[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 132 (Monday, September 29, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8088-H8090]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                COASTAL POLLUTION REDUCTION ACT OF 1997

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 2207) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
concerning a proposal to construct a deep ocean outfall off the coast 
of Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2207

       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 ``Coastal Pollution Reduction 
     Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. MAYAGUEZ, PUERTO RICO.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The existing discharge from the Mayaguez publicly owned 
     treatment works is to the stressed waters of Mayaguez Bay, an 
     area containing severely degraded coral reefs, and relocation 
     of that discharge to unstressed ocean waters could benefit 
     the marine environment.
       (2) The Federal Water Pollution Control Act should, 
     consistent with the environmental goals of the Act, be 
     administered with sufficient flexibility to take into 
     consideration the unique characteristics of Mayaguez, Puerto 
     Rico.
       (3) Some deep ocean areas off the coastline of Mayaguez, 
     Puerto Rico, might be able to receive a less-than-secondary 
     sewage discharge while still maintaining healthy and diverse 
     marine life.
       (4) A properly designed and operated deep ocean outfall off 
     the coast of Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, coupled with other 
     pollution reduction activities in the Mayaguez Watershed 
     could facilitate compliance with the requirements and 
     purposes of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act without 
     the need for more costly treatment.
       (5) The owner or operator of the Mayaguez publicly owned 
     treatment works should be afforded an opportunity to make the 
     necessary scientific studies and submit an application 
     proposing use of a deep ocean outfall for review by the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under 
     section 301(h) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
       (b) Application for Secondary Treatment Waiver for 
     Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, Deep Ocean Outfall.--Section 301 of 
     the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1311) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(q) Application for Waiver.--
       ``(1) Study.--In order to be eligible to apply for a waiver 
     under this section, the owner or operator of the Mayaguez, 
     Puerto Rico, publicly owned treatment works shall transmit to 
     the Administrator a report on the results of a study of the 
     marine environment of coastal areas in the Mayaguez area to 
     determine the feasibility of constructing a deep ocean 
     outfall for the Mayaguez treatment works. In conducting the 
     study, the owner or operator shall consider variations in the 
     currents, tidal movement, and other hydrological and 
     geological characteristics at any proposed outfall location. 
     Such study may recommend one or more technically feasible and 
     environmentally acceptable locations for a deep ocean outfall 
     intended to meet the requirements of subsection (h). Such 
     study may be initiated, expanded, or continued not later than 
     3 months after the date of the enactment of this subsection.
       ``(2) Section 301(h) application for mayaguez, puerto 
     rico.--Notwithstanding subsection (j)(1)(A), not later than 
     18 months after the date of the enactment of this subsection, 
     an application may be submitted for a modification pursuant 
     to subsection (h) of the requirements of subsection (b)(1)(B) 
     by the owner or operator of the Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, 
     publicly owned treatment works at a location recommended in a 
     study conducted pursuant to paragraph (1). Such application 
     shall not be subject to the application revision procedures 
     of section 125.59(d) of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations. No such application may be filed unless and 
     until the applicant has entered into a binding consent decree 
     with the United States that includes, at a minimum, the 
     following:
       ``(A) A schedule and milestones to ensure expeditious 
     compliance with the requirements of subsection (b)(1)(B) in 
     the event the requested modification is denied, including 
     interim effluent limits and design activities to be 
     undertaken while the application is pending.
       ``(B) A schedule and interim milestones to ensure 
     expeditious compliance with the requirements of any 
     modification of subsection (b)(1)(B) in the event the 
     requested modification is approved.
       ``(C) A commitment by the applicant to contribute not less 
     than $400,000 to the Mayaguez Watershed Initiative in 
     accordance with such schedules as may be specified in the 
     consent decree.
       ``(3) Initial determination.--On or before the 270th day 
     after the date of submittal of an application under paragraph 
     (2) that has been deemed complete by the Administrator, the 
     Administrator shall issue to the applicant a tentative 
     determination regarding the requested modification.
       ``(4) Final determination.--On or before the 270th day 
     after the date of issuance of the tentative determination 
     under paragraph (3), the Administrator shall issue a final 
     determination regarding the modification.
       ``(5) Additional condition.--The Administrator may not 
     grant a modification pursuant to an application submitted 
     under this subsection unless the Administrator determines 
     that the new deep water ocean outfall will use a well-
     designed and operated diffuser that discharges into 
     unstressed ocean waters and is situated so as to avoid 
     discharge (or transport of discharged pollutants) to coral 
     reefs, other sensitive marine resources or recreational 
     areas, and shorelines.
       ``(6) Effectiveness.--If a modification is granted pursuant 
     to an application submitted under this subsection, such 
     modification shall be effective only if the new deepwater 
     ocean outfall is operational on or before the date that is 
     4\1/2\ years after the date of the Administrator's initial 
     tentative determination on the application.''.

