"(b) Any employee or a representative of employees who believes that he has been discharged or otherwise discriminated against by any person in violation of subsection (a) of this section may within thirty days after such violation occurs, apply to the Secretary of Labor for a review of such alleged discharge or discrimination. A copy of the application shall be sent to such person who shall be the respondent. Upon receipt of such application, the Secretary of Labor shall cause such investigation to be made as he deems appropriate. Such investigation shall provide an opportunity for a public hearing at the request of any party to enable the parties to present information relating to such violation. The parties shall be given written notice of the time and place of the hearing at least five days prior to the hearing. Any such hearing shall be of record and shall be subject to section 554 of title 5 of the United States Code. Upon receiving the report of such investigation, the Secretary of Labor shall make findings of fact. If he finds that such violation did occur, he shall issue a decision incorporating an order therein and his findings, requiring the party committing such violation to take such affirmative action to abate the violation as the Secretary of Labor deems appropriate, including, but not limited to, the rehiring or reinstatement of the employee or representative of employees to his former position with compensation. If he finds that there was no such violation, he shall issue an order denying the application. Such order issued by the Secretary of Labor under this subparagraph shall be subject to judicial review in the same manner as orders and decisions of the Administrator are subject to judicial review under this Act. Violations by any person of subsection (a) of this section shall be subject to the provisions of section 202 of this Act. "(c) Whenever an order is issued under this section to abate such violation, at the request of the applicant, a sum equal to the aggregate amount of all costs and expenses (including the attorney's fees) as determined by the Secretary of Labor to have been reasonably incurred by the applicant for, or in connection with, the institution and prosecution of such proceedings, shall be assessed against the person committing such violation.' "SEC. 7. Redesignated section 209 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is amended by adding a new subsection at the end thereof as follows: "(e) (1) Any person (A) required to comply with any order issued by a Federal court pursuant to this Act who fails to comply within the time period specified in such order, or (B) convicted by a Federal court for a knowing violation of any applicable schedule or timetable of compliance, effluent requirement, discharge prohibition, or water quality standard shall be ineligible to enter into any contract with any Federal agency for the procurement of goods, materials, and services to perform such work at or with any facilities which are subject to such action by the court and which are owned, leased, or supervised by such person. Such ineligibility shall continue until the Administrator certifies compliance with such order, or that the condition giving rise to the violation has been corrected. "(2) The Administrator shall establish procedures to provide all such Federal agencies with the notification necessary for the purposes of paragraph (1). "(3) In order to further implement the purposes and policy of this Act to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's water, the President shall, not more than one hundred and eighty days after enactment of this paragraph cause to be issued an order (A) requiring each Federal agency authorized to enter into contracts and each Federal agency which is empowered to extend Federal assistance by way of grant, loan, or contract to effectuate the purpose and policy of this Act in such contracting or assistance activities, and (B) setting forth procedures, sanctions, penalties, and such other provisions, as the President determines necessary to carry out such requirement. "(4) The President may exempt any lease, contract, loan, or grant from all or part of the provisions of this section where he determines such exemption is necessary in the paramount interest of the United States and he shall notify the Congress of such exemption. "(5) The President shall annually report to the Congress on measures taken toward implementing the purpose and intent of this section, including but not limited to the progress and problems associated with implementation of this section.' "SEC. 8. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act is amended by adding after the new section 210 a new section to read as follows: "'DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING 'SEC. 211. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person who manufacturers any equipment, devices, or systems of any kind or description for commerce to make any false or deceptive claims, statements, or representations concerning their use and effectiveness for the control of pollution or the enhancement of the human environment. The Administrator shall promptly refer any complaints received by him concerning any violation of this subsection to the Federal Trade Commission for prompt investigation. All such complaints and the reports of each investigation thereon and supporting material shall be available to the public. (b) Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section shall be assessed a civil penalty by the Federal Trade Commission in accordance with the provisions of section 202(e) of this Act. "(c) Any person who knowingly violates subsection (a) of this section shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine or not more than $25,000, or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both.' "SEC. 9. Redesignated section 303 (e) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is amended by inserting the word 'navigable' before the word 'rivers'. "SEC. 10. Redesignated section 102 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is amended by adding the following new subsection: 44 "No research demonstrations, experiments, or other such work shall be carried out, contracted for, sponsored, or authorized under this Act after the effective date of this subsection, unless all information, uses, products, processes, patents, and other developments resulting from such work will (with such exception and limitation, if any, as the Secretary may find to be necessary in the public interest and he publishes his finding) be available to the general public.' "SEC. 11. Redesignated section 302(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is amended by adding the following