March 10, 1977
Page 7169
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, indeed; that is our intention.
Mr. HUDDLESTON. I thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for his comments and I would point out that during the hearings which are to be held I am very anxious to present my views on a bill of mine which is now pending before the subcommittee. This legislation, S. 162, does not tamper with the definition of navigable waters or adjacent wetlands, but rather would speak to the problems which the producers of food and fiber products face in meeting the 404 permit requirements. My bill would exempt agricultural, ranching, or silvicultural practices related to the production of food, fiber, or forest products from the permit requirements. I understand the hesitancy to move forward on such a complex issue as this and therefore would welcome an opportunity to appear before the subcommittee to detail the reasoning behind my desire to see the seemingly burdensome 404 permit requirements removed from our Nation's farmers.
Already the small farmers in the western portion of my State, much of which would be included in any definition of adjacent wetlands, are facing problems related to obtaining a 404 permit from the Corps of Engineers.
It is my hope that they can soon be relieved of this difficulty or at least have laid down for them a very clear definition of what constitutes normal farming operations in the eyes of whatever agency might eventually undertake the operation of the 404 program.
Again, I extend my thanks and support to the distinguished Senator from Maine for his understanding outlook regarding this and other very important issues relating to Public Law 92-500.
Mr. MUSKIE. I appreciate the Senator's comments and look forward to his testimony at our hearings. We will try to schedule the hearings on this issue at a time convenient to the Senator so we can be assured of his participation.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues on the committee for addressing in the committee report the need for comprehensive review of Public Law 92-500. It is my understanding that the report suggests hearings may be held as early as May of this year. Is that a correct understanding of the intent of the Senator from Vermont?
Mr. STAFFORD. Yes; I want to assure my colleague from Texas (Mr. TOWER) that the members of the Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution recognize that a number of amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act have been suggested, including a revision of section 404 requiring permits for the disposal of dredged and fill material into the Nation's waters. The subcommittee chairman, Mr. MUSKIE, and I have indicated our intention to convene hearings and committee consideration of these issues in a timely manner — within the next 2 months. I am happy to add my personal commitment to this strategy again at this time.
Mr. TOWER. I appreciate that confirmation of my understanding of the intentions of the committee minority. I would just add that during the last Congress we had two evenings of hearings on one aspect of Public Law 92-500 in which I am particularly interested, and that is section 404. The hearing record then established a great deal of support for change in that section of the act and subsequently the committee did report an amendment sponsored by the committee's chairman and ranking member. I think in regard to section 404, the Senate has established a fairly substantial hearing record and while I would feel comfortable in considering a legislative change to section 404 now, based on what we know through the hearings last year, I certainly think the issue should be included in comprehensive hearings such as those contemplated by the Senator from Vermont if the 404 issue is not resolved by the time those comprehensive hearings are held.
There is one particular issue which has not previously been addressed in this body in regard to the act, and that is the need for a new look at the 1977 and 1983 requirements for best practicable technology and best available technology for dischargers.
It is my understanding that when the chairman's subcommittee considers substantive issues during comprehensive hearings on the Water Act, hearings will be held on possible adjustment of the requirement for dischargers to meet BPT and BAT standards by 1977 and 1983.
Can the Senator from Maine confirm my understanding that such consideration will be given to a possible adjustment?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. TOWER. I thank the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Vermont for their help in clarifying the committee's intentions. The chairman was most helpful last year in arranging hearings on the 404 issue, and I am most grateful. I know that the language included on page 15 of the committee's report would not have been included unless the committee in all good faith did intend to address these very serious issues in a meaningful way. I deeply appreciate the chairman's consideration in this regard, and I look forward to those hearings at the earliest moment.