     SEC. 3. NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM.

       (a) Grants for Comprehensive Conservation and Management 
     Plans.--Section 320(g)(2) of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1330(g)(2)) is amended by inserting 
     ``and implementation'' after ``development''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 320(i) of 
     such Act (33 U.S.C. 1330(i)) is amended by striking ``1987'' 
     and all that follows through ``1991'' and inserting the 
     following: ``1987 through 1991, such sums as may be necessary 
     for fiscal years 1992 through 1997, and $20,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 1998''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Boehlert] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill would amend the Clean Water Act to allow a 
community in Puerto Rico to apply to EPA for an alternative to 
secondary treatment requirements. Any alternative approved by EPA would 
be, and this is important, would be subject to requirements and 
conditions necessary to assure the adequate protection of coastal 
resources. Mr. Speaker, this bill could help save the community up to 
$65 million by avoiding the construction of more costly facilities 
while including appropriate environmental safeguards.
  Another provision in the bill, added in committee, modifies the Clean 
Water Act's national estuary program. The bill allows the use of 
Federal funds for implementation, as opposed to just development, of 
comprehensive conservation and management plans. This is a widely 
supported approach to protecting America's estuaries.

[[Page H8089]]

  Allowing Federal funds to be used for implementing the national 
estuary program is an initiative strongly supported by State, local, 
and regional interests, including the environmental community. Many 
States have completed their comprehensive conservation and management 
plans required under the national estuary program, and it is time to 
help put their plans to work.
  Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure members should be 
congratulated for their efforts in developing the Coastal Pollution 
Reduction Act. I would particularly like to recognize the efforts of 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman, the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the ranking Democrat of the 
committee, and my colleague and good friend, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], the ranking Democrat of the Subcommittee on 
Water Resources and Environment.
  In addition, I would be remiss if I did not thank the gentleman from 
Puerto Rico [Mr. Romero-Barcelo] the primary sponsor of the bill. His 
efforts to address this matter and promote greater flexibility in the 
Clean Water Act have been thoughtful and persistent.
  I would also like to thank the gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Don Young, 
our colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Resources, for his role 
in supporting the bill and helping to clarify that the intent of the 
national estuaries program amendment is not to provide any new or 
expanded authority to regulate land use.
  Finally, I want to thank representatives of the Environmental 
Protection Agency and the environmental community, particularly in 
Puerto Rico, for their input. The final text of the bill and the 
detailed committee report largely reflect their comments and concerns.
  Throughout the development of this bill, our intent has been to 
fashion a responsible approach to meet a site-specific need for 
flexibility under the Clean Water Act and to strengthen the national 
estuaries program. I think we have succeeded.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2207, and I reserve the balance 
of my time, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2207, the 
Coastal Pollution Reduction Act of 1997. This bill, which would amend 
the Clean Water Act, provides an opportunity for Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, 
to apply for a waiver of secondary treatment requirements in an effort 
to protect its coral reef. While I urge my colleagues to support this 
bill for the environmental protection it should provide, as the ranking 
Democrat of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, I feel 
compelled to raise some of my concerns about this type of legislation.
  The protection of ocean water quality has long been a responsibility 
and priority of our subcommittee through its jurisdiction over the 
Clean Water Act, the Ocean Dumping Act, and the Oil Pollution Act. For 
far too long our oceans were viewed as a convenient dumping ground for 
the wastes associated with human development.
  As we have learned, those earlier practices were a mistake which we 
find ourselves continuing to correct to this day. With the Ocean 
Dumping Ban Act, the dumping of sewage sludge came to an end. Yet, our 
inadequate control of pollution associated with point and nonpoint 
sources, now largely controlled through the Clean Water Act, left us a 
