A Great Cleanup?

"The most significant environmental legislation in the history of Congress," said Ohio Representative William Harsha. "The means to eliminate the cancer of water pollution," said Senator Edmund Muskie of Maine. With such encomiums, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 swept through Congress last week by 74-0 in the Senate and 366-11 in the House. Despite this massive approval, the big question was: Would President Nixon sign the bill into law?

There can be no doubt of the act's importance. It aims at nothing less than the end of pollution of U.S. waterways by 1985. The problem is money. Congress provides a cornucopia--the act calls for spending of $24.6 billion over the next three fiscal years. That amount is almost three times as much as the White House has recommended. Indeed, Administration experts term the act "inflationary," and some have publicly advised the President to veto it.

Acrimony. The act itself is the product of months of argument. The Senate passed a tough version last November; the House approved a milder bill in March. The legislation then underwent a full 39 conference committee sessions, many of them long and acrimonious. After all that, says Representative Robert Jones, chairman of the House conference committee: "The bill is more effective than either the House or Senate bills."

The essential ingredients for the great cleanup are all there. Every sort of pollutant, from heavy metals like mercury and cadmium to heated water from electricity plants, is defined and limited. The bill provides up to $18 billion for municipalities to build new sewage-treatment plants, with 75% of the money being paid by Washington and 25% by states and cities. It would finance the removal of toxic sludge from river and lake bottoms and also provide low-interest loans to small businesses for antipollution equipment.

The cleanup would take place in two stages. By July 1, 1977, industries would have to install the "best practicable" antipollution devices on all their waste systems. "Practicable" means what industry can afford--or what the Environmental Protection Agency says industry can afford. In effect, Congress is promising that the need for antipollution equipment would not put small and antiquated plants out of business, but it is also warning that even relatively unprofitable factories must begin to curb their wastes. The real crunch would come with the second deadline. By July 1, 1983, all industries must upgrade their antipollution equipment to make use of the "best available" technology--even if it is expensive.

"You are the enforcer," said President Nixon when he appointed William D. Ruckelshaus as the EPA'S first administrator. The clean-water act uses him as just that. His biggest job would be to police the efforts of the individual states, which would be directly in charge of the cleanup. The states would issue permits, written to meet EPA standards, specifying limits on every plant that discharges wastes into waterways. If a state is too lenient with a polluter--violations can cost $25,000 a day (plus a year in jail for plant officials)--the EPA chief could intervene and even take over a state's entire water program.

Congress has tried to make the bill palatable to the economy-minded White House, specifically permitting the Administration to spend less than the authorized funds. Nonetheless, at week's end lawmakers feared that President Nixon would hold the measure, unsigned, until Congress adjourns in mid-October. Such a pocket veto would not give Congress a chance to override the President's action. If the bill is killed, warns Senator Muskie, "Before Congress can act again, more precious time will be lost in a battle where time is running out on our future."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.