Page images

River Basin is involved, the Governors of at least New York and New Jersey,"

Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the committee for the fine job it has done on this essential problem.

My amendment is a technical one. The definition of a basin, under section 211, is:

the negotiation of a compact.

Mr. CRAMER. I would suggest to the gentleman that the river basins which are included in section 28—1 shall be glad to be corrected by the majority side, if they do not agree—have been approved by Congress for some sort of action or for compact approval, and have had the approval of Congress as such. They were put in there for the purpose of not requiring them to go back through that same procedure again as it relates to water pollution control, and also to give them a means of functioning with a requirement greater, not less. The gentle

[p. 24622]

The term "basin" includes, but is not limited to, rivers and their tributaries, streams, coastal waters, estuaries, bays, lakes, and portions thereof, as well as the lands drained thereby.

In the hearings on the Hudson River bill, H.R. 13508, now enacted into law, it was made quite clear that the Hudson River Basin would include not only the States of New York and New Jersey, which have a primary interest in the basin, but as well Massachusetts, Vermont, and Connecticut.

Since only New York and New Jersey have a substantial interest with respect to pollution in the Hudson, they should be allowed to proceed and qualify by themselves.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OTTINGER. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. CRAMER. The gentleman is putting the amendment on page 28, section 202? Or is he putting it with the definition of basins in section 211?

Mr. OTTINGER. The amendment is on page 28, at line 13, to make it clear that with respect to the requirement that 50 percent of the Governors of the States involved in a basin have to agree, with respect to planning and programs, this would be the provision.

Mr. CRAMER. How far has the Hudson River Basin progressed in relation to congressionally authorized action? Is there a compact? Is it in being? Has it been approved by the Congress?

Mr. OTTINGER. The compact is in negotiation.

Mr. CRAMER. Congress has not yet authorized this compact as such between these States.

Mr. OTTINGER. It has authorized

man's amendment would provide less, rather than more than 50 percent of the Governors to make such a request relating to water pollution control. The gentleman's amendment, as I understand it, would permit less than a majority in this basin.

Mr. OTTINGER. That is correct, because in this peculiar situation only the States of New York and New Jersey have a substantial interest.

Although there are five States—New York, New Jersey, Vermont, Connecticut, and Massachusetts-involved in the Hudson River Basin, New York and New Jersey account for more than 99 percent of the area of the basin.

It is the States of New York and New Jersey that have the real responsibility for working out the compact that will determine the future course of this great basin's development.

Earlier this month, this Congress passed and sent to the President a Hudson River Compact bill, which I authored, HR. 13508. This bill has now been signed and enacted into law (Public Law 89-605). While it deals with much more than the problem of pollution abatement, one intent of the law is to provide the mechanism through which the benefits of this very act we are considering here today will be applied to the Hudson River Basin. This was the clear and expressed intent of the Secretary of In

terior in his endorsement of my bill.

For the RECORD I would like to present the report of the Secretary of the Interior on H.R. 13508:



Washington, D.C. Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insu

lar Affairs, House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. ASPINAL: This responds to your request for the views of this Department on H.R. 13508, a bill "To direct the Secretary of Interior to cooperate with the States of New York and New Jersey on a program to develop, preserve, and restore the resources of the Hudson River and its shores and to authorize certain necessary steps to be taken to protect those resources from adverse Federal actions until the States and Congress shall have had an opportunity to act on that program."

We strongly recommend enactment of this legislation if amended as proposed herein.

The bill points out that the States of New York and New Jersey are currently working on a joint program to develop, preserve, and restore the resources of the Hudson River and its shores, and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to cooperate with the Governors of those States in preparing and proposing a program of legislative action not later than March 1, 1967. It authorizes the Secretary to represent the United States in negotiations with those States, and to report to the President and the Congress on the result of those negotiations, and lists a number of factors to guide the Secretary in making the recommendations.

Recognizing that these negotiations may be protracted and that additional time will be required before the Federal and State Governments can take appropriate action, the bill provides that for a period of three years all Federal agencies with responsibility for projects affecting the Hudson River will cooperate with the Secretary in carrying out their plans, The bill further requires approval by the Secretary before construction with Federalaid funds of highways within one mile of the river, and before construction of projects under license from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the Atomic Energy Commission. The bill further imposes a three-year moratorium on Federal Power Commission licensing for projects on and affecting the river. The three-year period of delay may be sooner terminated upon the passage of appropriate legislation or upon a finding by the President that the national interest will otherwise be adversely affected.

The Hudson River today represents a major problem to the citizens of New York and New

Jersey and illustrates in virulent form a problem facing practically every major river in this country. It played a significant and varied part in the growth and development of young America and represented a major highway of commerce in the early colonial days. It remains today a major factor in the continuing development of the eastern seaboard. The Hudson River has suffered as a result of these and other factors. Industrial development along its banks presents major problems, the waters are polluted and blight has set in.

