mated reasonable cost of such project, shall then apply the foregoing limitations in this clause to each such share as if it were a separate project to determine the maximum amount of any grant which may be made under this section with respect to such project, and (B) for purposes of the limitation in the last sentence of subsection (d), the share of each municipality so determined shall be regarded as a grant for the construction of treatment works".

(c) The third sentence of subsection (c) of such section is amended by striking out the final period and inserting in lieu thereof the following: ", except that any such allotment which is not obligated within six months following the end of the fiscal year for which it was made because of a lack of projects which have been approved under subsection (b) (1) of this section, or certified as entitled to priority under subsection (b)(4) of this section, shall be reallotted by the Commissioner, on such basis as he determines reasonable and equitable and in accordance with regulations promulgated by him. Any amount made available to a State by reallotments under the preceding sentence shall be in addition to amounts otherwise allotted to such State under this section, and shall be available for payments with respect to projects in such State which have been approved under this section prior to the close of the fiscal year following the year for which the original allotment was made."

(d) Subsection (d) of such section is amended by striking out "$50,000,000" and inserting in lieu thereof "$125,000,000", and by striking out "$500,000,000" and inserting in lieu thereof "$1,250,000,000".

(e) Such section is further amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

(f) The Commissioner shall take such action as may be necessary to insure that all laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontractors on projects for which grants are made under this section shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing on the same type of work on similar construction in the immediate locality, as determined by the Secretary of Labor, in accordance with the Act of March 3, 1931, as amended, known as the DavisBacon Act (46 Stat. 1494; 4 U.S.C. 276a through 276a-5)."

SEC. 6. The first sentence of subsection (a)(1) of the section of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act herein redesignated as section 8 is amended to read as follows: "There is hereby established in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, a Water Pollution Control Advisory Board, composed of the Commissioner or his designee, who shall be chairman, and nine members appointed by the President none of whom shall be Federal officers or employees."

SEC. 7. The section of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act herein redesignated as section 9 is amended to read as follows:

"ENFORCEMENT MEASURES AGAINST POLLUTION OF NAVIGABLE WATERS

"SEC. 9. (a) The pollution of navigable waters in or adjacent to any State or States (whether the matter causing or contributing to such pollution is discharged directly into such waters or reaches such waters after discharge into a tributary of such waters), which endangers the health or welfare of any persons, shall be subject to abatement as provided in this Act.

"(b) Consistent with the policy declaration of this Act, State and interstate action to abate pollution of navigable waters shall be encouraged and shall not be displaced by Federal tenforcement action except as otherwise provided by or pursuant to a final order issued in accordance with subsection (e) of this section or a court order under subsection (g) of this section.

“(c) (1) Whenever requested by either the Governor of any State, or a State water pollution control agency, or (with the concurrence of the Governor or of the State water pollution control agency for the State in which the municipality is situated) the governing body of any municipality, the Commissioner shall give formal notification of any water pollution to the water pollution control agency and interstate agency, if any, of the State or States where the discharge or discharges causing or contributing to such water pollution originate and shall call promptly a conference of the State water pollution control agency and interstate agency, if any, of the State or States where the discharge or discharges causing or contributing to such pollution originate and of the State or States, if any, which may be adversely affected by such pollution. Whenever the Commissioner, on the basis of reports, surveys, or studies, has reason to believe that pollution referred to in subsection (a) is endangering the health

or welfare of persons in a State other than that in which the discharge originates is occurring, he may call such a conference on his own initiative.

"(2) The agencies called to attend such conference may bring such persons as they desire to the conference. Not less than three weeks' prior notice of the conference date shall be given to such agencies.

"(3) Following this conference, the Commissioner shall prepare and forward to all the water pollution control agencies attending the conference a summary of conference discussions including (A) occurrence of pollution of navigable waters subject to abatement under this Act; (B) adequacy of measures taken toward abatement of the pollution; and (C) nature of delays, if any, being encountered in abating the pollution.

"(d) If the Commissioner believes, upon the conclusion of the conference or thereafter, that effective progress toward abatement of such pollution is not being made and that the health or welfare of any persons is being endangered, he shall recommended to the appropriate State water pollution control agency that it take necessary remedial action. The Commissioner shall allow at least six months from the date he makes such recommendations for the taking of such recommended action.

