NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT, July 19, 1971. Chairman, Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, Committee on Public Works, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,

DEAR CHAIRMAN MUSKIE: We appreciated the opportunity to study the Staff Print of proposed amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and respectfully submit the following comments:

1. The Staff Print is so different substantively from the major bills on which hearings were held that further hearings should be held before the Subcommittee recommends any legislation along the lines of the Staff Print.

2. This appears to be especially true of Title IV which would establish a discharge permit system within the Environmental Protection Agency and empower the EPA Administrator to supersede any State certification. State water pollution control agencies, in particular, should have the opportunity to testify as to the impact of these provisions on their permit system programs. Title IV would appear to put them out of business for all practical purposes, and perhaps amounts to Federal preemption of the field even though possibly unintended.

3. We appreciate the fact that the Subcommittee is addressing the problems of dual regulation arising under the Refuse Act of 1899, as we urged in testimony by Mr. M. P. Venema on March 22, but merely transferring the permit system from one Federal agency to another does not solve these problems. The ultimate result is either wasteful duplication or Federal preemption, both undesirable. A far better solution would be to amend Section 13 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 so as to limit its application to considerations of anchorage and navigation as was its original intent. Title IV violates the declaration of policy in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to protect the primary rights and responsibilities of the States.

4. The Staff Print appears to reflect an effort to conform the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to the provisions of the Clean Air Act, which we do not believe is justifiable. Under the Water Quality Act of 1965, the States have al ready held public hearings and established water quality standards based on desired uses of interstate streams throughout the nation, along with implementa. tion plans for achieving and maintaining these standards. Analogous progress had not been achieved under the Air Quality Act of 1967 at the time of passage of the Clean Air Amendments of 1970. Thus, the two situations are not at all comparable. If the Congress now authorizes national effluent standards and an ambiguous and totally impracticable national effluent standards and an ambiguous and totally impracticable national minimum water quality standard, all that has been achieved under the Water Quality Act of 1965 becomes academie. This appears to be a case of completely changing the rules of the ballgame without allowing legislation already on the books a chance to work. In addition, the Staff Print would establish impractical zero tolerances for certain substances and fails to provide for any economic evaluation of the implementation of its provisions. We strongly urge the Subcommittee to reject national standards as being inconsistent with the declaration of policy in the Act and as unsuited for achieving the highest cost/benefit ratios in water pollution control programs in the various river basins of the country.

Respectfully submittted,

DANIEL W. CANNON, Director of Environmental Affairs.

7

NATIONAL FOREST PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION

Ir. LEON G. BILLINGS,

NATIONAL FOREST PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION,
Washington, D.C., July 21, 1971.

Professional Staff Member, Senate Committee on Public Works, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. BILLINGS: NFPA has reviewed the Committee Print of the Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments and recommends that references to forest ands, land use planning and land use requirements be deleted from this proDosal, (page 16, line 34; page 21, lines 40, 41-42; page 22, lines 1, 5-6, 17-26). The attached paper amplifies our reasons for recommending deletion of these Phrases. We would appreciate your help in having them deleted.

Sincerely,

Attachment.

JAMES R. TURNBULL, Executive Vice President.

The Senate Public Works Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution Committee Print on "Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments" has several references o "forest lands" and involves land use planning and forest management. The amendments apply to all interstate and intrastate navigable waters, lakes, and ground water.

Title III, Section 301 (f) directs the Environmental Protection Agency to ́develop and issue information on methods, procedures and processes of controlting water pollution resulting “from . . . agriculture activities including runoff from fields, crop and forest lands."

Section 304 would direct states to adopt and submit to EPA plans to control non-point (general) sources of water pollution. The plan must "establish a process to identify agriculturally related non-point sources of pollution including: runoff from fields used for manure disposal, the production of crops and forest lands; and (ii) set forth procedures, processes and methods (including land use requirements) to control such sources."

Based on the best available estimates, runoff coming from agriculture lands is substantially different from that coming from forest lands. A substantial amount of the problem created by runoff coming from forest lands (sediment is the major component) could be solved without new programs. The sediment movement problem from forest lands is not critical and does not warrant increased regulation of private forest management practices. The forest products industry, a strong advocate of a National Land Use Policy, as currently being developed by the Congress, recommends that references to forest lands and land use planning be deleted from this proposal.

