WATER POLLUTION*

Congressional activity on water pollution in the 91st Congress was indicative of its high priority position among environmental problems. The Congress passed a landmark water pollution law, brought water pollution control appropriations up sharply, introduced hundreds of bills to attack the problem, and considered many of them in hearings. Both Houses generated a great deal of information on numerous water pollution problems.

LEGISLATION

In its most significant single action on water pollution, the Congress passed major amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. This bill was spurred to completion by the concern generated by a series of events which included oil leaks and spills off the coast of Nova Scotia and California, as well as in Tampa Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. Hearings were held intermittently from January to July 1969 by the Senate and House Public Works Committees. The bill became law on April 2, 1970.

WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT OF 1970 (AMENDING THE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT)

House: H.R. 4148. Reported (No. 91-127) March 25, 1969, from Public Works. Passed April 16, 1969.

Senate: S. 7. Reported (No. 91-351) August 7, 1969, from Public Works. Indefinitely postponed; H.R. 4148 (amended) passed in lieu, October 8, 1969.

Conference: Report (No. 91-940) filed March 24, 1970: Senate agreed March 24, 1970; House agreed March 25, 1970.

Approved: April 3, 1970. Public Law 91-224.

Title I gives the Federal Government authority to immediately undertake cleanup actions following an oil spill, with the costs charged to the offending party. Unless the spill resulted from an act of God, of war, of U.S. Government negligence, or an act or omission of a third party, the owner or operator is liable to the United States for the cleanup costs. Limits on liability are set at $14 million or $100 per gross ton, whichever is less, in the case of vessels, and $8 million in the case of onshore or offshore facilities. If the United States proves willful negligence or conduct, the full damage will be sought.

Failure by the owner or operator to notify the U.S. authority of a spill may result in a fine of up to $10,000 and/or imprisonment for 1 year. The Act directs the President to prepare and publish, within 60 days of enactment, a national contingency plan to provide efficient and effective means for dealing with spills. It establishes a revolving fund

*Prepared by John D. Wellman, Analyst, and Harvey R. Sherman, Specialist, Environmental Policy Division.

of $35 million to carry out the removal of oil discharges. It gives the President authority to define by regulation the amounts of oil which can be released without violating the Act. Title I also repeals the Oil Pollution Act of 1924, and renames FWPCA the Federal Water Quality Administration (FWQA).

Public Law 91-224 provides that any applicant for a Federal license or permit must obtain preconstruction certification from the concerned State that his operation will not violate existing water quality standards.

A third provision of the act is for the control of sewage from vessels. It directs the Secretary of the Interior to set Federal standards of performance for marine sanitation devices to become effective 2 years after their promulgation in the case of new vessels and 5 years in the case of existing vessels. Regulations covering the design, construction, installation, and operation of such devices are to be formulated by the Coast Guard. The Federal Government, upon their promulgation, preempts the control of vessel sewage from local and State governments, unless a State applies for complete prohibition of vessels sanitary waste discharges. The law applies to all U.S.-owned and operated vessels with exception only in the interest of national security as determined by the Secretary of Defense. Penalties for violations under this section range from a maximum of $2,000 for persons operating a vessel without a working marine sanitation device, to a maximum of $5,000 for manufacturers marketing an uncertified device, and for persons rendering a device inoperable prior to sale or delivery of the vessel. Other provisions of the Water Quality Improvement Act include:

(1) The identification of hazardous substances, and a report to the Congress by November 1, 1970, discussing the need for and desirability of enacting legislation to impose liability for the cost of removal of hazardous substances from onshore and offshore facilities and vessels, including recommendations on enforcement and recovery of costs;

(2) Fifteen million dollars for grants to State and interstate agencies for acid mine drainage control demonstration projects; (3) Twenty million dollars for grants to Great Lakes pollution control demonstrations;

(4) Sixty-two million dollars for training grants and contracts and scholarships;

(5) One million dollars for Alaska village water and sewer demonstration projects;

(6) The extension for fiscal years 1970-71 of the research and demonstration program at the level of $65 million per year; and (7) An additional $15 million for the study of the Nation's estuaries.

APPROPRIATIONS

A second key measure passed by the 91st Congress concerned appropriations for water pollution control programs provided in the Water Pollution Control Act. Public Law 91-144 provided appropriations of $800 million for construction grants for waste treatment works authorized in section 8 of the 1966 act. For various reasons, appropriations under that section had lagged behind the $3.5 billion authorized in the act, so that by 1969 the gap amounted to $486 million. If the

Congress had limited appropriations for 1970 to the administration's request of $214 million, the gap would have widened to $786 million. A full-funding campaign resulted in approval by the House of $600 million, and by the Senate of the full $1 billion, with a resulting compromise of $800 million.

The 1966 act authorized $1.25 billion for fiscal 1971, the last year of the authorization. The administration sought to replace this with a new plan which would call for a 4-year Federal expenditure of $4 billion, to be complemented by non-Federal spending of $6 billion. This new plan was not implemented and the fiscal year 1971 appropriation for the Department of the Interior included $1 billion for construction grants.

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS

The large number of water pollution control bills introduced in the 91st Congress contained numerous ideas of interest. Although not acted into law, the core concepts comprise a list of legislative approaches which await further consideration.

DUMPING

Several proposals were included in bills introduced to control water pollution resulting from the dumping of wastes. The first of these proposals would require the Secretary of the Interior, based on a 2-year study conducted in cooperation with the Corps of Engineers, to designate certain waste deposit areas and to set standards to cover dumping therein. Dumping outside designated areas or in violation of the standards would be subject to fines.

