TRANSFER OF ADMINISTRATION OF 1924 OIL POLLUTION ACT FROM SECRETARY OF ARMY TO SECRETARY OF INTERIOR The Oil Pollution Act of 1924 prohibits the discharge of oil in any manner into or upon the coastal navigable waters of the United States from any vessel. Failure to comply is a misdemeanor and punishable by a fine not exceeding $2,500 nor less than $500, or by imprisonment not exceeding 1 year nor less than 30 days, or both by such fine and imprisonment for each offense. The bill provides for the transfer of the administration of the Oil Pollution Act from the Secretary of the Army to the Secretary of the [p. 29] Interior. The latter may make use of the organization, equipment, and other facilities of the Secretary of the Army for the preservation and protection of navigable waters. Personnel of the customs and Coast Guard shall continue to have the authority to enforce the Oil Pollution Act. It is not intended that the duties or functions of the U.S. customs or the Coast Guard in connection with navigable waters, except with respect to the administration of the Oil Pollution Act, shall be affected by this provision. INCLUSION OF INDIAN TRIBES AS "MUNICIPALITIES" In order to make certain that Indian tribes or tribal organizations are considered as communities, eligible for assistance under this Act, the bill provides that they shall be included in the definition of the term "municipalities." STUDY OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO INDUSTRY The bill authorizes the Secretary to conduct a full investigation and study of methods for providing financial incentives to assist in the construction of facilities and works by industry to reduce or abate water pollution. This study shall include, but not be limited to, the possible use of tax incentives, as well as other methods of financial assistance. In carrying out this study the Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of the Treasury, as well as with the head of any other appropriate department or agency of the Federal Government. The committee takes the position that a study is required, and it also feels that this must be considered as only a part of the whole picture of incentives. FEDERAL COST The Federal cost or total new authorizations in the bill amount to $2,315 million and cover the fiscal years 1968 through 1971. The breakdown of this figure is given in the table at the end of the summary at the front of this report. HEARINGS Hearings were held by the committee for 3 days, July 12, 13, and 14, 1966, on H.R. 13104 (the Fallon bill), H.R. 16076 (the Blatnik bill), and related bills. Testimony was received from Members of Congress; Federal, State, and city officials; representatives of conservation and other national associations; representatives of industry; and individuals. For convenient reference, the complete bills, H.R. 13104 and H.R. 16076 as introduced, are printed at the beginning of the hearings. AGENCY VIEWS Letters from the Federal agencies expressing views on H.R. 16076 follow in alphabetical order. The comments are on the bill as introduced and not as reported. The committee has given the views careful consideration and has incorporated a number of the suggestions in the bill. The letter from the Department of the Interior is of particular significance, not only because of its substance, but also because it includes a draft of the latest bill proposed by the administration. [p. 30] A letter from the Appalachian Regional Commission is also included since, although it was based on H.R. 13104, it contains pertinent comments with respect to major matters which the committee considered with respect to H.R. 16076. The following agencies have responded: The Appalachian Regional Commission. Bureau of the Budget. Department of Commerce. Comptroller General of the United States. Department of Housing and Urban Development. International Joint Commission. Department of the Interior. Department of Justice. DEAR CONGRESSMAN FALLON: You requested my comments for the Committee on Public Works on the proposed Clean Rivers Restora tion Act of 1966, H.R. 13104 and H.R. 13105. I feel that the proposed legislation would be useful. It would demonstrate that a concerted and coordinated effort or affected communities and States will make more valuable the rivers of several basins of the United States. I would like to note, however, some reservations concerning the proposed legislation. 1. The bill does not mention the serious pollution caused by acid mine drainage in a number of Appalachian States. This and other pollution problems cannot be controlled by the construction of waste treatment works. Affected basing planning groups should study the problem and propose in the plans the means to control the damage. 2. An additional subsection should be added to section 106 before (f) at page 10 which brings into the review process existing and proposed regional commissions authorized by Congress. Those commissions would evaluate the impact of the proposed river basin plans on regional economic development. (3) We understand that the intent of the second sentence of section 107 (a) (1) is to make possible the augmentation of the Secretary's grants by supplemental grants authorized in other legislation. To accomplish this purpose that sentence should be changed to: "The Federal contribution may be increased above this percentage by supplemental grants made pursuant to section. 