Federal Water Pollution Control Act OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES T h i s paper restates the objectives of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948, summarizes findings and accomplishments, and sets forth the program’s guiding policies. Progress is reported in the various phases of the pollutionabatement work directed by the law : comprehensive program development, interstate cooperation, federal-industry cooperation, uniform state legislation, enforcement, reporting, financial assistance, research, and participation in river basin development programs. The policies under which these activities have been carried on, both those specifically delineated in the Act and those evolved from operating experience, are described. Basic policies as to the respective responsibilities of federal, state, and local governments, and as to federalstate relations are also discussed.
CARL E. SCHWOB Division of W a t e r Pollution Control, Public Health Service, D e p a r t m e n t of H e a l t h , Education, a n d Welfare, W a s h i n g t o n , D . C .
J
UNE 30, 1953, marked the fifth anniversary of enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. It seems appropriate a t this time to re-examine the objectives, to assess the accomplishments, and to revieM the policies inherent in the Act itself and those t h a t have evolved from operating experience. The ultimate obiective, of course, is the preservation and improvement of the quality of the nation’s water resources, t o assure an adequate present and future supply for all beneficial uses. The country’s total water supply remains fairly constant from pear to year. I n contrast, the number of water users, and the kinds and extent of use, are constantly multiplying. Population has more than doubled since 1900. At the present rate of increase, it will be close to 200,000,000 by 1975. Industry expanded 700% from 1900 to 1950 and will presumably again double b j 1975, with correspondiiig increases in requirements for piocessiu!: water. Satisfactory disposal of the added volumes of wastes created by our expanding cities and industries presents increasing difficulties. Because the rapidly developing chemical industi) requires large quantities of processing water of especially high quality, it is particularly aware of the urgency of the pollution problem. The availability of our a a t e r resources for use and re-use in the futuie can be assured onlv by protecting the quality of those resources. That is the objective of the program for coutrol of water pollution noT7- under way. A brief review of the provisions of the Federal K a t e r Pollution Control Act will indicate the foundation on which the program has been planned and developed. The Act diiected the Public Health Service to piepare, or adopt, comprehensive programs for the solution of water pollution problems, in cooperation R ith the states and n ith interstate agencies, municipalities, and industries. It specified that in developing these programs, consideration should be given to all water uses. It provided for federal research and technical assistance. It encouraged uniform state laws, intei state compacts, and cooperative state activities in the field of water-pollution control. It directed the Public Health Service to collect and disseminate information o n water pollution. It authorized federal grants t o state and interstate agencies to help them with their industrial waste studies, and loans t o municipalities for construction of abatement works. Finally, it provided for limited federal en2648
forcement. Financial authorizations in the Act were originally limited to a 5-year period, but have since been extended foi an additional 3-year period, t o June 30, 1956. Progress has been made on each of the activities authorized by the Act except that relating to construction loans and planning giants. KO funds have been appropriated for those purposes. All pollution data available from state and federal sources on the country’s 226 separate river basins have been asmmbled, analyzed, and published in 15 drainage basin reporta. Since publication of these preliminary reports, additional technical data have been gathered to fill the gaps in the information they provide, with efforts concentrated initially on the 146 interstate basins. As these supplementary data are filled in for each basin, a comprehensive plan for that basin is developed. Such programs for 20 sub-basins Bill be ready for adoption by the Surgeon General in the near future. The availability of the facts regarding pollution conditions in most areas of the country, with a listing of the cities and industries responsible, has aided in bringing an increased public awareness of the problem. Organized local groups such as buqiness and civic clubs, ~7omen’s clubs, health councils, conservation groups, sportsmen’s organizations, and the like, have become inteicsted and aie working a ith city and state officials to obtain public support for abatement projects needed in their own communities. The technical and cooperative work with industry ia making progress toward solving industrial u.ask-pollution problems. T h a t phase of the a a t e r pollution control program is discussed 111 detail by Warrick (4). There has been encouraging progress, too, in the enactment of uniform state laws for control of n a t e r pollution. The piinciples of a “Suggested State Water Pollution Control .4ct,” developed by the Public Health Service, have been used in new l a w , major amendments, or other strengthening legislation adopted by 11 states. They have also been included in proposed legislation now pending in several additional states. Through interstate compact organizations and informal regional councils, the states are continuing to progress toward development of more uniform procedures and policies. By approaching the pollution problem on a regional, rather than piecemeal basis, they are better able to plan effective control measures for entire river basins.
INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY
Vol. 45, No. 12
Industrial Process Water Through Public Health Service participation in the Federal Inter-Agency River Basin Committee, water-pollution aspects of resource development projects are now receiving consideration in the planning stages. Control of pollution is not in conflict with the development of these resources, but failure to take this element into consideration a t the very outset can often mean that a project’s full benefits may not be realized.
POLIClES The policies on which the Federal Government’s program for control of water pollution is based have been stated from time t o time, as particular phases of the program required. I n the following pages these policies are restated and their major elements are briefly discussed. Taken as a whole, they present the purpose and direction of the national pollution-abatement effort. Some of the policies are clearly defined in the Act; some are implied; others have been developed as required for affective program operation. STATE RESPONSIBILITY
It is the policy to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of the states in controlling water pollution. This policy was established by the Congress in Section 1 of the Water Pollution Control Act. State responsibility in this field is based on the police power of the states which they exercise within their boundaries t o protect the public health and welfare. FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY
The policy conforms t o the Water Pollution Control Act, which sets forth limited federal responsibility in the field of water-pollution control. This power, limited a s i t is, flows from the exercise of federal jurisdiction over the waterways of the nation, and is in consequence of the benefits resulting to the public health and welfare by the abatement of stream pollution. LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY
The policy holds that the cities and industries creating pollution are responsible for its abatement. This policy stems largely from the law enunciated in legal decil sions involving the right of riparian owners t o be protected against pollution. In areas governed by the “common law doctrine,” each riparian owner has the right t o have the stream which flows past his property unimpaired in quality and undiminished in quantity. In states where the “reasonable use doctrine” is in force, the reasonable use of a stream by a riparian owner may not be interfered with, and in western areas governed by the “prior appropriation doctrine,’, the policy recognizes the accepted rule t h a t the acquisition of water by prior appropriation for a beneficial use is entitled to protection. FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONS
It is the policy that federal-state relations shall be conducted on a cooperative, partnership basis, involving mutual respect and -trust and full recognition of the respective individual rights of the partners, as well as their common responsibilities. This is a long-standing, traditional policy of the Public Health Service. It is also implicit in the provisions of the Water Pollution Control Act, and in the voluminous legislative history of the Act. Because of the close relation which each of these four policies bears t o the others, they are discussed here as a group. Under the
December 1953
American tradition of community responsibility, each city and industry has a clear obligation to provide whatever measures are necessary to assure that its wastes will not cause harm to others. This tradition is supported by common law, which borrowed this concept from old Roman law. While water law dealing with private rights is far from uniform in the 48 states, the states have fundamentally similar powers in relation to the establishment of a public program for the protection of public health, comfort, and welfare on which state supervision over water quality may be based. The extent t o which the states have exercised these powers for pollution-control measures has varied, and the statutes which have been adopted have not always been completely effective. For this reason, during more than 50 years prior to the passage of the Water Pollution Control Act in 1948, proposals for federal legislation in this field were constantly being presented for consideration by the Congress, More than 100 bills were introduced between 1897 and 1948, but none of them reached final enactment. During t h a t period the Public Health Service had been carrying on research and investigations in various aspects of water pollution, to the extent of its general authority and funds. The early studies, which were in the main limited t o investigating the relation of water pollution to typhoid fever, began soon after the establishment of the first legislatively authorized research laboratory of the service, in 1901. In legislation adopted in 1912, the functions of the service were extended to give further authority for pollution investigations. The comprehensive bill for control of water pollution, which later became the present Federal Water Pollution Control Act, was introduced in 1947 under the joint sponsorship of Senators Taft and Barkley. Practically all the statements presented at the Congressional hearings on the bill agreed on the desirability of controlling pollution; a majority were in favor of a federal pollution-control program, but a substantial number felt t h a t federal participation should be limited, with primary responsibility remaining with the state and local authorities. The Congress accordingly set up the initial program as a