"(e) If at the conclusion of such six-month period such remedial action is not taken or action which in the judgment of the Commissioner is reasonably calculated to secure abatement of such pollution is not taken, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare shall call a public hearing, to be held in or near one or more of the places where the discharge or discharges causing or contributing to such pollution originated, before a Hearing Board of five or more persons appointed by the Secretary. Each State in which any discharge causing or contributing to such pollution originates and each State claiming to be adversely affected by such pollution shall be given an opportunity to select one member of the Hearing Board and at least one member shall be a representative of the Department of Commerce, and not less than a majority of the Hearing Board shall be persons other than officers or employees of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. At least three weeks' prior notice of such hearing shall be given to the State water pollution control agencies and interstate agencies, if any, called to attend the aforesaid hearing and the alleged polluter or polluters. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence any person alleged to be discharging matter contributing to the pollution, abatement of which is sought, may be joined as a party to such hearing if the fact of such alleged pollution does not become known until after such notice has been given. On the basis of the evidence presented at such hearing, the Hearing Board shall make findings as to whether pollution referred to in subsection (a) is occurring and whether effective progress toward abatement thereof is being made. If the Hearing Board finds such pollution is occurring and effective progress toward abatement is not being made it shall make recommendations to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare concerning the measures, if any, which it finds to be reasonable and equitable to secure abatement of such pollution. Such findings and recommendations shall be the findings and recommendations of the Secretary except to the extent, on the basis of the evidence at such hearing, he believes additional or different findings or recommendations are warranted. The Secretary shall send his findings and recommendations to the person or persons discharging any matter causing or contributing to such pollution, together with an order specifying a reasonable time but not less than six months from date of issuance of such order to secure abatement of such pollution in accordance with such findings and recommendations. Such order shall become final on the sixtieth day after the date of its issuance. The Secretary shall also send a copy of such findings and recommendations and such order to the water pollution control agencies and interstate agencies, if any, attending the hearings.

"(f) An appeal may be taken from any such order of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare by any person who has been made subject to such order to the United States court of appeals for the circuit in which any discharge or discharges causing or contributing to the pollution subject to abatement by such order originates by filing with such court a notice of appeal within sixty days from the date of issuance of the order. The jurisdiction of the court shall attach upon the filing of such notice. A copy of such notice shall forthwith be transmitted by the clerk of the court to the Secretary or any officer designated by him for that purpose and to any other person who received a copy of the Secretary's order. The Secretary shall thereupon file in the court the record of the proceedings before the Hearing Board as provided in section 2112 of title 28,

United States Code, together with his findings of fact and recommendations. Such findings of the Secretary, if supported by substantial evidence when considered on the record as a whole, shall be conclusive, but the court for good cause shown may remand the case to the Secretary for the taking of additional evidence in such manner and upon such terms and conditions as the court may deem proper. The Secretary may thereupon make or cause to be made new or modified findings of fact and recommendations, and he shall file with the court the record of such further proceedings, the new or modified findings and recommendations, and his recommendations, if any, for the setting aside or modification of his original order. Such new or modified findings shall likewise be conclusive if supported by substantial evidence when considered on the record as a whole. "(g) Upon the basis of the record of the proceedings filed with it, the court shall have jurisdiction to enter an order affirming or setting aside, in whole or in part, the order of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. The judgment of the court shall be final, subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States upon certiorari or certification as provided in section 1254 of title 28 of the United States Code.

"(h) The United States district courts shall have jurisdiction of any civil action brought by the Attorney General at the request of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to enforce any order issued under this section by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, or by a United States court of appeals.

"(i) As used in this section, the term 'person' includes an individual, corporation, partnership, association, State, municipality, and political subdivision of a State.

"(j) As used in this section, the term 'municipality' means a city, town, borough, county, parish, district, or other public body created by or pursuant to State law.

