December 14, 1971
Page 41639
AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on S.1776.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. NUNN) laid before the Senate the amendment of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. 1776), to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, which was to strike out all after the enacting clause, and insert:
That the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (86 Stat. 816; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) is amended
(1) in section 104(u) (2), by striking out "fiscal year 1973" and inserting in lieu thereof "fiscal years 1973 and 1974";
(2) in section 206(e), by striking out "$2,000,000,000" and inserting in lieu thereof "$2,600,000,000";
(3) in section 207, by inserting "206(e)," after "sections";
(4) in section 311
(A) by striking out "(b) (2)" wherever it appears in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), of subsection (f), and inserting in lieu thereof
(b) (3)";
(B) by striking out "Secretary" in the last sentence of paragraph (2) of subsection (f), and inserting in lieu thereof "Administrator"; and
(C) by striking out "(b) (2)" wherever it appears in subsections (g) and (1), and inserting in lieu thereof "(b) (3) ";
(5) in section 315, by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h), and by adding a new subsection (g) to read as follows:
"(g) In addition to authority to appoint personnel subject to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive service, and to pay such personnel in accordance with the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates, the Commission shall have authority to enter into contracts with private or public organizations who shall furnish the Commission with such administrative and technical personnel as may be necessary to carry out the purpose of this section. Personnel furnished by such organizations under this subsection are not, and shall not be considered to be, Federal employees for any purposes, but in the performance of their duties shall be guided by the standards which apply to employees of the legislative branches under rules 41 and 43 of the Senate and House of Representatives, respectively."; and
(6) in section 509(b) (1) (C), by striking out "treatment" and inserting in lieu thereof "pretreatment".
SEC. 2. Notwithstanding the requirements of subsection (c) of section 206 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (86 Stat. 838), applications for assistance under section 206 may be filed with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency until January 31, 1974.
SEC. 3. Funds available for reimbursement under Public Law 92-399 shall be allocated in accordance with subsection (d) of section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (86 Stat. 838), pro rata among all projects eligible under subsection (a) of such section 206 for which applications have been submitted and approved by the Administrator pursuant to such Act. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (d) of such section 208, (1) the Administrator is authorized to make interim payments to each such project for which an application has been approved on the basis of estimates of maximum pro rata entitlement of all applicants under section 206 (a) and (2) for the purpose of determining allocation of sums available under Public Law 92-399, the unpaid balance of reimbursement due such projects shall be computed as of January 31, 1974. Upon completion by the Administrator of his audit and approval of all projects for which an application has been filed under subsection (a) of such section 206, the Administrator shall, within the limits of appropriated funds, allocate to each such qualified project the amount remaining, if any, of its total entitlement. Amounts allocated to projects which are later determined to be in excess of entitlement shall be available for reallocation, until expended, to other qualified projects under subsection (a) of such section 208. In no event, however, shall any payments exceed the Federal share of the cost of construction incurred to the date of the voucher covering such payment plus the Federal share of the value of the materials which have been stockpiled in the vicinity of such construction in conformity to plans and specifications for the project.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, on May 10, 1973, Senator CLARK introduced S. 1776 to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, to authorize a 1-year extension of the pilot operator training program for waste water treatment plants under section 104(g) (1) of Public Law 92-500. The act has authorized funds for this program only through fiscal year 1973. On June 18, the Senate passed S. 1776. Section 1 of the bill before us incorporates the original provisions of S. 1776 as passed by the Senate.
Also incorporated in this bill is the language of Senate Joint Resolution 158, as passed by the Senate on October 11, 1973. This resolution would have amended section 206 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which provides for reimbursement to those agencies that initiated construction on waste treatment plants between June 30, 1966, and July 1, 1972, but did not receive the maximum authorized Federal grant. Reimbursement would be for the difference between the amount of Federal funds received, if any, and 50 percent of total cost, or 55 percent if the project was constructed in conformity with a comprehensive metropolitan plan.
Senate Joint Resolution 158 would have raised the authorization for reimbursement for the 1966 to 1972 period from $2 billion to $2.6 billion as a result of revised EPA estimates. The House-passed version of S. 1776 incorporates this provision.
Because of the delay in promulgation of final regulations and confusion among States and local governments about eligibility under this program, the Senate resolution extended the deadline for filing applications for reimbursement from October 18, 1973, to December 31, 1973. The House- passed version moves that extension to January 31, 1974.