new sentence: "All regulations, criteria, or guidelines issued under this Act, unless otherwise provided in this Act, shall be published as proposed rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553 and adequate opportunity shall be provided for public written comment thereon and copies of all such comments shall be available for public inspection.' "SEC. 12. Nothing in this Act or the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, shall be construed as limiting the authority of the Secretary of the Army and the United States Attorneys under the River and Harbor Act of 1899 to vigorously enforce that Act against person or corporation violating the provisions of that Act or any registration issued thereunder." [Press statement from the office of Congressman John D. Dingell, Democrat, of Michigan, Mar. 24, 1971] TWENTY-FIVE BILLION DOLLAR CLEAN WATER PROGRAM IS PROPOSED IN LEGISLATION INTRODUCED BY CONGRESSMAN DINGELL Congressman John D. Dingell, Democrat, of Michigan's 16th District, joined by eight Members of the House, today introduced legislation to authorize a 5year, $25 billion clean water program. In addition to authorizing additional grants for construction of waste water treatment facilities, Congressman Dingell explained that the legislation provides for a comprehensive revision of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Joining Congressman Dingell as sponsors were Congressmen John P. Saylor (R-Pa), John E. Moss (D-Calif), Lucien N. Nedzi (D-Mich), William D. Ford (D-Mich), Ken Hechler (D-W.Va), Paul N. McCloskey (R-Calif), Silvio O. Conte (R-Mass) and Charles A. Vanik (D-Ohio). Congressman Dingell said the legislation would extend the waste water construction grant program from its current expiration date of June 30, 1971, until June 30, 1976. He said the bill would provide 60 percent Federal sharing if a State pays 25 percent of project costs and there are water quality standards in effect for the applicable waterway; 40 percent Federal sharing where a State pays 30 percent of the costs and there are no approved water quality standards; and, beginning in fiscal year 1973, 90 percent Federal sharing where the project is in a river basin or region designated by the Environmental Protection Agency as meeting certain requirements to insure coordinated and effective waste treatment. The Michigan Democrat said the Federal assistance program being proposed would in large part take care of the backlog of work which must be done to bring treatment facilities throughout the country to appropriately high standards. He added, "It is proper that the Federal Government should finance the major share of updating these facilities. However, future improvements must be largely selffinanced and, therefore, the legislation provides that an approved river basin or regional plan shall include a system of user charges which will produce sufficient revenues to pay for the costs of construction and operation of waste water treatment facilities after fiscal year 1976." Congressman Dingell said the bill also would increase the annual appropriation for administrative and enforcement grants to State and interstate water pollution control agencies to $30 million beginning July 1, 1971. He said these funds would be used to develop and carry out plans to implement, maintain and enforce water quality standards; to carry out a program of State certification that proposed activities will comply with applicable water quality standards; to train water pollution control personnel; and to assist local governments in administering pollution control programs. The Michigan Democrat said the legislation would extend the water quality standards program to all navigable waterways by requiring that every State adopt and submit to EPA water quality standards and a plan for implementation, maintenance and enforcement within nine months after enactment. He said the bill also requires that the States review the standards and implementation plan at least every three years; provides that the plan require that no toxic or other hazardous wastes be discharged from any stationary source; provides that the plan include effluent requirements and schedules and provide for the attainment of applicable standards within three years after the plan is approved strengthens EPA's enforcement powers; provides for greater public disclosure of pollution data; provides for citizen class action suits to enforce the Act and prevent pollution; provides for emergency action by EPA to control pollution that endangers the health of persons or treaty-protected fish or wildlife or presents a substantial economic injury to the shellfish industry; protects employees who testify or give information about polluting discharges; directs that the Executive Branch utilize procurement and leasing powers to control pollution; and prohibits false or deceptive advertising by the manufacturers of equipment or devices for pollution control. Hon. JOHN D. DINGELL, ALASKA STATE OF ALASKA, U.S. Representative, Rayburn House Office Building, DEAR MR. DINGELL: I am pleased to respond to your January 20, 1971, inquiry and to provide information regarding Federal sewage treatment grants in Alaska. Because construction costs in Alaska are quite high and because Alaska's allocation under the Clean Water Restoration Act has been a relatively small, $1.6 million annually for the past few years, the State is faced with prefinancing of a substantial portion of most sewage treatment construction here. The City of Anchorage, which began a $20 million plus project about three years ago, has been prefinancing the Federal share. Our State program to provide 25 percent of the cost of such construction was enacted in 1970 and our major construction effort, thus, is just getting underway. In order to get more projects started as soon as possible, The State already has begun partial prefinancing of the Federal share, although we have not yet set a limit lower than the 50 or 55 percent Federal grant as has been done in Michigan. It is apparent that a sizable State fund for prefinancing the Federal share will be required unless Federal funding is increased several fold. On a 50 percent Federal grant basis we estimate a need for at least $50 million over the next five years for facilities covered by the Act. Our major concern about the administration of the Federal program lies in what I consider to be the unnecessarily rigid application of regulations to the fifty states as though all are equally densely populated and have identical water pollution control problems. Assuming this degree of uniformity to be necessary to facilitate program administration, I strongly subscribe to the resolution passed by the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators at its fall meeting in Portland, Oreg. Although I am sure that the Administrator of the Michigan water pollution control program has provided you with a copy, I enclose one for reference and call particular attention to Paragraph Number 4. In view of the growing number of requirements for planning, inspections, and other activities, as prerequisites to Federal grants, I strongly urge you to support additional funds, not only for grants for construction, but also for administration of state programs. