In view of the far-reaching provisions of the Water Quality Act of 1965, it is not surprising that any of the legislative and administrative actions in the field of water quality during the past year stem from the Act. The Clean Waters Act of 1966, signed by the President late in the year, further extended federal policies of enforcement and subsidies in pollution control; at the same time, both federal and state agencies came to grips with practical problems of carrying out provisions of the 1965 legislation.
One of the provisions called for moving the federal water pollution control effort from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to a new Water Pollution Control Administration in the Department of the Interior. The shift was completed in 1966, involving, as had been feared, the loss of some key personnel; but it is too soon to evaluate the shift's overall effect. Perhaps the most significant feature of the 1965 Act was its requirement that the states establish water quality standards on interstate and boundary streams prior to June 30, 1967, or face a federal initiative to do so. This feature came in for continuous debate on the part of the states. On the one hand, there is simply not enough available information to allow the states to develop the required standards and still meet the deadline. On the other hand, it is true that without pressures of one kind or another—and close deadlines certainly are often effective—little progress will be made.
Early in 1966, the Administration sponsored a water pollution control bill containing some unusually interesting features. Of particular note was the fact that it would have provided federal incentives to establish regional water quality authorities with wide-ranging powers to design and carry out efficient and effective water quality management systems in their areas. A second important feature was the emphasis is laid upon prices and charges, especially charges upon effluents discharged to the water courses. These charges were to have financed the water quality programs and provided an incentive to industry to minimize its waste loads, either by treatment or—what is in many instances more important—by internal process changes or some combination of the two. Despite the fact that many consider this legislation a constructive response to the emerging water quality problems of the nation, it failed passage. The bill which both bodies of the Congress finally adopted instead, the Clean Waters Restoration Act of 1966, is more limited. Basically, it extends the two main thrusts of the prior federal policy—enforcement and subsidies..
The new Act provides for an accelerated program of federal grants to municipalities for waste treatment plant construction amounting to $3.4 billion over a four-year period. This extends a line of federal policy beyond the 1965 Act, which itself had raised the amount of federal support beyond the former level. One major objective of the bill is to offer incentives for states to participate in the effort. It provides that the federal government will carry up to 30 percent of the cost of waste treatment works without dollar limitation. If the state agrees to share to the extent of 30 percent of the cost of all projects, the federal allotment will go up to 40 percent. The federal portion can go as high as 50 percent if a state agrees to pay as much as 25 percent of the cost and if water quality standards as required under the 1965 Act have been established.
An incentive to the regional approach, central to the Administration's earlier bill, was the provision requiring the Secretary of the Interior to grant a planning agency up to 50 percent of the administrative cost for three years if the agency is capable of developing an effective, comprehensive water quality control and pollution abatement plan for a basin. A basin with such a plan might benefit from further provisions making available federal assistance to demonstration projects and joint municipal and industrial treatment projects.
Another interesting aspect of the bill is the attention it pays to estuarine areas. While the amount authorized for the study of these areas, $.1 million per year for three years, is small relative to the cost of intensive studies of all the major estuaries in the United States, recognition of the special importance and problems of these areas is in itself a step in the right direction.
The industrial and urban areas of the United States are largely located along bays and estuaries. These bodies of water are hydrologically complex and tend to be afflicted with special quality problems which result from their tidal character. There is need for a major effort to understand them better and to deal with their peculiar problems of resources management.
Some work has already been done on estuaries. During 1966, a report on a study of the Delaware Estuary which had been going on for some years, first under HEW and then (after the agency shift) under Interior auspices, was published. Alternative programs for dealing with the quality problems of the estuary were presented. A significant conclusion was that, even with a carefully coordinated and efficient program of water quality management, bringing the estuary to a comparatively high quality might cost on the order of half a billion dollars. The Delaware River Basin is the one area in the United States where there already is an institution which might carry forward a well-articulated program of water quality control. Now that a reasonably firm analytical basis has been laid for such a program, it will be interesting to see how the Basin Commission will meet the management challenge.
Other estuaries around the country are coming in for detailed attention. The state of California is planning a major study of water quality management for the San Francisco Bay area. The Texas Water Pollution Control Board, in conjunction with federal agencies, has initiated a large-scale study of Galveston Bay. The significance and the difficult problems of this bay and estuary area became clearer during the Texas Water Development Board's efforts to devise a long-range plan for the best use of the waters of the state. This activity is described on page 10.
A version of this article appeared in print in the January 1967 issue of Resources magazine.