The Senate resolution provided for preliminary disbursement of funds to projects which could be quickly approved for reimbursement on the basis of available documentation, without waiting for final processing of all projects. These advance payments would prevent disruption in community plans and facilitate an orderly cash flow in the U.S. Government. The House-passed version retains this provision.
The House, in its consideration of this legislation, added new language amending section 315 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. That section created the National Commission on Water Quality, composed of five Members of the Senate, five Members of the House, and five presidentially appointed members, to review and independently evaluate for Congress the economic, social and environmental implications of the regulatory aspects of that act. The Commission report must be submitted to the Congress no later than October 18, 1975.
The five Senate Members were designated on January 29, 1973; the House Members on February 5, 1973; and the public members on March 15, 1973. At the Commission's initial meeting on May 15, Governor Rockefeller was elected Chairman and Congressman JONES and myself were elected Vice Chairmen.
From the initial meeting until the present, the Commission, in response to the conference committee charge that the study must be funded, staffed, and initiated with expedition, has been searching for competent staff to expedite the necessary studies. A concerted effort was made by all members of the Commission to identify candidates for the top staff positions. Part of those efforts culminated in a determination that Lt. Gen. Frederick J. Clarke, retired, former Chief of the Corps of Engineers, was the most qualified person presently available for the position of Executive Director. Because of the 2-year life of the Commission, General Clarke was reluctant to accept employment without proper permanent arrangements. His services were then made available to the Commission under terms of a contract with the engineering firm of Tippetts- Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton.
The committee is pleased that the National Commission on Water Quality was able to obtain General Clarke's services. He has dealt with this committee many times on many issues and his record is exemplary. He has a long and distinguished record in solving complex water problems and brings this expertise to the vitally important work of the Commission. He is – by any standards – the best available person for this job. The General Accounting Office, however, advised that the contractual arrangement presents legal difficulties because it results in a non- Federal employee supervising Federal employees. The GAO then advised Governor Rockefeller – the Chairman of the National Commission on Water Quality – that an amendment to section 315 would alleviate this problem. The legislative change was recommended to the Committee on Public Works by the Chairman of the Commission.
Our intention is that the exemption provided in this legislation is to be used exclusively for the services of General Clarke as Executive Director of that Commission. General Clarke will do no work for his engineering firm for compensation. He will receive no compensation from the engineering firm other than that stipulated in the contract between the National Commission on Water Quality and Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton. Finally, that firm will do no work for the National Commission on Water Quality other than as provided under the current contract.
S. 1776, as amended, also includes several technical amendments to correct oversights and incorrect references and are not substantive in nature.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I believe the compromise reached by the committee was the most equitable solution to a very complex and difficult problem. I had originally proposed, and the committee accepted, an allocation formula based 50 percent on population and 50 percent on table 1 of the "needs study" EPA submitted to the Congress in October. However, a review of the impact of this adjustment in the formula revealed that several States would be severely affected by the proposed change. The formula finally approved, which contains a 25-percent allocation based on population and 75 percent on table 1, is a temporary measure, designed to correct some of the imbalances in the straight EPA needs allocation, in the form it was submitted to the Congress.
I should stress that I do not oppose a needs formula as the basis for allocating funds for wastewater treatment facilities; however, the needs test conducted by the EPA was incomplete and created distortions in the allocations of funds among the States.
I was particularly concerned that the needs study did not place a proper emphasis on the need for advanced waste treatment. My own State, Texas, has required secondary treatment for some 40 years, because it is a water-poor State. Some of our rivers are composed in the summertime of a high percentage of return flows, or effluents. With ever-increasing population growth, secondary treatment is no longer sufficient in all cases, and my State must now turn to advanced waste treatment to keep our rivers in acceptable condition.
The EPA needs study excluded the cost of advanced waste treatment in determining a State's need unless such treatment was required by legally binding Federal, State, or local actions taken prior to the conduct of the survey. In actual practice, this required a State permit reflecting advanced treatment, a court order, or an EPA-approved water quality management plan. At the time of the survey, only a small percentage of State permits required advanced waste treatment, and no EPA-approved water quality management plans existed.
I strongly support committee actions requiring EPA to produce more acceptable criteria for determining actual State needs. This bill only changes the formula for 1 year; in the intervening year, we should have more adequate data upon which to base our judgments.
I realize that the formula gives my State approximately $35 million less than the originally approved 50-50 split between population and the EPA recommendation; however, in view of the dislocations that would occur in other States from correcting entirely the obviously unfair Texas situation, I support this compromise solution.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I move that the Senate concur in the House amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to concur in the House amendment. Without objection, the motion is agreed to.