At times in its past, the Hudson River has been called one of the most beautiful rivers in the world. But it can no longer be so iermed. There is no reason to permit this state of affairs to continue but it must be recognized that it will take money, time and effort to restore and preserve this river and is shores for the benefit of the citizens of New York and New Jersey, and, indeed of the United States. The States of New York and New Jersey have already expressed interest in taking steps necessary to improve the condiiion of the Riverway. Doing this job, however, will require action by more than those States alone. The Federal Government has a substantial interest in seeing that the job is done quickly and properly.

This Department has been aware of many of the problems presented by the Hudson River in its present state for some period of time. We have informally discussed these problems with representatives of the State governments, local bodies, and interested private persons. Most are in substantial agreement that the time has come to take steps to improve the present situation, although ihere still exists a wide division of opinion as io ihe most appropriate way in which to move.

The Hudson River Valley Commission appointed to study the problem for New York State after the introduction of Federal legislative proposals in 1965 completed its Summary Report in February of this year. It recommended the establishment of a permanent interstate commission by Federal-State compact to guide the planning and development of the Hudson River Valley. The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation of this Department has been working on a study on the same subject. Its preliminary findings have been submitted to the President's Council on Recreation and Natural Beauty, and it is anticipated that the completed Study Report will soon be published in final form. The program which this bill contemplates is consistent with the aindings and recommendations of these two study efforts at their present state of development.

H.R. 13508 approaches the problem in iwo ways: (1) by authorizing the Secretary of ihe Interior to negotiate and discuss with ihe States proper methods of attacking the existing problems confronting the affected parties, and (2) by providing a three-year period during which the Federal Government may act only in limited fashion.

We have given considerable thought and study to the proper form that a compact should take in order to accomplish the highly desirable purposes of this bill. It is certainly too early to know what the final version of such a compact should be, but it is not 100 early to see, in broad outline, that some objectives must be met, if the compact is io provide an adequate solution to an admittedly perplexing situation. Such a compact must, we feel, provide for the establishment of an overall comprehensive plan for the development and preservation of the Hudson Riverway and of the land resources of the basin that affect it. Moreover, the compact must provide meaningful standards for such a plan and must vest whatever agency is charged with the responsibility for developing and maintaining this plan with all authority necessary to assure that the plan is not impaired and is carried out in the best possible manner. We cannot accept less, for to do so would be to condemn such an agency to the role of a passive onlooker.

... We feel that its enactment would serve an extremely useful purpose, permitting ihe development of a compact to protect the irreplaceable resources of the Hudson River and to preserve them for future generations. All too clearly we see around us evidences of our abuse of our natural resources and national heritage. Clearly, it should not be permitted to continue and equally clearly ihe present bill provides a vehicle for arresting this process. It is for this reason that we endorse ihis bill and strongly recommend its immediate consideration and enactment.

The Bureau of the Budget has advised that it concurs in favoring the legislation, if amended as proposed herein, and ihat enactment of HR. 13508, so amended, would be consistent with the Administration's objectives. Sincercly yours,

STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary of the Interior.

allowed to proceed provided they agree on a program.

Mr. CRAMER. Suppose the other three Governors disagree. It would do some harm then, would it not?

Mr. OTTINGER. They have really only a minimal interest in the river.

And practically no effect insofar as pollution is concerned. I think in this situation the States of New York and New Jersey, if they agree on a program, should

Mr. CRAMER. Does not the gentleman feel, if this authority is desired, the States now in the process of negotiating a compact should put that term in the compact instead of getting Congress into the middle of the act and into the middle of the five Governors and let them submit it to the respective States if they want to include them if the legislatures will go along with it. But I do not think that we should try to dictate to them before they have submitted such a plan, that only two Governors can go ahead and do this with their approval.

Mr. OTTINGER. No. In this case the States of New York and New Jersey

[p. 24623]

It is clear that the amendment I am proposing will make it possible to carry out the intent of Congress in this measure we are now considering.

How utterly ridiculous it would be if Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Vermont between them were to launch on a river basin project for a basin in which they collectively had less than 1-percent interest. Certainly these States have an interest, but 99 percent of the interest is with New York and New Jersey.

I believe these two States should be

have more than 99 percent of the river basin and there would not really be much of an interest on the part of the States of Massachusetts, Vermont, or Connecticut. As you know, compacts take a long time to negotiate. They can be very complicated. The Delaware compact took 7 years. We hope we would not have to wait 7 years before we started on the job of cleaning up the pollution until a compact is fully negotiated. I believe that the States principally concerned—New York and New Jersey-should be allowed to proceed.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment of the gentleman from New York be reported again.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida?

There was no objection.

