authorizing accelerated activities and funds; and (4) stimulate the multiple use of storage reservoirs by authorizing the inclusion of capacity in federally constructed reservoirs for regulating streamflow for the purpose of water quality control. The Water Quality Act of 1965 increased the grants to $150 million for the fiscal years 1966 and 1967. In addition, it strengthened the program so greatly that it is generally considered to be the principal guide in Federal participation in water pollution control. The new bill is not intended in any way to detract from the strength of the 1965 act but rather to supplement it and to provide more details where they are needed. The 1965 act provided for the creation of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration in the Department of Health, Education, [p. 9] and Welfare. These activities had formerly been handled by the Public Health Service, and the upgrading was desirable to strengthen the Federal program. (Since then the program has been transferred to the Department of the Interior under Presidential Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1966 in a further effort to give it the prominence and support which it deserves.) The act included expanded research, particularly in the field of developing projects which would demonstrate new or improved methods of controlling waste discharges from storm sewers or combined storm and sanitary sewers. It doubled the dollar limitation on grants for construction of waste treatment works from $600,000 to $1,200,000 for an individual project, and from $2.4 to $4.8 million for a joint project in which two or more communities participate. The removal of the dollar limitations up to a full 30 percent of the project costs was authorized if the State matched the full Federal contribution. It further provided for an increase in the basic grant of an additional 10 percent of the amount of the grant if the project conformed to a comprehensive plan for a metropolitan area. One of the most important provisions was that each State must file a letter of intent with the Secretary by October 2, 1966, that the State would establish water quality criteria applicable to interstate waters on or before June 30, 1967. Failure to do so results in the Secretary establishing Federal standards for such water. Finally, it provided for a stronger enforcement program than had previously been in effect. The committee wishes to emphasize particularly that H.R. 16076 is not intended to change the procedures established in the Water Quality Act of 1965, except as specifically provided. It is intended to supplement the authority basically granted in that act and to provide more tools by which these procedures can be carried out. WHAT IS WATER POLLUTION? Before proceeding to the details of the report it might be well to define the word "pollution." It has different meanings for different people. To some it is raw sewage with its attendant repugnance. To others it is the chemical poisons that make it dangerous to go swimming in our rivers and lakes. To the sportsman it may be the increase in temperature of the water which has been used for cooling purposes, and which, as a result, drives away game fish like trout or bass. The component sources were noted in a report of the Senate Public Works Committee, which was prepared with the assistance of the Public Health Service, and is entitled "A Study of Pollution-Water," dated June 1963, of the 88th Congress, 1st session. The sources are given as follows: (1) Organic wastes contributed by domestic sewage and industrial wastes of plant and animal origin which remove oxygen from the water through decomposition; (2) Infectious agents contributed by domestic sewage and by certain kinds of industrial wastes which may transmit disease; (3) Plant nutrients which promote nuisance growths of aquatic plant life such as algae and water weeds; [p. 10] (4) Synthetic-organic chemicals such as detergents and pesticides resulting from new chemical technology which are toxic to aquatic life and potentially to humans; (5) Inorganic chemicals and mineral substances resulting from mining, manufacturing processes, oil plant operations and agricultural practices which interfere with natural stream purification, destroy fish and aquatic life, cause excessive hardness of water supplies, produce corrosive effects and in general add to the cost of water treatment; (6) Sediments which fill stream channels, harbors and reservoirs, cause erosion of hydroelectric power and pumping equipment, affect the fish and shellfish population by blanketing fish nests, spawn and food supplies, and increase the cost of water treatment; (7) Radioactive pollution resulting from the mining and processing of radioactive ores, from the use of refined radioactive materials, and from fallout following nuclear testing; and (8) Temperature increases which result from the use of water for cooling purposes by steam electric powerplants, and industries and from impoundment of water in reservoirs, and which have harmful effects on fish and aquatic life, and reduce the capacity of the receiving water to assimilate wastes. Most wastes are mixtures of the above general categories of pollutants, thereby complicating the problems of their treatment and control. For example, municipal wastes usually contain synthetic organic chemicals, inorganic chemicals, and sediments, as well as oxygen consuming organic wastes and infectious agents. Many industrial wastes contain substantial amounts of heat from processes other than cooling. Land drainage usually