to find the language for the Senator.
Mr. STEVENS. On page 152, if I may call it to the attention of the chairman of the committee, it provides that the Administrator may "issue a permit for the discharge of any pollutant, or combination of pollutants, into the navigable waters, the waters of the contiguous zone, or the oceans."
It is my understanding – and I am happy to see the chairman of our Commerce Committee (Mr. MAGNUSON) present – that we had reached an understanding that we are limited to the 3-mile limit in this bill. But the bill of the Senator from Maine appears to go beyond the 3-mile limit; it goes into the contiguous zone and out into the ocean.
Mr. MUSKIE. It relates to navigable waters, waters of the contiguous zone, and waters up to the 3-mile limit. The reference to oceans relates to outfalls which originate on land and which may go beyond the 3-mile limit into the oceans. To that extent we have jurisdiction. Beyond that, the activities on the ocean are under the jurisdiction of the committee which the distinguished Senator from Washington heads. There is a very clear understanding between the two committees. There is no hedging.
There are no ands, ifs, or buts. I do not know how to make it any clearer.
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator could make it clearer by telling us what he means by – "contiguous zone or the oceans."
Mr. MUSKIE. That would cover outfalls.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield I might say that what the Senator from Maine has said is my understanding of the interpretation.
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me read some language from page 166, line 11
The term "discharge" means (1) any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source, (2) any addition of any pollutant to the waters of the contiguous zone or the ocean from any point source other than a vessel or other floating craft, or (3) any addition of any pollution to publicly owned treatment works (as defined in section 210 of this Act) by any industrial user ...
That seems clear to me. It may not be to the Senator.
Mr. STEVENS. If the understanding of the Senator is correct that the language means ocean or contiguous zones as explained by the Senator from Maine, and if there is nothing in this bill that purports to limit any activities of fishing or canning vessels beyond the 3-mile limit, and that is in fact included in the bill we are working on now in the Commerce Committee, I am pleased to retire my side.
That is my understanding of what the Senator from Washington has said and what the Senator from Maine has just said.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is absolutely correct.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator very much, and I am delighted that we have had the colloquy.
I mention one further item to the Senator from Maine, the chairman of the subcommittee. I am grateful to him for his courtesy to me. The department also raised the question of whether section 13 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 should be specifically repealed. As I understand, that is in conference and the Senator will try to work it out.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Alaska has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. Do I have time on the amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Senator has time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Then I shall use my time. Yes, the Senator is correct; that will be taken care of, and presumably in conference.
Mr. STEVENS. Again I thank the Senator for his courtesy, and urge that the amendment be adopted.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. The amendment which the Senator has offered relates to the Alaska villages.
Mr. STEVENS. The Safe Water Facilities Act.
Mr. MUSKIE. And what it does is simply increase the authorization from $1 million to $2 million, which would seem to me to be an appropriate amendment, considering the increase in costs and the importance of moving forward with that project. I am willing to accept the amendment and take it to conference. I have checked with the minority, and we are both ready to take it.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator very much. I ask that the Senator (Mr. KENNEDY) be listed as a cosponsor of the amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All remaining time having been yielded back, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Alaska (Mr. STEVENS).
The amendment was agreed to.