cooperative venture. I n planning the program, the Congress gave careful attention t o attaining the proper balance between the responsibilities of the states and of the Public Health Service, as an agency of the Federal Government. It recognized t h a t in cooperative programs of this kind responsibilities related to research, exploration of new techniques, collection of national statistics, and assistance in the investigation of new questions of broad import, requiring resources beyond those available t o individual states are generally accepted as the province of the federal member of the team. Therefore, in the Water Pollution Control Act it specifically listed, as Public Health Service functions, research, technical and financial assistance, and collection and dissemination of information. The general pattern of federal-state cooperation, developed over the years in the many programs of the Public Health Service, provided a framework well adapted t o this cooperative pollutionabatement efiort. FEDERAL-INDUSTRY COOPERATION
The policy is t o recognize industry as a key memDer of the team engaged i n solving the national pollution problem, and t o utilize industry’s resources t o the maximum extent in the planning and execution of the pollution-abatement program carried out under this Act. Over the past few decades a great change has taken place on the American scene with regard to industrial relationships. More and more recognition has been given to the important place of industry in the total national economy. Understanding has grown as t o the extent t o which our country’s future well-being is dependent upon full industrial development, which means not only national strength and the ability to hold our position of leadership in the world, b u t also full employment and the as-
INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY
2649
surance t h a t we can maintain and further improve our high standards of living. The viewpoint of industry, too, has undergone some changes, particularly as to the public relations aspects of some of its operations. This viewpoint is illustrated by the way large companies such as D u Pont and Union Carbide are approaching their waterpollution problems. The relationships established through the Kational Technical Task Committee on Industrial Wastes have proved t h a t representatives of industry are most effective members of the team working toward the common goal of improved water quality. INTERSTATE COOPERATION
It is the policy t o encourage the fullest possible measure of cooperation among the states in their activities for the abatement of water pollution.
It is one of nature’s laws t h a t state boundary lines form no barrier to flowing streams, nor to the pollution they carry. Obviously any policy established in one state for safeguarding the quality of such streams concerns each of the other states in the river basin. Ineffective pollution control in one state increases the difficulty of effective control in the others. Recognizing the need for coordinated action on interstate streams, the Congress included in the Water Pollution Control ilct provisions directing t h a t the Surgeon General encourage the enactment of uniform state laws, compacts between states, and other cooperative waterpollution-control activities by the states. Ten interstate compacts which include pollution abatement among their objectives are now in operation, and others are in varying stages of negotiation or ratification. Under the Constitution such compacts must be approved by the Congress. Informal regional advisory councils are also being encouraged in areas where there are no formal compacts, Both types of organization not only facilitate coordinated action on specific interstate problems, but also provide to the states a forum for discussion, consideration, and solution of common pollution problems. Wherever possible, solutions to interstate pollution situations are to be worked out through these groups without the necessity of federal enforcement procedures. The possibility of such interstate action is particularly good in the two areas where the formal compact agencies have been given specific enforcement power* by the member states. COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
It is the policy t h a t comprehensive water-pollution-control programs shall be prepared in cooperation with other federal agencies, with state and interstate water-pollution-control agencies, and with the municipalities and industries involved; that consideration shall be given t o all water uses-public water supplies, propagation of fish and aquatic life, recreational purposes, and agricultural, industrial, and other legitimate uses; and t h a t the programs shall be directed to eliminating or reducing pollution of interstate waters and tributaries thereof and t o improving t h e sanitary condition of surface and underground waters. This policy is based on the requirements of the Act, which specifically directs the Surgeon General to prepare or adopt such programs and sets forth the conditions stated in the policy with respect to purpose, cooperative development, and consideration of all water uses. The legislative record makes plain the intent of Congress that the Federal Government shall take the initiative in the development of comprehensive plans. The importance of full state participation in such development was repeatedly emphasized, however. As originally worded, the bill directed the Surgeon General to prepare programs. The words “or adopt” were later added to permit the Surgeon General t o adopt plans prepared by other agencies, if those plans fully meet the requirements of a comprehensive water-pollution-control program. 2650