contains substantial organic matter in addition to sediments; as well as radioactive substances and air pollutants washed from sky, vegetation, buildings, and streets during rainfall. It is obvious there are many potential sources of waste which may cause pollution. Whether pollution exists, however, depends on the actual water quality, for pollution is an impairment of quality such that it interferes with the intended usages. THE CONSTRUCTION GRANT PROGRAM The first major Federal Water Pollution Control Act in 1956 was an innovation, because it moved the Federal government into an area that formerly had been the concern of cities and local communities. The role of the Federal government, however, particularly in making grants available, was a walk-on part in a huge drama, and a hesitating one at that. The first authorization for grants amounted to $50 million a year (up to an aggregate of $500 million) for the construction of municipal sewage treatment works. The 1961 amendments increased the amounts to $80 million in 1962, $90 million in 1963, and $100 million for each of the fiscal years from 1964 to 1967. The 1965 act raised the amounts for the fiscal years 1966 and 1967 to $150 million. The total construction grant authorization through this year, therefore, has been $820 million over a 10-year period. This has done the work it was intended to do; it has helped build the sewage treatment plants [p. 11] it was supposed to; but it has not let us keep up with the problem. This is not intended to downgrade previous legislation. The amendments of 1961, and more particularly the act of 1965, were aggressive insofar as the role of the Federal Government was concerned in planning and in enforcement, but they did not provide sufficient financial assistance. The financial assistance in this bill is a frank admission that large sums are going to be needed in the future if the problem is to be coped with adequately. The amounts in the bill are based upon the best judgment of the committee after its consideration of all factors, including the physical capability of utilizing appropriations over the next few years. The authorizations for construction grants in the bill are shown in the following table: The bill originally proposed by the administration, introduced February 28, 1965, as H.R. 13104, made no provision for extending the authorizations for appropriations for the existing grant program beyond that already authorized in existing law. H.R. 13104 did, however, provide for an authorization of $50,000,000 for fiscal year 1967 to begin the proposed "Clean Rivers" program, and provided no limits on future appropriations. The bill as passed the Senate on July 14, 1966, S. 2947, provided a total of $6 billion for the 6-year period 196772, of which $150 million is the amount already authorized for fiscal year 1967. The original bill introduced by Mr. Blatnik, H.R. 16076, on June 30, 1966, contains the same amounts provided in the Senate bill. Another version of the administration bill was submitted by letter of July 20, 1966, from the Department of the Interior after the committee hearings of July 12 to July 14 in which the total amount for construction grants was $3.45 billion for the 6-year period 1967-72, including $200 million for the fiscal year 1967, which is $50 million above the amount already covered by existing law for that year. As shown in the previous table, the committee bill contains $2.45 billion for the 5-year period 1967-71, including the $150 million already authorized. This is 1 year less than both the administration and the Senate bills. A comparison of the bills by years is shown in the following table. [p. 12] WATER POLLUTION CONSTRUCTION GRANT AUTHORIZATION PROPOSED IN VARIOUS BILLS CONSIDERED It should be noted that the administration in its second request increased the existing authorization for the fiscal year 1967 from $150 to $200 million and proposed an authorization for the fiscal year 1968 of $250 million. The committee has retained the present authorization of $150 million for the fiscal year 1967 but has increased the authorization for the fiscal year 1968 to $300 million, which results in the total for the 2 years being the same in each proposal. The amounts in the present bill represent the committee's judgment as to appropriate annual authorizations for the 5 fiscal years from 1967 to 1971. In comparison with the same 5-year period, the other bills would have provided amounts as shown in the following table: Comparison of bills based on 5-year period (1967–71) H.R. 13104 H.R. 16067 as introduced and S. 2947 as passed Senate Unlimited 4,500,000,000 2,450,000,000 The problem the committee faced in settling upon an amount for construction grants is one which was faced by the administration in its original proposal and in its revised plan submitted as a result of the hearings held by the committee. It is the same problem that the Senate faced in deciding upon the total amount of construction grants to be authorized for a period of half a dozen years ahead. The original administration request did not extend the authorization for the existing grant program. The revised administration proposal was explained in the testimony of the Secretary of the Interior as follows: The initial recommendation of the President, set forth his message of last February, was that Congress enact the clean. rivers legislation this year and come back next year, because the existing act has another year to run, and rewrite that legislation in light of the clean rivers legislation and the action taken and |