It is essential to recognize that runoff coming from agricultural lands and from commercial forest lands is quite different. Foresters manage a natural environment that requires only an occasional application of a forest chemical to benefit the growth of a selected native tree species. Application of chemicals may occur only once during a forest rotation of 40-70 years. In contrast, the agriculturalist manages a highly specialized group of animals and annual plants in a highly uniform, and in the case of feed lots a highly confined, environment. While animal wastes, plant nutrients and chemicals, including pesticides and fertilizers, and other materials, are a common component of agriculture runoff, they seldom occur in runoff originating from forest lands.

A 1968 USDA publication, "Wastes in Relation to Agriculture and Forestry", estimates that about 4 billion tons of sediment are moved from place each year and transported by water for deposition at another location. About 50% of the sediment originates from agricultural lands; 30% or 1.2 billion tons from natural geologic erosion; 5-10% from forests and associated range lands; the remaining 10-15% comes from urban, residential, construction, and other sites.

Of major significance is the fact that wildlife, which denudes about 5-7 million acres each year, is a natural source of sediment coming from forest lands.

It is commonly accepted that about 90% of the runoff coming from timber harvesting areas is the direct result of over-constructed roads. Minimum land impact roads would reduce this problem. The National Industrial Pollution Control Council-Sub-Council report noted that “Over specification in construe tion of roads, a growing problem on public lands, can result in excessive widths, cuts, and fills to meet adequate alignment and stability standards. Poor road locations along stream bottoms and on fragile soil are often chosen to minimize construction costs. Moreover, inadequate drainage and failure to maintain roads can accelerate erosion. Failure to stabilize cuts and fills with proper angles and revegetation also presents problems."

"Solutions include road design with minimum impact on the land. In some cases, this suggests entire new road systems, rather than adding onto existing roads to avoid unnecessary construction. Improved locations, maintenance and construction planning can avoid many problems." Much of the sediment problem on forest lands in the country can be attributed to actions or inactions of the public land administering agencies and the Federal Government.

In summary, well over one third of the nation's land area is producing less than 10% of the nation's sediment problems, and at least some of this is coming from wildfire, a natural cause. There are local erosion problem areas in the U.S. that may be attributed to timber harvesting and related road construction, but gross estimates indicate that a rather small proportion of the total originates from eroding forest lands, and that some of the problem could be solved through adjustments in existing programs of the Federal Government.

DEAR SENATOR DOLE: We have reviewed the committee print of the proposed Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments and are greatly disturbed by what we have found. As you know, one of the main departures from the existing statute is to bring agriculture into the provisions in a very specific manner, providing for very broad coverage of agricultural production activities and enterprises. The proposal is unduly cumbersome and repetitious in its language. This is particularly true of the grant Titles I and II and Section 302 of Title III (Water Quality Standards). As a matter of organization of the Bill, the definitions for the Act as a whole should appear among the first sections rather than in the last title.

All of the provisions for Grants should be combined in not more than one or two sections, in which the various areas and types of projects and activities would be listed and described, and a composite set of conditions set down. In the case of the Water Quality Standards Section, the subject matter covered could be handled together, without the repetition which the long section now contains.

The proposal would be extremely costly. The expenditures provided for reach unbelievable proportions. As best we could estimate, there would be around $3 billion for fiscal 1972 (current year) and a potential of the unbelievable amount of 244 billion dollars of new money authorization through 1976.

The proposal provides for Federal grants for everything and everybody! Research and other studies called for are very expansive and extremely costly. The provision for EPA to build and man its own research and other project facilities (Section 104 (c)) is an unnecessary duplication of Federal investments and expenditures at existing research and educational institutions. Grants provided for under Title II for the construction of treatment works are completely unjustifiable in terms of the amounts of money provided for.

The proposal provides for the government to do what industry should do for itself, at least in part. For example, Section 104 (m) (1) obligates the Administrator to not only conduct studies with regard to collecting and disposing of waste oil but, also, to carry on new product, marketing, and other economic research for the industry.

The grant provisions, whether for research or other type projects, should be scaled back to avoid duplication and be limited to the determination of pollution sources and the development of effective regulatory control, together with limited assistance to industry in problem areas.

