ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

these funds and any evidence that we have we would be glad to share with this committee or with your Public Works Committee as to their capacity.

Senator MUSKIE. If you saw this as a serious problem, why we considered this on the Senate side a year and a half

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. We raised it in the House hearings.

Senator MUSKIE. This was after the Senate passed the bill, after the Senate passed the bill. It wasn't raised in conference. You didn't make that much impression on the House membership.

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. That is true.

Senator MUSKIE. Do you consider that a thorough examination of the capacity?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. It is the best we had and I think it is a legitimate concern on the part of anybody who has looked at our economy and the inflationary push in the construction industry. I don't think it is something we are raising as an example of the reason why we shouldn't spend money. It is a legitimate concern that we have and I think a legitimate concern to the President.

Senator MUSKIE. You should have been up here using that as an argument before our committee.

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. I made it before the House committee.

Senator MUSKIE. We had already passed the bill, Mr. Ruckelshaus, and I will read the letter. I wouldn't take the time of the committee this afternoon to read it. But let me tell you, we will hold some hearings on the capacity of the construction industry.

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. I think that would be a good idea.

Senator MUSKIE. And we will use that letter and I hope more extensive evidence to evaluate its capacity.

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. That is a good idea.

Senator MUSKIE. When it is used as the sole argument by Mr. Erlichman for not funding this bill, even this argument is made after. Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Yes, it was. It was. I like the argument, but we have been using it for some time.

Senator MUSKIE. I am told it was submitted for the record. Senator CHILES. We will append the letter to the record at the conclusion of his testimony.

Senator MUSKIE. It clearly did not have the importance then that you attach to it now.

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Maybe we know more about it now than we did then but I am not saying that we have now

Senator MUSKIE. If it's that important you should have known more about it before.

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Everybody should have.

Senator CHILES. Mr. Miller, do you have a question.

Mr. MILLER. I would just like to propose one question, Senator, if I might.

I take it, Mr. Ruckelshaus, you are speaking not as a lawyer but as the head of the EPA, or as a lawyer?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. It depends on your question.

Mr. MILLER. We heard the Deputy Attorney General this morning overrule Mr. Rehnquist on the power of the President. I would like to have your views. I think the committee would be interested in your

views of the inherent powers of the President with respect to the spending of money.

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Do you want me to speak as a lawyer or as the Administrator of EPA?

Mr. MILLER. I would like you to speak as an intelligent citizen, Mr. Ruckelshaus.

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. I may not qualify.

Mr. MILLER. That may be self-contradictory terms when we talk about lawyers.

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. I don't pretend to be an expert at this but I have prior to this hearing read several law review articles and several of the commentators who have discussed this whole issue and I happened to read this morning a statement that was sent by the then Attorney General, Ramsey Clark, to the Secretary of Transportation on his authority to impound, the President's authority to impound highway funds through the Secretary of Transportation, and he says on page 63 of 42 Opinions Attorney General 32 in 1967, "Many factors must be weighed by the Executive in determining the extent to which funds should be expended. Consideration must be given not only to legislative authorization and appropriations but also to such factors as the effect of the authorized expenditures on the national economy and their relations to other programs important to the national welfare."

I think that sums up the argument of

Mr. MILLER. Let me ask this specific question, the only one I have. The President said last week his constitutional authority is absolutely clear. Do you agree with that or not, Mr. Ruckelshaus?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Well, I always agree with the President in discussing the Constitution.

Senator MUSKIE. I don't think you do.

Senator CHILES. Thank you, very much, Mr Ruckelshaus.

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(The news article and letter referred to follow :)

[From the Wall Street Journal, Nov. 30, 1972]

BUSINESS BULLETIN

A SPECIAL BACKGROUND REPORT ON TRENDS IN INDUSTRY AND FINANCE

Pot of gold? Water treatment equipment makers discover it is a bit elusive. With spending for cleaner water by municipalities and industry expected to increase dramatically in the next few years, prospects for suppliers have appeared bright. But the Nixon administration's move this week to allot only 45% of the $11 billion authorized by Congress for building sewage-treatment plants through fiscal 1974 has dimmed the outlook somewhat. And of the money that will be spent on plants, only about 15% will go for equipment. The remainder is taken up by construction costs.

What's more, the water and waste water equipment industry says it is only operating at about 50% of capacity and can use plenty of new business. Honeywell Inc. says shipments of controls for water treatment plants are behind its expectations. "Generally, the antipollution laws and regulations haven't moved as quickly as we expected," says a spokesman. Armco Steel Co. says demand is stronger for water control gates for sewage treatment plants than a year ago, but it is still "under no real pressure" to meet delivery dates. And a FairbanksMorse Co. official sees enough capacity in the pump field to meet demand at least through 1975.

Still, some waste water treatment agencies in Southern California complain of lengthy delays in getting equipment now.