This practice of adoption, rather than preparation, is being followed in every possible instance where satisfactory programs are developed by individual states or groups of states for river basins within their respective areas. The advantages are obvious. First and most important, such locally deveIoped plans naturally receive better support from officials and the public. in the areas concerned. In addition, duplication of effort is avoided and a considerable saving of time is effected in getting programs under way. A comprehensive plan for pollution control provides a means of focusing public attention on a certain stream or section of that stream. I t provides to citizen leaders, industries, and others a basis for supporting needed remedial measures. It identifies the problem, and suggests concrete and specific goals. The comprehensive plan has great value as a fundamental educational document. It shows what the people in the area will gain if the program is carried out. It tells what the damages are, in terms of water resource loss, if the program is not completed. I t gives an estimate of the costs involved and states the project requircments in order to attain the quality objectives. The development of such a plan requires determination of (1) sources of pollution, (2) water quality objectives to be used, (3) stream uses desired and for which waters are t o be safeguarded, and finally (4)specific remedial works required, based upon the foregoing three items. Because water uses, amounts available, and bases of legal control vary from area t o area and even from state to state, determinations with respect t o desirable water uses, water quality objectives, and the remedial measures necessary to meet those uses and objectives, are obviously matters for decision by each state individually, or in the case of interstate waters, by groups of states jointly. ENFORCEMENT
The policy is t o define, on the basis of investigations, survevs and studies, the areas in which interstate pollution is probably occurring; t o leave with the states the initial responsibility foi enforcement, and to exercise the full powers of federal enforcement only after the efforts of the states have been exhausted, and then only with the consent of the state. The enforcement policy is based on specific provisions o€ the act which clearly define the circumsta~~ces and manner in which formal federal action may be taken. Such action is limited t o cases of interstate pollution-Le., where pollution arising in one state endangers the health or welfare of persons in another state. The enforcement provisions in the Act as adopted represent a middleground compromise between the opposing views presented at the hearings on the bill-on the one hand, those advocating t h a t Federal activity be limited solely to financial aid, studies, and recommendations, and, on the other, those pressing for immediate and drastic enforcement to meet the dangers to public health, fish and other aquatic life, navigation, and recreation. The record shows that while the Congress recognized the m a n y interests affected by the pollution problem, i t believed its paramount responsibility to be the protection of the public health. It indicated, however, that i t felt t h a t through the public hearings and other preliminary steps provided by the Act, all parties concerned would have an opportunity to present their positions, and that equitable solutions would be achieved ( 1 ) . REPORTING
The policy is to make available the facts on the national pollution problem, t o report progress, and to provide related information, with the major objective of aiding the states, by demonstration and cooperation, in establishing means through which they may maintain effective reporting programs a t the state level, where primary responsibility for the control of pollution rests.
I N D U S T R I A L A N D E N G I N E E R I N G CHEMISTRY
Vol. 45, No. 12
Industrial Process Water Basis for this policy is found in the Act, which requires t h a t the Surgeon General shall make available to state and interstate agencies, municipalities, industries, and individuals the results of surveys, studies, investigations, research, and experiments relating to water pollution [Section 2 ( b ) ] . The Act also provides that the Surgeon General shall prepare and publish reports of such investigations, together with appropriate recommendations (Section 4). During the Brst years of operation of the program, it has been necessary to give major attention to the assembling of technical data on which the development of comprehensive programs must be based. The completed programs presented by the states to the citizens of each community will give a rational plaq for control of pollution in their particular river unit. An effective system of obtaining and regularly reporting nationwide data on municipal wastes and treatment facilities has been developed, but no similar system exists for the collection of information regarding the wastes and treatment works of privately financed industrial plants. The adoption of such reporting procedures would result in considerable benefit not only t o the public but to the industries concerned. In their absence, there is no basis for evaluating and giving public recognition to the very real pollution-abatement progress being achieved by important segments of industry. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
