[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.
____________________