[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 173 (Friday, November 3, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S16663]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. PRESSLER (for himself and Mr. Campbell):
  S. 1391. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
prohibit the imposition of any civil or administrative penalty against 
a unit of local government for a violation of the act when a compliance 
plan with respect to the violation is in effect, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


                 CLEAN WATER ACT PENALTIES LEGISLATION

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to 
lift the unfair burden of excessive regulatory penalties from the backs 
of local governments that are working in good faith to comply with the 
Clean Water Act.
  Mr. President, earlier this year we worked on legislation to bring 
common sense to the regulatory process. That legislation is still 
pending. It is my hope that we will return to that bill and pass it. 
Everyone from small business persons to city mayors want real relief 
from Federal regulatory overreach. That is the goal of my bill as well.
  Under current law, civil penalties begin to accumulate the moment a 
local government violates the Clean Water Act. Once this happens, the 
law requires that the local government present a municipal compliance 
plan for approval by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency [EPA], or the Secretary of the Army in cases of section 404 
violations. However, even after a compliance plan has been approved, 
penalties continue to accumulate. In effect, existing law gives the EPA 
the authority to continue punishing local governments while they are 
trying to comply with the law.

  When I talk with South Dakotans, few topics raise their blood 
pressure faster than their frustrating dealings with the Federal 
bureaucracy. Government is supposed to work for us, not against us. Mr. 
President, this is clearly a case where the Government is working 
against those cities and towns trying in good faith to comply with the 
Clean Water Act.
  In South Dakota, the city of Watertown's innovative/alternative 
technology wastewater treatment facility was built as a joint 
partnership with the EPA, the city and the State of South Dakota in 
1982. The plant was constructed with the understanding that EPA would 
provide assistance in the event the new technology failed. The facility 
was modified and rebuilt in 1991 when it was unable to comply with 
Clean Water Act discharge requirements. Unfortunately, the newly 
reconstructed plan still was found to violate Federal regulations. The 
city now faces a possible lawsuit by the Federal Government and is 
incurring fines of up to $25,000 per day.
  The city of Watertown, under the very capable guidance of Mayor 
Brenda Barger, has entered into a municipal compliance plan with the 
EPA. Under the agreed plan, Watertown should achieve compliance by 
December 1996. However, that plan does not address the issue of the 
civil and administrative penalties that continue to accumulate against 
the city.

  Under the law, Watertown could accumulate an additional $14 million 
in penalties before its treatment facility is able to comply with the 
Clean Water Act requirements.
   Mr. President, no city in South Dakota can afford such steep 
penalties.
  My legislation would offer relief to cities like Watertown. Under my 
bill, local governments would stop accumulating civil and 
administrative penalties once a municipal compliance plan has been 
negotiated and the locality is acting in good faith to carry out the 
plan. Further, my bill would be an incentive for governments to move 
quickly toward achieving compliance with the Clean Water Act.
  This legislation is designed simply to address an issue of fairness. 
Local governments must operate with a limited pool of resources. 
Localities should not be forced to devote their tax revenues both to 
penalties and programs designed to comply with the law. It defies 
common sense for the EPA to penalize a local government at the same 
time it is working in good faith to comply with the law. My legislation 
restores common sense and fairness to local governments. By eliminating 
unfair penalties, local governments could better concentrate their 
resources to meet the intent of the law in protecting our water 
resources from pollution.
   Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this 
commonsense legislation for our towns and cities.
                                 ______