It is the policy t o provide federal financial aid to state and interstate agencies and t o municipalities in the formulation and execution of their stream-pollution-abatement programs. This policy was stated in Section 1 of the Act as a policy of the Congress, Later sections of the Act specifically authorized appropriations to the extent of $22,500,000 annually for loans a t 2% interest t o states, interstate agencies, and municipalities for the construction of sewage-treatment plants, $1,000,000 annually for grants to those agencies for preliminary investigation and preparation of plans for such construction, and $1,000,000 annually for grants t o states and interstate agencies for investigations and research related to industrial wastes. Referring to the authorization for construction loans, the Senate committee report on the water-pollution control bill indicated the committee’s belief that the extension of federal credit to local agencies for construction of pollution-abatement works will greatly stimulate the construction phase of the comprehensive program and thus encourage the early accomplishment of urgently needed abatament measures ( 1 ) . I n its report on the extension of the Act, this past year, the committee reiterated its previous stand with respect to the purpose of the financial provisions to implement the construction aspects of the comprehensive programs (9). As no appropriations have been provided under this portion of the law, there is no basis in experience for testing its effectiveness in stimulating construction. Construction volumes have boomed in other phases of public facilities, even during the past few years, while construction of puhlic sewage-treatment facilities has steadily declined since 1950. During 1952, the rate of construction dropped to $137,000,000(3). This reflects the basic fact that public works of this kind lag behind other types because they benefit, not the community which is taxed to provide the treatment, but the downstream USPI’S of water. RESEARCH
The policy is t o undertake research which will have the greatest immediate and practical effect on the prevention or abatement of pollution and which will primarily seek solutions t o the most urgent problems existing at the time of consideration of projects, consistent with available resources; maintain a satisfactory bnlDecember 1953
ance betwaen short- and long-term projects, and between basic and applied research; give preference t o projects having the widest applicability; not undertake research looking to the solution of problems of any individual industrial establishment; and give support and aid t o pertinent research conducted by other public and private bodies. Section 301 of the basic Public Health Act (PL 410,78th Congress, a codification of all previous public health legislation) provides the basis for the long-standing activities of the Public Health Service in the field of reaearch. I n this section the Surgeon General is directed to “conduct in the service, and encourage, cooperate with, and render assistance t o other appropriate public authorities, scientific institutions, and scientists in the conduct of, and promote the coordination of, research, investigations, demonstrations and studies relating to t h e causes, diagnosis, treatment, control, and prevention of physical and mental diseases and impairments of man, including water purification, sewage treatment, and pollution of lakes and streams.” From this base the service has been able to develop fundamental knowledge concerning natural stream-purification processes, biochemistry of sewage and industrial wastes, and the like. In 1948, under the Water Pollution Control Act, the basis of research was expanded “to support and aid technical research to devise and perfect methods of treatment of industrial wastes which are not susceptible t o known effective methods of treatment, and t o provide federal technical services t o state and interstate agencies and t o industries” (Section 1); and “make availab!e to state and interstate agencies, municipalities, industries, and individuals the results of surveys, studies, investigations, research, and experiments relating t o water pollution and the prevention and abatement thereof conducted by the Surgeon General and by authorized cooperating agencies; and furnish such assisb ance to state agencies as may be authorized b y law” [Section 2(b)l. Section 8 ( a ) of the Act authorizes grants t o the extent of $1,000,000annually to state and interstate water pollution control agencies for the conduct of investigations, research, surveys, and studies related to the prevention and control of water pollution caused by industrial wastes. Although this is a continuing authorization under the law, funds were not appropriated by the Congress for such grants for the fiscal years 1953 and 1954. W 4TER-POLLUTION COXTROL A S D RI\‘ER R . i S l S DEVELOPhIENT PROGRA3lS
The olicy holds that water-pollution control is an integral part of groad river ba-Gin development programs, and that waterpollution aspects should be considered from the initial planning stage9 of projects proposed under such programs.
Through Department of Health, Education, and IVelfare reprewitation on the Federal Inter-lgency River Basin Committee, nnd field staff participation in the a.ork of the committee’s regional countorparts on dcvclopmcnt of thc nation’s water rcsourccs prrsztitntion anti vonsidcration of the water pollution aspects of proposed developments are assured. This policy is currently being follo\vcd in the comprehcnsivc river basin development work uridc~\yay in t.he Columbia, Ilissouri, and Arkansas-White-Red River Rrieins and the N e w England-Sew York and Pacific Southwe?t Areas.