"(k) There is hereby created an Enforcement Construction Grant Fund. Such Fund shall not exceed $25,000,000. The Commissioner is authorized to make grants from such Fund subject to the same limitations as are applicable to grants made under section 7 of this Act but without regard to State allocations or the provisions of section 7(b) (4). Such grants may be made, where financial need is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, to any State, municipality, or interstate agency requested or required by the Commissioner or the Secretary to construct remedial facilities after a conference, hearing, or court action. No projects receiving grants from funds appropriated pursuant to section 7 of this Act shall receive any moneys from such Grant Fund."

SEC. 8. The section of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act herein redesignated as section 10 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new sentences: "In his summary of any conference pursuant to section 9(c)(3) of this Act, the Commissioner shall include references to any discharges allegedly contributing to pollution from any Federal property. Notice of any hearing pursuant to section 9(e) involving any pollution alleged to be affected by any such discharges shall also be given to the Federal agency having jurisdiction over the property involved and the findings and recommendations of the Hearing Board conducting such hearing shall also include references to any such discharges which are contributing to the pollution found by such Hearing Board.” SEC. 9. The sections of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act herein redesignated as section 12 is amended by striking out subsections (d) and (e) and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"(d) The term 'State' means a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.

"(e) The term 'interstate waters' means all rivers, lakes, and other waters that flow across or form a part of State boundaries, including coastal waters." SEC. 10. The section of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act herein redesignated as section 13 is amended by inserting “(a)” immediately before "This Act", and by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

"(b) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as impairing or in any manner affecting any right or jurisdiction of the States with respect to the waters of such States, including but not limited to the power, authority, and jurisdiction of such States to enforce State water pollution control laws and regulations." SEC. 11. All regulations in effect on the date of enactment of this Act relating to water pollution control administered by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare shall remain in effect until otherwise amended or revoked.

SEC. 12. In the case of any discharge or discharges causing or contributing to water pollution with respect to which the actions of the Surgeon General or the Secretary prescribed under section 8 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as in effect prior to the enactment of this Act, have already been completed prior to such enactment, the provisions of such section as so in effect shall continue to be applicable until the pollution caused by such discharge or discharges has been abated.

SEC. 13. References in any other Federal law to provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act redesignated by this Act shall be deemed to be references to such provisions as so redesignated.

SEC. 14. Section 5 of this Act shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act. The remainder of this Act shall take effect on such date not later than ninety days after the date of enactment of this Act as the President shall prescribe.

SEC. 15. This Act may be cited as the "Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1961".

Mr. BLATNIK. May I ask unanimous consent to insert at this point in the record a summary of the water pollution legislation heretofore enacted in 1956 and the legislation before us. Without objection, it is so ordered.

(The summary referred to is as follows:)

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1961, H.R. 4036, contains four major provisions: (1) Increased financial assistance to communities for the construction of waste treatment facilities, (2) strengthened Federal enforcement procedures, (3) expanded water pollution research, and (4) improved State and Federal administration of pollution control programs and activities.

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO COMMUNITIES

Under existing law there is authorized $50 million annually in Federal grants to communities to assist them in the construction of needed waste treatment facilities. This program has been in operation since 1956. During the 5 years immediately preceding enactment of the program (1952-56) contract awards for sewage treatment plant construction averaged $222 million. During the first year of the program, 1957, contract awards increased to $351 million-a 58 percent increase. In 1958, total contract awards reached $389 million—a 75 percent increase over the previous 5-year average. In 1959 and 1960, contract awards have leveled off at the $350 million level, somewhat below the 1958 record due to the steel strike and general public construction cutbacks. Still, over the past 4 years contract awards for sewage treatment plant construction have averaged almost $360 million annually-an increase of 62 percent over the 5-year average before Federal financial assistance became available.

Under the construction grant program, as of January 31, 1961, a total of 2,581 grant offers have been made aggregating $213 million. These in turn supported construction projects having eligible costs totaling $1,245,400,000. In other words, a Federal investment of $213 million has stimulated local investments of over $1 billion. Every Federal dollar expended has been matched by over $4.50 in local funds-a truly remarkable record.