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Sincerely, (Enclosure.) WILLIAM A. EGAN, Governor. RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE ASSOCIATION OF STATE AND INTERSTATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATORS Be it resolved by the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators at its annual meeting in Portland, Oregon, October 25-27, 1970, that: 1. The Federal Water Quality Administration be commended for its present efforts to improve coopeation with the state and interstate agencies and for its accomplishments in the advancement of water quality management. 2. The administration of all Federal financial assistance programs relating to water pollution control be consolidated to the maximum extent possible in the Environmental Protection Agency. 3. The availability of construction grant monies under section 8 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act be extended 6 months beyond the end of the fiscal year. 4. State and Interstate program grant funds under section 7 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act be increased from $10 million to $30 million each year to assist the state and interstate water pollution control agencies to meet demands imposed on them by Federal legislation. 5. Adequate funding be provided under Section 3(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to implement the essential planning required in 18 CFR 601.32 and 601.33. 6. The administration of the Refuse Act of 1899 with respect to water quality should be seriously studied by congress to determine whether it is basically incompatible with desirable state water pollution control programs. 7. Officials of the Federal Environmental Protection Agency be offered the assistance of the Association. 8. The Association expresses itself squarely in favor of aggressive and vigorous enforcement of all applicable laws by state and interstate water pollution control agencies. 9. The Association restates its fundamental belief that water pollution should be the primary responsibility of the states, as expressed by the Congress in sections 1(b) and 1(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and by the President in his concept of a new Federalism. 10. Copies of this resolution be forwarded to Congress, the Commissioner of the Federal Water Quality Administration, the Director of the Federal Environment Protection Agency, the Environmental Quality Council, the Citizens Advisory Committee on Environmental Quality, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Advisory Board. Hon. JOHN D. DINGELL, U.S. House of Representatives, ARIZONA OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. STATE HOUSE, Phoenix, Ariz., March 5, 1971. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE DINGELL: In reply to your letter of January 20, 1971, we feel that the legislation passed since 1965 is adequate to make significant progress in protecting and improving water quality if it is given an adequate chance to function. At least we are not aware of any attempts to abate pollution that have failed because of the inadequacy of the present statutes. Frankly, the joint federal-state partnership in abating water pollution has suffered from a lack of continuity at the federal level. Since 1966 there has 59-068 0-71-pt. 1-30 been an almost continuous change in personnel from the top administrators right through to the lower professional staff people. Each time the top level administrators change the states are deluged with a new wave of regulations, requirements, and policies without much chance to have had a voice in their formulation. While we in Arizona have frequently been chagrined by the seemingly endless barrage of new and altered requirements, we apparently have not been as seriously affected as many other states. The Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators has been highly critical of the Environmental Protection Agency, formerly the Federal Water Quality Administration. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS The above figures reflect the minimum needs based on 1970 construction costs. Sincerely, ARKANSAS JACK WILLIAMS. Hon. JOHN D. DINGELL, ARKANSAS POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION, DEAR CONGRESSMAN DINGELL: We have been asked to answer your letter to Governor Bumpers in regard to moneys available from the Federal Government for the construction of sewage treatment facilities. Actually, Arkansas has been fortunate in that the State's allocation has been sufficient in the past to allow us to provide the full 30% to all applicants, even though we have consistently ranked around tenth in the nation in number of P.L. 660 projects funded each year. It is our understanding that the 5% imitation in Michigan has been brought about by the fact that the total allocation was not sufficient to cover all applicants at any greater percentage. State legislation has just been passed in Arkansas which will allow a Federal Grant of up to 55% by providing 25% State money. It is then conceivable that our total allocation might become insufficient under the new percentage. We would therefore urge the passage of legislation increasing total allocations and of course would be for any legislation which increases the Federal percentage coverage on grants. Another item of concern to our particular agency has to do with program grants for the actual operation of our water pollution control program. Federal requirements are increasing at a tremendous rate, yet the Federal moneys provided the Arkansas Pollution Control Commission water program have remained essentially the same for the past five years. It is our understanding that legislation is proposed to increase these funds, in steps, from $10 million to $30 million by Fiscal Year 1975. While these increases will be of great assistance to us eventually, we feel that substantial increases above those proposed should be considered for the upcoming fiscal year as we need immediate relief in this area. We would therefore urge your support of these additional increases. We appreciate your interest in these matters and welcome the opportunity to comment. Your very truly, S. LADD DAVIES, Director. |