CONCLPSION The fundamental need for protecting public henlrh mid conserving our water resources through control of pollution is no longer a question of debate. So other conclusion is possible in thc light of the knonledgc no\v available. We have reliable information regarding future ivatcr requirements. We know that the increasing burden of pollution is endangering the available resources a t an :+larniing r:ite. The urgency of the problem is clear.
INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY
265 1
In the terms of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Congress recognized t h a t the problem is one that must be solved through the cooperative efforts of all concerned. During the four years of operation under the Act, excellent progress has been made in many areas in developing the kind of cooperative action that the law envisioned. We are moving ahead toward the goals set up in the Act. It would be unrealistic to pretend that progress to the degree desired has been attained in all aspects of the program, but the future is promising. All are aware that some links in the chain need strengthening. Some of the state agencies, for example, lack sufficient funds and personnel to allow full interstate cooperation. There are gaps, too, in some of the basic data required, not only for delineating the problem, but for measuring progress toward achieving a solution. An important gap in our information results from inability to provide firm data which will permit measurement, a t least on an area basis, of the
progress that is being made toward the abatement of pollution caused by industrial wastes. Progress in abating municipal pollution is not satisfactory when considered in relation to the vast amount of work required. It is obvious that we are st'ill far from the ultimate goal. There are rough spots in the road ahead. But with the solid foundation of cooperation that has been developed, and with all members of the team doing their share, the pollution problem can and will he solved and the nation assured of full and continued use of its 7%-aterresources. LITERATURE CITED
(1) Senate Rept. 462,SOth Congress. (2) Senate Rept. 2092,8211d Congress. (3) U. S.Pub. Health Service, Pub. 291 (1962). (4) Warrick, L. F., IND. EN+. CHEM.,45, 2669 (1953). RECEIVED for review April 10, 1953.
ACCEPTED September 4, 1953.
California Water Pollution Control Program FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS Significant changes in state laws for the control of water pollution were made by the California Legislature in 1949. Reversing the trend towards centralized government, these law-s created nine regional boards and placed primary responsibility at the local level for abatement and prevention of water pollution. In contrast to the programs and policies in inany states, California has separated the health and economic aspects of water pollution, abolished the permit system and the principle of reviewing plans, and provided for a case-by-case determination of whether or not pollution exists or threatens in any particular area.
WARREN T. HANNUM State Water Pollution Control Board, Sacramento, Cdi,f.
ANY states have based their programs for control of ' 1 ater ~ pollution on the principles of centralized control, a single definition of pollution, the permit system, review of plans, a n d fixed effluent standards or stream cla,ssification. In 1949 the California Legislature made sweeping changes in state laws for the control of water pollution and instituted a program N hich departed radically from what might be classed as the conventional approach in other states. A method of presentation has been sought which would make more vivid the description of some of the unusual features embodied in California laws. It would be helpful if the California Water Pollution Control Bet could be compared with one which might be considered typical of that in use in other states. Probably the nearest thing to a typical state law is the U. S. Public Health Service's Suggested State K a t e r Pollution Control Act (the suggested state act). The suggested state act and the California Act have a substantially similar objective-the protection of water quality from discharges impairing usability of n ater. Each, however, seeks to reach its objective through methods M hich have numerous basic divergences. This discussion is not debating the relative merits of the two acts. The water problems in California are so greatly different 2652
from those in other parts of the country that i t would be very misleading t o suggest that any other state follow California's example, without first giving full consideration to the actual physical conditione of water development, storage, and use. Conversely, it was concluded t h a t some of the concepts embodied in the suggested state act were not applicable in California. ADMIIVI STRATIVE AGENCY
DECESTRALIZATIOP;. The suggested state act centralizes administration in a single statewide administrative agency (with the suggestion that it be either an independent board or a part of the state health department if placed in an existing agency). In direct contrast', decentralization is one of the fundamental co,icept,s in the California .4ct, d i i c h divides the state into nine water-pollution-control regions, the delineation being based on major watersheds of the state. The governing and policy-forming board 01each regi0.n consists of five members appointed from within the region by the Governor. These members serve n-ithout pay, but are entitled to receive compensation for their necessary expenses while on official business of the board. Albhough the boards are legally required to hold only one regular meeting during each calendar quarter, the number of problems heing present,ed to most of the boards has
INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY
Vol. 45, No. 12