Despite the great progress made as a result of Federal financial assistance, much more remains to be done. Construction since 1957 has been largely offset by new needs and the number of needed projects remains, as it was in 1957, at more than 6,000 sewage treatment plants. According to the Public Health Service Inventory of Municipal and Industrial Waste Facilities, nearly 2,900 new plants are required for 19.5 million people in communities now discharging raw untreated sewage. There are 1,100 new plants needed for 3.4 million people in communities where existing treatment works are inadequate or obsolete and require replacement. Another 1,630 communities need additions and enlargements of existing inadequate plants to provide satisfactory treatment for 25 million persons.

In addition to the backlog of treatment plant needs, population growth will continue to create new needs. If municipalities are to catch up by 1970, they will have to spend an average of $600 million a year to eliminate the backlog, provide for new population, and to replace plants that will become obsolete. We come nowhere near this level of expenditure at the present time despite the 62

percent increase in construction since 1956. In order to stimulate construction up to the $600 million a year figure H.R. 4036 authorizes an increase in Federal financial assistance from the present $50 million annually to $125 million annually and an increase in the total grant authorization from $500 million to $1.25 billion. Maximum grants per project are increased from 30 percent of the cost of the project or $250,000, whichever is smaller, to 30 percent of the cost of the project or $600,000, whichever is smaller. Projects serving more than one municipality will receive proportionately higher grants.

Based on the experience of the present program which has stimulated over $4 in local contributions for every Federal grant dollar, it can be estimated that the proposed program will result in the construction of projects having a total cost of approximately $600 million-or exactly the national needs.

This construction program will be a boon, also, to many small communities hard hit by unemployement. We already have an inventory of 362 sewage treatment plant projects located in areas of substantial unemployment. The total estimated cost of these plants is over $280 million and the estimated onsite payroll on such projects is over $85 million for 14,200 estimated total man-years of labor. These are projects, ready to go, which can put people to work and contribute to the betterment of the water quality of our Nation's lakes and streams.

FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES

Under existing law, the Surgeon General and the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare have authority to enforce the control of pollution of interstate waters, but only when it endangers the health and welfare of persons in a State other than that in which the pollution discharge originates. In such a case, the Surgeon General can, on his own initiative, or at the request of an affected State, institute certain Federal enforcement procedures calculated to procure abatement of the discharge.

First, he calls a conference of State and interstate agencies involved to discuss the occurrence of interstate pollution. An attempt is made to secure abatement at this stage of the proceedings.

Second, if no abatement is secured as a result of the conference, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare calls a public hearing before a hearing board for the purpose of making a finding of interstate pollution, assessing progress toward its abatement, and in the event effective progress is not made, making recommendations to secure abatement of such pollution.

Third, if the recommendations of the Secretary are not followed within a reasonable time he requests that Federal court action be taken by the Attorney General. Such court action can be taken only with the consent of the State or States wherein the pollution is discharged or the State or States where the health or welfare of persons is endangered.

Under this procedure the Public Health Service has initiated a number of enforcement actions. These have been effective but the limited enforcement jurisdiction of the Federal Government makes it impossible to do an even better job. The present law, for instance, excludes from enforcement jurisdiction the greater part of the Great Lakes and their tributaries, the coastal waters of the Nation, many important coastal streams, intrastate water bodies such as the Detroit River, those of Florida and all rivers, streams, lakes and coastal waters of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. International boundary streams such as the St. Lawrence, Niagara, lower Colorado, and Rio Grande Rivers are untouchable under the act, leaving the discharge a moral responsibility to a neighboring nation, to the solicitude of a bordering State or an international creature of a treaty with that nation. The same situation exists as to international streams flowing across the northern and southern borders of the United States into our international neighbors. Examples are the Red River of the north in Minnesota, Lake Champlain in New York, Souris and Riviere Rivers in North Dakota, and the Flathead and Kootewai Rivers in Montana.

The degree of exclusion is graphically illustrated by the following figures derived from a recent study. They show that there are 1,080 municipalities discharging wastes in 845 intrastate navigable water bodies. Other interesting figures illustrative of the exclusion are that, of the estimated 26,000 water bodies in the United States, there are only an estimated 4,000 of an interstate nature. It is obvious that the present limited enforcement jurisdiction does not permit sufficient latitude to accomplish fully the intents and purposes of the act;