214 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 5), or title I of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, or title I of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1966." To accomplish this purpose it will also be necessary to modify section 107 (a) (2), which would prevent such supplementation and would also prevent the joint use of the clean rivers program [p. 31] and other programs in making the regular 30-percent grant. For example, sewage treatment plant construction funds made available under section 212 of the Appalachian Act are combined with Public Law 566 funds to supply the normal 30-percent grant for waste treatment plant construction. Section 212 funds could be combined similarly with funds provided by the Clean Rivers Restoration Act. Since the Water Pollution Control Act and the Farmer's Home Act are the acts intended to be excluded, the exclusionary clause might accomplish that simply by specifying the acts. 4. Section 108 seems to be a reasonable attempt to coordinate the various project grant programs for water pollution control. I think that centralized control of this sort should be attempted on this limited basis to see if the various waste treatment grant programs can better be coordinated. The application should be approved after a reasonable time period, unless the Secretary raises objections, because once the projects have reached the Washington level they have been in the process of development for some time. Because of the local need for quick action, we would recommend that an expeditious review process be instituted by the Secretary of Interior. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report, from the standpoint of the administration's program. Sincerely yours, JOHN L. SWEENEY. Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Chairman, Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request for the views of the Department of the Army with respect to H.R. 16076, 89th Congress, a bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in order to improve and make more effective certain programs pursuant to such act. H.R. 16076 is designed to accomplish the following: Increase authorized amounts for water pollution research in general and, additionally, authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study vessel pollution on the Great Lakes and other navigable waters, with a report and recommendations to be submitted to Congress by July 1, 1967; increase authorized amounts for research and development and construction grants; establish a loan authority to assist non-Federal entities in meeting construction obligations; provide regulatory means for dealing with pollution problems of international impact, reiterate congressional support for regionally oriented pollution control and abatement action through a "clean rivers restoration program;" authorize the Secretary of Interior to conduct continuing studies of the economic and related effects of the Federal water pollution control program; and amend the Refuse Act of 1899 and the Oil Pollution Act of 1924. The principal objective of this bill, which the Department of the Army strongly supports, is to strengthen and make more effective the [p. 32] Federal pollution control program. We favor increased Federal assistance for research, construction of treatment works and sewer systems, and further studies of both the Nation's pollution problems and the effectiveness of existing programs in dealing with them. We also favor a regional or river basin approach to pollution control planning as contemplated by section 12 of the proposed legislation. We feel compelled, however, to recommend a few modifications of the bill to assure implementation within the framework of the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1962-62d-5). The President's recent message on "Preserving Our National Heritage," which strongly endorsed a regional approach to pollution problems, also emphasized the importance of balanced water resources planning and recognized the role of the Water Resources Council in that regard. The President referred to the Water Resources Planning Act, which "*** created the Water Resources Council to coordinate all aspects of river basin planning. This unified effort (river basin planning under Council auspices) promises to make the work of pollution control more effective." The proposed "clean rivers restoration program" would authorize the Secretary of the Interior, at the request of one or more State Governors, to designate planning agencies charged with development of comprehensive pollution control and abatement plans for river basins or portions thereof. The plans would have to be consistent with the standards established under the Water Quality Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-234), include provision for treatment works and sewer systems, provide for maintenance and improvement of water quality standards, and include proposed methods for adequate financing of the plan. Following review by interested State and Federal agencies, the plan, if it meets the above criteria, would be approved by the Secretary of the Interior. We believe that if the proposed regional or river basin pollution control planning agencies were independent of Water Resources Council authorities, it would risk conflict or competition with Councildirected comprehensive river basin planning for all water resource purposes conducted by the river basin commissions. The views and plans of entities with pollution abatement responsibilities are reflected in current comprehensive river basin planning activities through the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, which is a full partner in Council-monitored planning efforts. In this fashion broad-scale pollution control and abatement planning occurs in the unified context endorsed by the President and supported by sound |