The Clerk re-read the amendment offered by Mr. OTTINGER.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I do not mean to prolong the discussion, but it does seem to me that it is not proper, particularly at this late hour, to come in with a proposal of this nature that involves a basin that has not yet been submitted to the Congress for any consideration whatsoever, be it compact approval or approval of a specific flood control type of program. Therefore, all the basins that are included in this section are there for the explicit purpose of adding to the responsibilities, and the number of Governors that must be included above the 50 percent general rule was put in section 202. The amendment of the gentleman dictates that we will decrease that to two out of five. I realize what the problem is, but I think he has a solution to his problem. No. 1, in dealing with the States in their negotiations for the compact in the first place, they can then come to Congress when the compact is formed and determine whether two Governors should do it. That should be the proper place to do it and not try to prejudge something that we do not know anything about on the record, which is the form of this amendment.

I will be glad to yield to the gentleman from New York if anything I have said has been a misstatement.

Mr. OTTINGER. The problem did not come to light until the Hudson River legislation was considered and this determination was made by the Department of the Interior as I pointed out earlier. The remarks of the President when he signed the Hudson River Compact bill on September 26 reveal a considerable understanding of the problem. I would like to present these for the RECORD:

famine. I was speaking of a global water shortage that even now is making itself felt.

Since the birth of Christ, man's population has increased 13 fold, Yet the amount of water available to us has remained the same.

But let me qualify that last statement. The amount of water available to us has remained the same but the amount of water we can use is diminishing at an alarming rate.

Nature isn't doing this. We are. By our carelessness, by our neglect, and by our blind rush of progress, we are fouling one of the most precious resources we possess; our rivers.

We could hardly find a better example than the Hudson River. For this river, rich in history and folklore, and once rich in natural beauty, has suffered a century of abuse and neglect. Two billion gallons of sewage are dumped into it every day, refuse and decay line its shores, blight has barred the people from enjoying its heritage.

Early in our history, men lived with this river For 200 years it flowed clean and beautiful, providing transportation, food, recreation and inspiration.

But we cut ourselves off from this birthright. Railroads were built on both banks. Piers and factories littered the shoreline. Municipal and industrial wastes have iouled the water. Towns have turned inward, shunning the river; too often using it as a dumping ground for abandoned cars and other debris of our civilization.

Well this day-September 26th-marks a turning point. Because this Congress and this Administration believe that technology should serve man, rather than intimidate him, we are signing a bill that will begin the task of purifying the waters of the Hudson.

This bill makes possible a truly cooperative approach to the job of making the Hudson a source of pleasure and beauty.

It marks the beginning of major efforts to clean up the river; to provide pleasant beaches along its shores, which can offer relief from the pressures of urban living for millions of Americans.

Neither Federal nor State action alone would be adequate to this task. It will require the best efforts of all of us—including the towns and industries along the shores.

I believe we are up to the challenge. This bill gives us the tools to meet it.

I believe it begins a new day for one of America's great rivers. I hope it points the way for all our rivers.



Three weeks ago, in West Virginia, I said that mankind is in a race with catastrophe.

I was not speaking of war, or plague, or

There is no mischief involved here, but it is a question of having two States that have an overwhelming predominance of interest in the river able to deal under this statute.

Mr. CRAMER. If the gentleman was attempting to propose a majority should approve it but of that majority two, New York and New Jersey, should be included, I would not have any objection to it. However, the way the gentleman's amendment is drafted, it has to be New York and Jersey, period, that can do it, without any other State. If the gentleman will accept an amendment to that, all right.

[ocr errors]

Mr. OTTINGER. All right. If I can have unanimous consent, I will strike out the words "at least" and that will conform the legislation to the gentleman's recommendation.

Mr. CRAMER. It is my opinion, I will say to the gentleman, that that will not do the job “of a majority, including the Governors of New York and New Jersey."

Mr. OTTINGER. That is all right.

Mr. CRAMER. And I will offer that wording as a substitute.

Mr. OTTINGER. I will accept the substitute.

Mr. BLATNIK. The substitute as amended is acceptable to us on this side.


Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. CRAMER to the amendment offered by Mr. OTTINGER: After the word "involved" strike out the words "the Governors of at least", and insert "a majority of the Governors, including the Governors of"

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. CRAMER), to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. OTTINGER).

The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as amended.

The amendment amended agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the Committee amendment as amended.

The Committee amendment amended was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the

Committee rises.

Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. HANSEN of Iowa, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 16076) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in order to improve and make more effective certain programs pursuant to such act, pursuant to House Resolution 1026, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.

The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.

The question is on the amendment
The amendment was agreed to.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the bill.

Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and there were-yeas 312, nays 0, not voting 119, as follows:

[p. 24624]


Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. BLATNIK: Strike out all after the enacting clause of the bill S. 2947 and Insert in lieu thereof the provi. sions of H.R. 16076 as passed by the House.

The amendment was agreed to.

The bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

A similar House bill was laid on the table.

[p. 24629]




☆ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1974 0 - 469-516 (Vol. 2)

« PreviousContinue »