WATER POLLUTION CONTROL LEGISLATION MONDAY, MARCH 15, 1971 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AIR AND WATER POLLUTION Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 4200, New Senate Office Building, Hon. Edmund S. Muskie (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Muskie, Cooper, and Baker. Also present: Richard B. Royce, chief clerk and staff director; Barry Meyer, counsel; Leon G. Billings and Richard W. Wilson, professional staff members; Bailey Guard, minority staff director, and Thomas C. Jorling, minority counsel. Senator MUSKIE. The subcommittee will be in order. I have an opening statement to begin this series of hearings on the water pollution legislation. May I first say, Good morning, Mr. Ruckelshaus. Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Good morning, Senator. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MUSKIE Senator MUSKIE. If I may, I will read the statement. It is not too long, and I think it provides a setting for this hearing. The subcommittee opens this morning 8 days of hearings on the pending water pollution control bills. I think this is an important series of hearings. The Congress has an opportunity this year to look closely at the water pollution program, to build upon the experience of the past 5 years, to decide where and how the program should be changed and to adapt the program to national needs. The number of bills pending before the subcommittee indicate a wide interest in the water pollution problem and some difference of approach to solving those problems. In preparing for these hearings, however, I have been impressed by how much general agreement exists on specific points in the pending bills. Let me give some examples: (1) There is agreement that water quality standards should apply to all of the Nation's rivers. (2) There is agreement that enforceable effluent limits should be. included in the water quality standards. (3) There is agreement that Federal funding should be at least doubled and perhaps should be increased to even higher levels. (4) There is agreement that the delays in enforcing the existing law should be eliminated and that the enforcing arm of the administration should be strengthened. (5) There is agreement that penalties for pollutants should be stiffened and spelled out in the law. (6) There is agreement that the tools for enforcement such as right of entry, emission monitoring, subpena power and the authority to issue orders should be available to the administrator. (7) There is agreement that ocean dumping should be prohibited and that water quality standards for the oceans should be established. (8) There is agreement that citizens should have a right to go to court to stop violations of the law. The question, then, is not what will we do, but how will we do it? On that broad question, of course, there is bound to be some disagreement. I expect the subcommittee, knowing of the wide interest and general agreement on specific points, will be able to reach an early resolution. of the problems and to report a strong, tough bill. At this point, let me remind all parties at interest that this subcommittee has been writing basic pollution laws for the past 8 years. Those laws have been the products of hearings, of discussions, of studies by the General Accounting Office, and of new information from a variety of sources. Again this year, I believe the subcommittee's efforts will produce a clean bill designed to deal with the problems of water pollution control. There will be problems, I should say, that are not dealt with in the pending bills, and I expect the subcommittee will want to consider them. Let me give some examples: (1) Transfer of the Refuse Act of 1899 from the Corps of Engineers to EPA so the possibility of conflict of authority can be eliminated. (2) Provisions for citizen suits to stop violations of the program under the Refuse Act of 1899. (3) Elimination of limits on liability for oil spills so that real incentives can be provided for better handling and shipping of oil. (4) A separate authorization for program activities in the Water Quality Office so that we may evaluate how well budget requests respond to the program needs. I have talked at some length and in some detail because I would prefer that everyone interested in the problems of water pollution shall know before we begin what to expect. I expect the water pollution legislation will incorporate provisions of administration bills, the bills that have been introduced by Members of Congress, and of ideas that will emerge in the course of these hearings. That has been the pattern of the subcommittee's work in the past. I would expect it will continue in this legislative session. We will include a reprint of each of the current bills at the conclusion of today's testimony. (See appendix for March 15, this volume.) We are under some pressure of time because authorizations expire at the end of this fiscal year. At the same time, we do want to make sure that we incorporate in the policy provisions of the water pollution law, as amended, such new policy changes as will make it more effective. I am sure, Mr. Ruckelshaus, that is your objective, that it is the administration's objective, and that it is the objective of members on both sides of the aisle of the subcommittee. I welcome you this morning to open this important series of hearings, and I invite Senator Cooper to make such comment as he might like. Senator COOPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry Senator Boggs, who is the ranking Republican member of this subcommittee, is not able to be here today. He has been so faithful and consistent in his work on this subcommittee, I know he would comment on the pending legislation more precisely than I can. I do want to welcome you. Since you have undertaken this awesome responsibility-I say "awesome" advisedly because it is-that we in the subcommittee know of your tremendous impact, we see it and we read about it. We do know of your outstanding efforts in this field. There is a new respect and confidence in the Federal pollution control efforts which must be attributed in large part to you. I want to thank Senator Muskie for his very excellent statement about the necessity for the cooperation on both sides of the aisle; and also for noting that the administration's bill, which I had the honor of introducing, offers needed advances in the field of water pollution control. I am also pleased that he feels very strongly that our committee will consider together the bills which he has introduced with the four bills dealing with water pollution control which I introduced on behalf of the administration, and that we can and will arrive at a very helpful and strong amendment. As he said, there is always a difference as to whether we furnish enough money. I know he thinks that we should authorize more money. We will have to see what is available and what can be spent usefully and I do note that the administration has offered, I think, a very innovative plan embodied in an environmental financing authority, to assist the States and communities in finding their share of the funds necessary to press forward with the construction of waste treatment works. I am sure we will work together, and this long succession of acts which have moved forward in water pollution control will be further strengthened. Senator MUSKIE. Thank you, Senator Cooper. May I say on the question of funding that the differences have closed considerably, I think, in the past year. We have better information now on which to base our estimates of cost, and I hope that we can firm up the information in these hearings so that the question of funding will not be a matter of disagreement. We may disagree as to how fast we can deal with that need, but at least we ought to be in a pretty good position, it seems to me, to lay a pretty good factual basis for estimating the need and what we propose to fund. We have just about reached the end of the statements of committee members, Senator Baker. Would you like to fall in at the end of the line? Senator BAKER. No; thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will listen instead. Senator MUSKIE. I do regret Senator Boggs can't be here this morning. I understand he has a dental appointment. Perhaps he is preparing himself to sink his teeth into this matter. Mr. Ruckelshaus, I invite you, then, to begin your testimony. I welcome you, and I echo Senator Cooper's feeling of your commitment to the responsibility you took on last year. STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID D. DOMINICK, ACTING COMMISSIONER, WATER QUALITY OFFICE, EPA; AND EUGENE T. JENSEN, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR OPERATIONS, WATER QUALITY OFFICE, EPA Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to have the opportunity today to appear before you to discuss the President's 1971 legislative program for water pollution control. I have with me today the Acting Commissioner of the Water Quality Office of the Environmental Protection Agency, Mr. David Dominick; and also Mr. Eugene Jensen, who is the Assistant Commissioner for Operations, who has had the responsibility for conducting the construction grant program for what was then the Federal Water Quality Administration and is now the Environmental Protection Agency. At the outset, Mr. Chairman, I can only echo your remarks about the spirit in which these hearings are held. It certainly is our feeling that our bills are the result of several months of intense effort on the part of many, many people in the Water Quality Office, in consultation with States and local governments and with members of this subcommittee, and the Congress, in general. We believe they are the best bills we can submit at this time. They are by no means the final repositories of all wisdom in this area, and we, in the spirit of cooperation with this subcommittee, certainly hope that we can come out with the best possible legislation to implement the water pollution control program of the Environmental Protection Agency. When I last appeared before this subcommittee a few weeks ago, we discussed the status of our water pollution control program, the progress we have been making, and the deficiencies and shortcomings we have experienced. Today I would like to discuss the future and our plans and proposals for that future. We believe that our legislative proposals for water pollution control provide the remedies for many of the deficiencies we discussed during the oversight hearings. Our proposals grow out of our experience and our assessment of the problems. They represent our best judgment. We realize, Mr. Chairman, that the problem of water pollution is not solved solely by the enactment of legislation, no matter how expertly conceived and drawn. We know that vigorous and consistent implementation of all of our authorities is essential. We have closely studied the provisions of the Clean Air Act, as amended last year, and have endeavored, to the extent appropriate, to make the terminology and the administrative and regulatory approaches of our own proposals consistent with that act. This is in accord with the concept underlying the establishment of EPA—a consistent and unified approach to environmental protection. The President's 1971 legislative proposals for water pollution control, introduced as S. 1012, S 1013, S. 1014, and S. 1015, plus the proposed "Marine Protection Act of 1971," are addressed to the areas of State program grants, waste treatment facility construction, water quality standards and enforcement, and ocean dumping. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which has been structured largely by this committee over the years, builds increasingly upon the foundation of standards. Water quality standards provide the basis for State and local action, and the measure of progress of such action. They identify the remedial measures that must be taken by industries and municipalities. They provide the basis for Federal enforcement action, as well. We believe those standards should be strengthened. They should apply to all navigable waters and their tributaries, whether interstate or intrastate. They must be enforceable-and they can only be enforceable if they are as clear and precise and as realistic as we can make them. They must be able to develop with advances in technology and provide the basis for continued enhancement. These are our goals in S. 1014. Mr. Chairman, it is clear from a comparison of our own proposal with proposals introduced by members of the committee, that we are in basic agreement as to the needed improvements in water quality standards. We would extend water quality standards to all navigable waters and their tributaries, whether interstate or intrastate, as well as to ground waters, and, under some circumstances, to the waters of the contiguous zone and the high seas. The extension of water quality standards to intrastate waters is especially important in the context of the permit program to be administered by EPA and the Corps of Engineers under the authority of the Refuse Act. Senator BAKER. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt at that point to ask the witness if he has any further comments on whether or not there should be a further definition of which Federal agency has jurisdiction over the subject matter under the Refuse Act and under the Water Quality Improvement Act? Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. You mean a further definition in the context of these pending bills? Senator BAKER. Yes, or in connection with any administrative action that you propose to take or in the process of taking to make sure that your efforts are fully coordinated with the jurisdictional responsibility of the Corps of Engineers. The reason I ask at this point, Mr. Chairman, is that the Commerce Committee held hearings on the Refuse Act permit program and it struck me then that the Refuse Act, as broad based and pervasive as it is, had at least overlapping jurisdiction with your agency in certain areas and that the overlapping jurisdiction might require redefinition by regulation, by accord or agreement with the Corps of Engineers, or possibly, by legislation. I wonder if you could comment on any recommendations that you have in that respect? Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Senator Baker, when the permit program was announced by the President, prior to that announcement we had had several meetings with the Corps of Engineers and with the Council on Environmental Quality and the Justice Department, the four agencies primarily involved in the initial development of that program. |