A second proposal would amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act by banning the dumping of nonsanitary wastes into waters of the contiguous zone, with the exception of dumping carried out in accordance with regulations to be established by the Secretary of the Interior. Until such time as regulations were established, permittees would be required to carry wastes beyond the 100-mile limit, and the Secretary authorized to make financial assistance available to cover increased transportation costs. Once regulations are set, the Secretary could provide financial assistance, in proportion to the section 8 sewage treatment plant construction grants, to State and local governments to assist them in the costs of transporting and discharging treated wastes. A third group of bills would amend a 1905 Act which gives the Secretary of the Army, through the Corps of Engineers, control over dumping in navigable waters. The proposed amendment would simply limit that authority by requiring a determination by the Secretary of the Interior that such dumping will not result in water pollution.

Some bills were aimed specifically at dumping in and around the New York Bight (outer harbor) and in the Great Lakes. In the case of the New York Bight, it was proposed that either the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 or the Act of June 29, 1899, be amended to terminate licenses or permits to dump wastes within a 25-mile radius of the Ambrose Lighthouse, and to conduct studies aimed at restoring the quality of the water in that area. For the Great Lakes, the bills would discontinue all open-water dumping of materials dredged from significantly polluted areas, as soon as the Secretary of the Army provided for the construction of dredge-spoil dis

posal sites. Non-Federal interests would contribute to the costs of establishing such sites.

A comprehensive dumping control and general marine environment management bill was introduced by the administration. This proposed a ban on the disposal of refuse into the Great Lakes, the coastal waters of the United States, or the high seas except with a permit from the Secretary of the Interior with the concurrence of the Council on Environmental Quality. Only after a thorough study of the potential impact of the dumping could the Secretary recommend a permit. All dumping would be prohibited after 1975, with temporary exceptions if there were no technically feasible alternative method of disposal. Finally, a proposed amendment to the so-called Refuse Act of 1899 (33 USC 411) would raise the penalty to $10,000 and would make every day of a continuing violation a separate offense.

DETERGENT POLLUTION CONTROL

Two slightly different forms of detergent pollution control bills were introduced in the 91st Congress. The first called for a ban, after 1972, on the importation and manufacture of detergents containing phosphorus. The second called for the same ban, but added provisions requiring the Secretary of the Interior to establish standards relating to biodegradability and toxicity of detergents; it would also authorize Federal assistance in developing phosphorous-free detergents.

LAKE POLLUTION

A number of bills were introduced to supplement legislation already provided in the amended Federal Water Pollution Control Act. One proposed a comprehensive and coordinated lake preservation program aimed particularly at the Nation's small community lakes.

A second bill was designed to preserve those lakes of national significance which are not yet seriously spoiled, through the establishment of a national lakes areas system and accompanying research. The Secretary of the Interior, with assistance from an advisory commission to be appointed by him, would be authorized to acquire land and water in any Federal lake area and encourage States to manage related land resources, with Federal financial assistance.

Other bills would provide for: like research; additional construction funds for removal of wastes from the Lake Michigan watershed; alewife control in the Great Lakes; pollution abatement research and development in Lake Erie and Lake Ontario; and comprehensive pilot programs in lake pollution prevention and control.

MARINE SANCTUARIES

Bills were introduced to require the Secretary of the Interior to establish marine sanctuaries in those portions of the navigable waters of the United States which are particularly important to a "balanced marine ecology."

PESTICIDES

Two ideas for control of pesticides relating to water pollution emerged in the 91st Congress. The first would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to prohibit the use of any pesticide which he deter

mined would post a threat to human health or fish and wildlife resources through pollution of navigable waters. The second would amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act by making it unlawful, after 1973, to manufacture or import pesticides which do not conform to standards of biodegradability and toxicity to be developed by the Secretary of the Interior.

AIDS TO INDUSTRY

The 91st Congress saw the introduction of many bills designed to encourage antipollution steps by industry and to ease the burdens. placed on that sector by the tightening of water pollution control laws. Many of these bills aimed at pollution generally, rather than just "water pollution," and brief descriptions appear under the headings of air pollution and solid wastes.

One of the proposals called for an amendment to the Small Business Act to provide financial assistance, on a priority basis, to applicants who develop or utilize antipollution equipment, or who suffer substantial financial injury, in meeting stiffer requirements for the prevention or control of environmental pollution. A second bill would also make loans to industry through the Federal Water Quality Administration.

Others would aid industry through various tax incentives, including: deductions by individual taxpayers of the costs of eligible pollution control equipment; investment tax credits; accelerated amortization on pollution control equipment (already covered by the Tax Reform Act of 1969 to some extent); and income tax deductions for additions to reserves for estimated air and water pollution control

measures

SANTA BARBARA OIL PRODUCTION

In the wake of the Santa Barbara oil leak, and in addition to the oil pollution control provisions in the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970, bills were introduced to terminate mineral leases, with appropriate compensation to the lessees. One called for immediate takeover by the Secretary of the Interior of all mineral exploration, drilling or pumping operations on Federal lands within the Santa Barbara Channel from which oil has been or is being discharged. The same proposal would make permanent the ecological preserve established by public land order on March 3, 1969, and set aside the remainder of the Federal lands in the channel. This proposal would further provide that the deposed lessees could sue for damages in the Court of Claims, and direct the court to decide whether such termination was compensable.

TRUST FUND

Bills were introduced which were designed to establish a clean water trust fund in the U.S. Treasury to be used to support the entire Federal water pollution control program. It would receive water-use fees to be established by the Secretary of the Interior.