October 4, 1972
Page 33717
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I would like to direct a few questions to the distinguished Senator from Maine (Mr. MusKIE) concerning the citizen suit provision of this bill, section 505. My friend from Maine and I have worked together closely on this provision in the conference, but I wish to inquire for the record.
Section 505 is identical to the comparable Senate provision, with two changes. One concerns the time period before a suit may be brought. The other concerns the definition of "citizen." Is this correct?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct. The provision in subsection 505 (b) of the Senate bill which had permitted the bringing of an immediate action has been modified to permit the bringing of immediate action after notification only with respect to a violation of sections 306 and 307(a) of the act.
The other change does concern the definition of citizen. Under the Senate bill, as under the Clean Air Act, there was no definition of citizen. The House bill had defined it in a way which might have severely restricted citizen suits. The conference agreed to define "citizen" to mean "a person or persons having an interest which is or may be adversely affected."
Mr. BAYH. Under the definition of "citizen" could a group of persons, like a club, or a corporation or an unincorporated association bring a citizen suit, if the other requirements were met?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. The definition cf "citizen" includes "persons" and it is intended that this word include groups like those you have identified. Under section 1 of title 1 of the United States Code, the word "person" would be so defined.
Mr. BAYH. I thank the Senator. Let me explore now the concept of "an interest which is or may be adversely affected." Would an interest in a clean environment – which would be invaded by a violation of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or a permit thereunder – be an "interest" for purposes of this section?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is the intent of the conference, as I am sure the Senator from Indiana well knows. The conference report states:
It is the understanding of the conferees that the conference substitute relating to the definition of the term "citizen" reflects the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Sierra Club v. Morton (No. 70-34, April 19, 1972).
In the Sierra Club case, the Supreme Court was asked to interpret section 10 of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. section 702 – which contains wording similar to that of section 505 (g) of the conference bill. The Supreme Court emphasized that "the interest alleged to have been injured may reflect aesthetic, conservational and recreational as well as economic values." The Court also said:
Aesthetic and environmental well-being, like economic well-being, are important ingredients of the quality of life in our society, and the fact that particular environmental interests are shared by the many rather than the few does not make them less deserving of legal protection through the legal process.
Thus it is clear that under the language agreed to by the conference, a non-economic interest in the environment, in clean water, is a sufficient base for a citizen suit under section 505.
Further, every citizen of the United States has a legitimate and established interest in the use and quality of the navigable waters of the United States. Thus, I would presume that a citizen of the United States, regardless of residence, would have an interest as defined in this bill regardless of the location of the waterway and regardless of the issue involved.
Mr. BAYH. I thank my good friend from Maine. I believe that the conference provision will not prevent any person or group with a legitimate concern about water quality from bringing suit against those who violate the act or a permit, or against the Administrator if he fails to perform a nondiscretionary act. These sorts of citizen suits – in which a citizen can obtain an injunction but cannot obtain money damages for himself – are a very useful additional tool in enforcing environmental protection laws. I am glad to see that authority for such suits is included in this bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator from Indiana for his interest and for his help on this bill.