[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 143 (Wednesday, October 5, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 5, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                     OCEAN POLLUTION REDUCTION ACT

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee 
on Public Works and Transportation and the Committee on Merchant Marine 
and Fisheries be discharged from further consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 5176) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act relating 
to San Diego ocean discharge and waste water reclamation, and ask for 
its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I will not 
object, and I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner] for 
an explanation of the bill.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation would simply allow the city of San 
Diego to make an application under section 301(h) of the Clean Water 
Act section. The application would require the city to maintain current 
treatment levels, so that we ensure adequate protection of the marine 
environment. In addition, by continuing the city's commitment toward 
water reclamation, it would actually decrease the amount of solids 
dumped into the ocean.
  This is legislation that is strongly supported by the city of San 
Diego and our local environmental organizations. It is cost-effective 
environmental protection based on good science. A Federal judge was 
almost begged for such legislative action.
  This legislation would not be here today without a true bipartisan 
effort: chairman of the House Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation, Norm Mineta; chairman of the Committee on Merchant 
Marine and Fisheries, Gerry Studds; ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Jack Fields, and ranking 
minority member of the Public Works and Transportation Committee, Bud 
Shuster; as well as chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and 
Environment, Doug Applegate, and ranking minority member of the 
Subcommittee on Water Resources, Sherwood Boehlert.
  I thank these colleagues for being knowledgeable and concerned about 
the situation in San Diego.
  I would also like to thank my two San Diego colleagues, Ms. Schenk 
and Mr. Cunningham for their support. Ms. Schenk has been extremely 
instrumental in the development of this bill, and I would like to thank 
her for all of her hard work, her leadership, and her dedication in 
helping to bring this legislation before us today.
  Finally, I would also like to thank the committee staff, both 
minority and majority, for all of their hard work on this bill.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield 
to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Schenk] for her comments.
  Ms. SCHENK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  First I want to commend my colleague from San Diego, Bob Filner, for 
his diligent work on behalf of San Diego's wastewater treatment 
problems. It has been an honor to work with him as a team. It is a 
pleasure when we can, as we do tonight, take a giant step toward 
resolving these problems.
  In addition, I want to express my appreciation to chairman Studds of 
the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, my committee, and our 
committee's ranking member Jack Fields for their advice and assistance 
on this bill. I want to also express my deepest gratitude to Chairman 
Mineta and Mr. Shuster for their help and unfailing support.
  I also want to recognize the help we have received from the staffs of 
our two committees, who have toiled with us to achieve legislation on 
which we can all agree.
  San Diego is faced with a serious dilemma because of the secondary 
treatment standards in the Clean Water Act: If the city is forced to 
meet the secondary standards under present law, they will have to 
implement a wastewater treatment plan that will result in less 
desirable environmental impacts and will cost rate payers $1 billion 
more than if we implement an alternative plan which incorporates a 
combination of advanced primary treatment and wastewater reclamation 
and reuse.
  At my request, the Environment and Natural Resources Subcommittee 
held a hearing on the issue in San Diego last July. We heard testimony 
that San Diego's solution will not weaken the Clean Water Act's 
standards and is in conformance with the findings of the National 
Research Council's 1993 study on ``Managing Wastewater in Coastal Urban 
Areas.''
  The purpose of the legislation before us this evening is merely to 
give San Diego an opportunity to apply for a waiver under section 
301(h) of the Clean Water Act. That waiver, if granted, would allow the 
city to implement an environmentally progressive wastewater treatment 
program and save our taxpayers billions of dollars! This is an 
important step in the right direction, and I want to thank again all 
those who have helped make it possible.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, under my reservation of objection I want to 
say that this does assure environmental protection. It is simply 
providing for the possibility of an exemption. This legislation allows 
the EPA to grant that exemption. They have to apply to EPA, and that 
requires the commitment to a wastewater program, and it requires 
meeting certain minimum levels of treatment.
  This has been cleared with the Republican leadership on the Committee 
on Public Works and Transportation, and I hope we will approve it.
  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

                               H.R. 5176

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Ocean Pollution Reduction 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. SAN DIEGO OCEAN DISCHARGE AND WASTE WATER 
                   RECLAMATION.

       Section 301(j) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 1311(j)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(A) by inserting before the semicolon 
     at the end the following: ``, and except as provided in 
     paragraph (5)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Extension of application deadline.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the 180-day period beginning on the 
     date of the enactment of this paragraph, the city of San 
     Diego, California, may apply for a modification pursuant to 
     subsection (h) of the requirements of subsection (b)(1)(B) 
     with respect to biological oxygen demand and total suspended 
     solids in the effluent discharged into marine waters.
       ``(B) Application.--An application under this paragraph 
     shall include a commitment by the applicant to implement a 
     waste water reclamation program that, at a minimum, will--
       ``(i) achieve a system capacity of 45,000,000 gallons of 
     reclaimed waste water per day by January 1, 2010;
       ``(ii) result in a reduction in the quantity of suspended 
     solids discharged by the applicant into the marine 
     environment during the period of the modification.
       ``(C) Additional conditions.--The Administrator may not 
     grant a modification pursuant to an application submitted 
     under this paragraph unless the Administrator determines that 
     such modification will result in removal of not less than 58 
     percent of the biological oxygen demand (on an annual 
     average) and not less than 80 percent of total suspended 
     solids (on a monthly average) in the discharge to which the 
     application applies.
       ``(D) Preliminary decision deadline.--The Administrator 
     shall announce a preliminary decision on an application 
     submitted under this paragraph not later than 1 year after 
     the date the application is submitted.''.

  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read 
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.

                          ____________________