Minimum water quality standards (Section 302(d)(2)); We raise the question as to whether or not the provisions are realistic and appropriate as a measuring stick for all waters. We would recommend the addition of: "In applying the minimum water quality standards, the Administrator shall take into account the natural movement of the water or body of water, volume, degree of stagnation resulting from natural causes, and other such natural factors which may influence the survival of indigenous shellfish, fish and wild life and recreational activities."

The provisions of the proposal are very broad, and in some cases, entirely unrealistic for argriculture. For example, Section 303 (2) (A) (i) states that implementation plans submitted by states to control other than point sources of water pollution shall "establish a process to identify agriculturally related non-point sources of pollution including runoff from fields used for manure disposal, production of crops and forest lands; and (ii) set forth procedures, processes, and methods (including land use requirements) to control such sources".

In our view this language goes far beyond that necessary to accomplish the purposes; and, furthermore, we see no justification for singling out agriculture, along with mining and construction in said provisions. Specifying procedures. processes and methods would prove to be unreasonably confining to an agricultural operator, in light of the fact that various alternatives might well produce satisfactory results. Furthermore, neither the states nor the Administrator of EPA should be given the authority to prescribe land use. Such authority will run smack into conflict with farm program requirements and other existing government programs. Furthermore, such authority abounds with the potential for dictorial misuse.

We would suggest that the provisions of the entire paragraph be re-worded to state simply that such plans shall establish a process to identify non-point sources of pollution.

Also, in relation to the coverage of agricultural production, a very logical case can be made for handling agriculture on the basis of requiring sound and accepted alternative management practices, rather than attempting to apply effluent standards. Agricultural runoff, and the magnitude thereof, is extremely erratic and its composition may be extremely variable. These factors, together with irregularity and the dependence upon weather and atmospheric conditions, make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to measure runoff and accurately determine the consist thereof-and in many cases, even the actual source. We recommend that this approach be included in the processes, procedures, and methods to control water pollution resulting from agricultural activities (Section 301 (f) (1)), research and demonstration projects for agriculture authorized under Section 105(d) and, also in non-point source controls (Section 304) and perform ance standards for new sources (Section 306).

Also, since the concept of agriculture is restricted in the proposal to initial agricultural production, rather than agriculture in its broad sense, we recommend that it be so designated in the language used.

The requirements contained in the proposal for furnishing data and reportsparticularly those in connection with alleged violations and the penalties provided for in the case of alleged violations are completely unrealistic for farmers. Along with the required legal aid, said costs would simply and clearly put many farm operators out of business.

Specifically, Section 308 (a) (1) provides that the Administrator shall require the owner or operator of any effluent source to (A) establish and maintain such records, (B) make such a report, (C) install, use and maintain such monitoring equipment or methods, including where appropriate, biological monitoring methods, (D) sample such effluence (in accordance with such methods, at such locations, at such intervals and in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe), and (E) provide such other information as he may reasonably require. With respect to agricultural runoff, this would be virtually impossible.

Specifically, Section 309 provides for fines up to $25,000 per day or 1 year in prison or both; and, after first conviction, up to $50,000 per day or 2 years in prison, or both.

Specifically, Section 310 provides for penalties in the amount of $1,000 for each and every day of the continuance of a failure to file reports.

Specifically, Section 402 provides for up to $10,000 fine or not less than 30 days nor more than 1 year, or both such fine and imprisonment.

Informant fees-we vigorously oppose the concept of informant fees as provided in Section 309 (c) (1) (C) and Section 402 (b). Such provisions should definitely be deleted. These provisions could be extremely costly by encouraging nuisance information and complaints, the validity of which the Administrator would be compelled to determine. Worse than this, however, is the fact that such language provides a license for "bounty hunters" and can result in the establishment of a very vicious precedent.

For example, in combination with Section 507, which provides for employee protection, an employee can, through his own laxity, perpetrate a violation for which he can then report his own employer and collect the informant fee! Such a system also provides a vicious pressure tool for union organizers and labor leaders to use against an employer-to say nothing of the encouragement for extremists and other "cranks" to intimidate farmers and businessmen.

Section 402 (c) states that it shall be the Administrator's duty to vigorously prosecute all offenders of the section. Such language is too strong to provide for appropriate action in connection with minor violations. The words, "and it shall be his duty to vigorously prosecute all offenders against the same...", should be deleted.