legacy of contaminated sediments in our harbors, estuaries, and lakes.
  Whether it is nonpoint source pollution, uncollected runoff from 
urban and rural areas, or collected runoff through storm sewers, we 
continue to allow sediments to enter our waterways and carry their 
pollution with them.
  Too often when we discuss coastal and ocean issues we talk about 
treating the symptoms, but not the cause of the problems. Unless and 
until there are aggressive steps taken to address the pollution sources 
in our coastal areas, urban runoff, storm sewers, municipal sewage 
treatment plants, and agriculture, our coastal areas will continue to 
be under great stress.
  Mr. Speaker, I must say, I feel strongly that, despite the necessity 
of this legislation I rise in support of today, our subcommittee's 
efforts are better directed toward advancing the cleanup of our 
Nation's waters. I am confident that the distinguished gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Boehlert], the subcommittee chairman, shares my view, and 
that we will do so in this Congress by addressing the major sources of 
pollution in coastal areas.
  However, while I sincerely hope the next time we are on the floor 
discussing the Clean Water Act it is with the intent of strengthening 
it, rather than to create waiver opportunities, I believe that the 
unique conditions at Mayaguez make H.R. 2207 an acceptable tradeoff. If 
the opportunity to apply for a permit under the deep ocean outfalls 
provision is needed to protect coral reef in Mayaguez, then that 
competing environmental concern is significant enough to warrant such 
action today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure my colleague, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, that I share his enthusiasm for moving with dispatch on 
reauthorization of the Clean Water Act. It is very important not just 
to our committee or to this Congress but to the Nation, and that is 
something that will have my undivided attention at the appropriate 
time. It looks like the appropriate time will be early in the next 
session of the House.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the hard work and dedication of our 
colleague, the gentleman from Puerto Rico [Mr. Romero-Barcelo]. He is 
working hard to improve the quality of the coastal environment and 
precious near shore reefs. This bill is the first step in protecting 
the coastal environment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2207, the Coastal 
Pollution Reduction Act of 1997.
  This bipartisan legislation, introduced by Representative Romero-
Barcelo, amends the Clean Water Act to allow a community in Puerto Rico 
to apply to EPA for an alternative to secondary treatment requirements, 
subject to other requirements and conditions.
  This bill could help save Mayaguez, PR up to $65 million by avoiding 
the construction of more costly facilities while including appropriate 
environmental safeguards. The flexibility to pursue reasonable 
alternatives makes economic and environmental sense.
  Another provision, added in committee, modifies the Clean Water Act's 
National Estuary Program. The amendment would allow the use of Federal 
funds for implementation, as opposed to just development of 
comprehensive conservation and management plans [CCMP's]. This is a 
widely supported approach to protecting America's estuaries.
  I want to assure my colleagues that nothing in this amendment in any 
way provides new authority or expands existing authority for land use 
regulation. The existing NEP has been successful to date, in part, 
because it avoids a Federal regulatory approach. This amendment simply 
allows the use of Federal funds and technical assistance under section 
320 of the Clean Water Act so that State, local and regional interests 
can take CCMP's to the next step: implementation. I appreciate the 
assistance and cooperation of my friend and colleague, Representative 
Don Young, who is also chairman of the House Resources Committee, for 
bringing to my attention the need to clarify this point.
  I also want to commend the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], 
the ranking Democrat of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee; the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], the chairman of 
the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee; and the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], the ranking Democrat of the Water 
Resources and Environment Subcommittee. They have been instrumental in 
moving this important legislation.
  Finally, I would be remiss if I did not thank Representative Romero-
Barcelo who is responsible for promoting this bill to address the needs 
of a particular community by increasing the flexibility of the Clean 
Water Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2207.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H8090]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2207, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________