Hon. JOHN A. BLATNIK,

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Chairman, Committee on Public Works,

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, Washington, D.C., December 13, 1971.

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: We are pleased to respond to your request for views and comments on H.R. 11895 and H.R. 11896, identical bills to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

Our views, comments, and recommendations follow in the sequence of the various titles and sections of the bills.

TITLE I-RESEARCH AND RELATED PROGRAMS

Section 101. The general objective of the Act would be to "restore and maintain the natural chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." This objective is supported by specific policies and goals including:

1. Elimination of pollutant discharges into navigable waters by 1985.

2. An interim 1981 goal of water quality suitable to support aquatic life and to permit recreation in and on the water.

3. Prohibition of discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts.

4. Federal grants for construction of waste treatment facilities, new regional waste management programs, and expanded research programs.

We do not support the new purpose of "general objective" that would be provided. The pursuit of natural integrity of water for its own sake without regard to the various beneficial uses of water in unnecessary, uneconomic, and undesirable from a social, economic, or environmental point of view.

We believe that the purpose of water pollution control is the achievement and protection of water quality for beneficial uses.

We also disagree with the nation-wide across-the-board application of both the “no discharge” goal and the interim 1981 goal. Neither of these goals allow for a legitimate range of State-designated beneficial uses, which EPA believes sets a more reasonable and achievable basis for a Federal-State water quality program.

The policy statement in the bills recognizes the primary role of the States in implementing the pollution control programs and the need to take action to promote control of international pollution.

EPA supports these premises. However, we firmly believe that the Declaration of Policy should commit us to a vigorous and effective water pollution control program. However, we do not believe that this policy should be so stated that it might preclude us from relating costs to benefits in a meaningful way. The goals of the elimination of all discharges by 1985 and recreation in and on the water by 1981 is practicable only if the costs of achieving them are justified by resulting social benefits. Otherwise, the nation would be applying costly technology in an indiscriminate and wasteful manner without regard to discernible social benefit.

Accordingly, on line 6 of page 2 after the words "of the Nation's waters" add the words "and protect all beneficial uses of such waters".

Line 10 should be changed by deleting "by 1985" and adding "to the maximum extent practicable".

Line 11 should be changed by deleting "attainable" and adding "feasible and appropriate."

Section 102 (a). The scope of the Act is extended to apply to all navigable waters and ground waters, in addition to interstate waters, and in some instances to ocean waters.

EPA supports the expanded scope which is similar to that proposed in the President's Environmental Program for 1971. However, the bill is inconsistent in its inclusion of “ground water" provisions in many of its sections.

The bill would continue the Administrator's authority to advise Federal agencies regarding the need for and value of storage for regulation of streamflow for water quality control purposes in the design of Federal reservoirs and other impoundment projects.

The bill would continue the Administrator's authority to advise Federal agencies regarding the need for and value of storage for regulation of streamflow for water quality control purposes in the design of Federal reservoirs and other impoundment projects. The authority presently contained in Section 3(c) to

make grants to pay up to 50% of the administrative expenses of State or interstate water pollution control planning agencies is continued.

We support this provision but we believe that clarification is needed as to whether federally licensed but privately constructed projects are to be covered. We believe they should be included.

Section 102 (b) provides for consideration by Federal agencies in the planning of any reservoir, to inclusion of storage for regulation of streamflow for water quality control purposes. This section is identical to Section 3(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

We support the concept of considering storage and streamflow regulation as an alternative method of water quality control. We also agree with the provision that such regulation not be a substitute for adequate treatment or other methods of eliminating waste at the source. However, we favor the approach taken in S. 2770 wherein this subsection is applicable to all reservoirs and im poundments under other Federal law and the need and value of storage is de termined by the Administrator rather than the construction agencies.

Section 102 (c). The authority presently contained in Section 3 (c) to make grants to pay up to 50% of the administrative expenses of State or interstate water pollution control planning agencies is continued. Two additional provisions are added. The three year period of planning begins after the date of enactment, and the plans are to be developed in cooperation with and consistent with any comprehensive plan prepared by the Water Resources Council and any regional plans developed pursuant to Section 208. We support the provisions for grants for these purposes. We believe clarification is needed with respect to the beginning date of the three year period.

Section 103. Present Section 4, entitled "Interstate Cooperation and Uniform Laws," is unchanged.

Section 104 and 105 continue the authorities and appropriation authorizations contained in present Sections 5 and 6 with respect to research, investigations, training and information, with the following new provisions :

(1) EPA would be required to establish and maintain a water quality surveillance and monitoring system in cooperation with the States and other Federal agencies (Section 104 (a) (5)).

(2) EPA would have authority to conduct, in cooperation with the States and other interested agencies, organizations and persons, public investigations concerning the pollution of any water body (Section 104 (a) (3)). This retains desirable features of the enforcement conference of former Section 10.

