Gibbs, Charles V.-Continued Letter dated April 13, 1971, to Senator Eagleton-Continued Attachment C: The need for flexibility in choosing between alternative solutions for the correction of combined sewer problems... Attachment D: Summary of major sewerage agencies, expenditures, grants received, and incentive grant entitlement... Attachment E: Specific legislative proposals by AMSA on water pollution legislation____ Krause, Keith: Interstate Conference on Water Problems-Report of the Policy Resolutions adopted by conference.. Canham, Robert A.: Chart: Wastewater treatment plant and sewer construction....... Statement of Policy on Water Pollution Control, October 5, 1969___ Mondale, Hon. Walter F.: Letter dated March 16, 1971, to Senator Mondale from John W. Letter dated March 19, 1971, to Senator Mondale from Dr. Niles R. Letter dated March 18, 1971, to Senator Mondale from Winston C. Enclosure: Eutrophication program: Project proposal by Pelican Enclosure: Supplemental fund request for continuation of FWQA Letter dated April 6, 1971, to Senator Mondale from Grant J. Merritt, executive director, Pollution Control Agency, State of Minnesota____ Letter dated March 30, 1971, to Senator Mondale from Joseph Letter dated April 9, 1971, to Senator Randolph, from Paul W. Lukens, Ruckelshaus, Hon. William D.: Permits for discharges or deposits into navigable waters; extract from Draft guidelines for litigation under the Refuse Act permit program; Chart: Costs based on needs criteria_. Chart: National needs using NLC/USCM extrapolation....... Table: Additional WQO grant funds required, et cetera. List of 31 States having matching grant program. Table: Population figures of the 31 States... NLC versus WQO estimates- Table: Comparison of NLC/USCM sewage treatment construction needs, et cetera... Table: Comparison of NLC/USCM estimate of needs with WQO estimates, et cetera.. Table: Comparison of tertiary treatment needs, et cetera. - Information relative to high temperature treatment techniques.. 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 ri of entry, emission monitoring, subpena power and the authority issue orders should be available to the administrator. (7) There is agreement that ocean dumping should be prohibi and that water quality standards for the oceans should be establish (8) There is agreement that citizens should have a right to go court to stop violations of the law. The question, then, is not what will we do, but how will we do On that broad question, of course, there is bound to be some d greement. I expect the subcommittee, knowing of the wide interest and gen agreement on specific points, will be able to reach an early resolu of the problems and to report a strong, tough bill. At this point, let me remind all parties at interest that this s committee has been writing basic pollution laws for the past 8 ye Those laws have been the products of hearings, of discussions studies by the General Accounting Office, and of new information f a variety of sources. Again this year, I believe the subcommittee's efforts will produ clean bill designed to deal with the problems of water pollution con There will be problems, I should say, that are not dealt with in pending bills, and I expect the subcommittee will want to cons them. Let me give some examples: (1) Transfer of the Refuse Act of 1899 from the Corp Engineers to EPA so the possibility of conflict of authority be eliminated. (2) Provisions for citizen suits to stop violations of the prog under the Refuse Act of 1899. (3) Elimination of limits on liability for oil spills so that incentives can be provided for better handling and shipping c (4) A separate authorization for program activities in the W Quality Office so that we may evaluate how well budget req respond to the program needs. I have talked at some length and in some detail because I w prefer that everyone interested in the problems of water poll shall know before we begin what to expect. I expect the water pollution legislation will incorporate provi of administration bills, the bills that have been introduced by Mer of Congress, and of ideas that will emerge in the course of these ings. That has been the pattern of the subcommittee's work i past. I would expect it will continue in this legislative session. We will include a reprint of each of the current bills at the concl of today's testimony. (See appendix for March 15, this volume. We are under some pressure of time because authorizations at the end of this fiscal year. At the same time, we do want to sure that we incorporate in the policy provisions of the water poll law, as amended, such new policy changes as will make it effective. I am sure, Mr. Ruckelshaus, that is your objective, that it administration's objective, and that it is the objective of me on both sides of the aisle of the subcommittee. I welcome you this morning to open this important series of ings, and I invite Senator Cooper to make such comment as he like. Senator COOPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry Senator Boggs, who is the ranking Republican member of this subcommittee, Lot able to be here today. He has been so faithful and consistent 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 he subcommittee know of your tremendous impact, we see it and se read about it. We do know of your outstanding efforts in this field. There is a new respect and confidence in the Federal pollution ontrol 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; ard 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 Lough 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 infornation 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 & 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. Í 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, ADMIN] TOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ACCOMPANI DAVID D. DOMINICK, ACTING COMMISSIONER, WATER QU OFFICE, EPA; AND EUGENE T. JENSEN, ASSISTANT COMMISS FOR OPERATIONS, WATER QUALITY OFFICE, EPA Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to have the opportunity today to appear before discuss the President's 1971 legislative program for water p control. I have with me today the Acting Commissioner of the Water Office of the Environmental Protection Agency, Mr. David Do and also Mr. Eugene Jensen, who is the Assistant Commissi Operations, who has had the responsibility for conducting struction grant program for what was then the Federal Water Administration and is now the Environmental Protection A At the outset, Mr. Chairman, I can only echo your remar] the spirit in which these hearings are held. It certainly is ou that our bills are the result of several months of intense effo part of many, many people in the Water Quality Office, in con with States and local governments and with members of committee, and the Congress, in general. We believe they are bills we can submit at this time. They are by no means the final repositories of all wisdo area, and we, in the spirit of cooperation with this subco certainly hope that we can come out with the best possible 1 to implement the water pollution control program of the mental Protection Agency. When I last appeared before this subcommittee a few w we discussed the status of our water pollution control pro progress we have been making, and the deficiencies and sho we have experienced. Today I would like to discuss the futu plans and proposals for that future. We believe that our legislative proposals for water polluti provide the remedies for many of the deficiencies we discus the oversight hearings. Our proposals grow out of our expe our assessment of the problems. They represent our best ju We realize, Mr. Chairman, that the problem of water not solved solely by the enactment of legislation, no m expertly conceived and drawn. We know that vigorous and implementation of all of our authorities is essential. We have closely studied the provisions of the Clean amended last year, and have endeavored, to the extent a to make the terminology and the administrative and reg proaches of our own proposals consistent with that act. accord with the concept underlying the establishment of E sistent and unified approach to environmental protection. The President's 1971 legislative proposals for water po trol, introduced as S. 1012, S 1013, S. 1014, and S. 1015, I posed "Marine Protection Act of 1971," are addressed to State program grants, waste treatment facility constru quality standards and enforcement, and ocean dumping. |