(3) EPA would be directed to promote research for the development of techniques to measure social costs and benefits of activities regulated by the Act, and to report results to the Congress by April 1, 1974.

(4) EPA would be required to conduct a waste oil study and to report the results of such study to the Congress within 18 months after passage of the Act (Section 104 (m)). In this regard, we would point out that other Federal agencies are also concerned with waste oil problems, and EPA would cooperate with them in the conduct of this study.

(5) EPA would be required to conduct research on devices and methods to reduce the total flow of sewage, including unnecessary water consumption for domestic uses (Section 104(o)).

(6) EPA would be required to conduct research to determine new and improved methods of abating water pollution from agriculture (Section 104 (p)).

(7) EPA would be required to conduct research into the control of pollution from sewage in rural and other areas which are not susceptible to conventional community-wide collection and treatment (Section 104(q)).

(8) EPA would be authorized to make grants to colleges and universities for the study of fresh water aquatic systems (Section 104 (r)).

(9) EPA would be authorized to make grants to State and interstate agencies to demonstrate advanced pollution control techniques in river basins (Section 105(b)).

(10) EPA would be authorized to make grants for research into the control of agricultural pollution, and for research into the control of pollution from sewage in rural areas (Section 105(e)). Section 105(i) requires that 10% of funds appropriated to carry out activities under Section 105 be earmarked for subsection (e) (1).

We support the general objectives of these Sections. However, we believe it is undesirable to fix in law the share of appropriated funds which will be devoted to any particular research area, such as would be the case for Section 105 (e) (1).

EPA would be required to establish advisory committees . . . to assist in the examination and evaluation of research progress and proposals and to avoid duplication of research.

We also object to the requirement to "establish committees." We agree that extramural advice and consultation should be sought and utilized but disagree that it is desirable to limit our flexibility by requiring that we establish such committees.

We recommend the deletion of the word "nonprofit" on line 15 of page 10. We believe that grants to profit making organizations should continue to be available as in present law.

We recommend that the exemption in Subsection 104 (b) (4) with regard to Sections 3648 and 3709 of the Revised Statutes should also be made available to grantees under Subsection 104(b) (3).

We further recommend that grant and contract authority be provided for purposes of the study directed under Subsection 104 (1) relating to pesticides in water.

We suggest the words "water purification" in line 1 at page 24 be deleted and that the word "waste water renovation" be substituted therefor.

The report called for in Subsection 104(m) (2) with respect to "long-term, chronic biologic effects of such waste oil" cannot reasonably be prepared on the basis of adequate study and experimentation within 18 months. At least five (5) years will be necessary for such purposes.

Section 106 extends EPA's present Section authority to make grants to States and interstate agencies to assist them in carrying out water pollution control programs. The section is designed so as to encourage increased program expenditures by the States. The section authorizes appropriations of $30 million in FY 1972, $60 million in FY 1973, and $75 million in FY 1974, and provides for allocation on the basis of need.

We support increasing the authorization for these program grants, as well as encouraging more State expenditures for their program needs. However, we question the ability of the States to utilize effectively the monies which would be authorized by this section.

Section 107 continues the provision of present Section 14 concerning acid mine pollution, but is amended to require that projects demonstrate the uses of sewage sludge for land restoration, $15,000,000 would be authorized for this section. EPA fully supports the demonstration.

Section 108 continues the provisions of present Section 15 concerning Great Lakes pollution, but would add a new Lake Erie program for the Corps of Engineers.

We are opposed to the provision of Section 108 (d) which relates to Lake Erie. First, it is undesirable to specify programs in law for specific geographic areas which can and should be covered under general provisions. National objectives, as well as ongoing programs for water pollution control would be weakened if separate authorities and approaches are established for a particular body of water. Second, it would also be undesirable to create for another Federal agency a lead role in developing environmental protection programs. This would be counter to the President's efforts to unify Federal environmental control leadership in EPA. We would point out in this regard that EPA would consult with appropriate Federal agencies, such as the Corps of Engineers and NOAA, in developing control plans for the Great Lakes.

Section 109-112 continue the provisions of present Section 16-19 concerning training grants and scholarships, extending the present $25 million annual authorization level for two more years, to 1974.

We agree with the proposed program continuation.

Section 113 would continue the authority for the "Alaska village demonstration projects."

We recommend that the reporting date of January 31, 1972, contained in Subsection 113 (c) be revised to read "January 31, 1974." This one year extension is necessary because of construction delays occasioned by severe weather.

TITLE II-GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TREATMENT WORKS

Section 201. The objective of this Title is to require and assist the development of waste treatment management plans and practices, preferably on a regional basis.

The existing Section 8 authority to make grants for the construction of waste treatment plants is continued, with significant changes.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »