|
.19�
<br /> ] i E 18 ERC 1124 Nattonat Wildlife Federation Gorsuch
<br /> Tdischarge might ultimately prove to be was rejected in conference, it suggests the
<br /> 1 F too expensive to be achieved. See id. at House's strong reservations about the
<br /> 38,822, 1972 Leg. Hut. 1308-09 (state- economic and technical feasibility of zero
<br /> ment of Sen. Muskie): discharge. Those same reservations also }_
<br /> There are no [cost] estimates ... that, led the House to set up the expert
<br /> j in my judgment, have any validity .... commission just referred to to study the
<br /> [T]he 1985 target has not been related "total economic, social, and environmen-
<br /> to costs. The bill does provide for tal effects of achieving or not achieving
<br /> i water quality inventories ... designed the [best available technology] effluent 1
<br /> to give us some hard estimates as to the limitations and goals set forth for 1983." -
<br /> 1 `
<br /> cost of achieving no pollution dis- Clean Water Act §315(a), 33 L.S.C.
<br /> charge by 1985 .... Then it would be § 1325(a). The House Report states: '_
<br /> for Congress to decide whether achiev- The Committee recognizes the prob-
<br /> ing no discharge by 1985 is within the lems associated with implementing a t
<br /> ability of the American people to ab- no-discharge policy .... [1]ery little i
<br /> sorb the cost. hard evidence was available on which
<br /> See also S. Rep. at 11, 1972 Leg. Hist. 1429: to make final irretrievable judgment on
<br /> The Committee recognizes the diffi- this matter. It was for this reason chat
<br /> culty of implementing a no-discharge the legislation includes section 315
<br /> policy. The development of the midc- providing for a study ... of the effects `
<br /> ourse correction information required of achieving or not achieving the
<br /> by Section 305 ... will assist the Nation [1983] goals. At the conclusion of the
<br /> in any decision on the proper enforce- study ... , Congress will be in a position
<br /> ment mechanism to be established to to fully evaluate the implications of a
<br /> support the goal, if appropriate, ... or no-discharge policy. ,
<br /> -' the extent of the exceptions to that H.R. Rep. at 77, 1972 Leg. Hut. 7 64. ;µ
<br /> 1' goal, if any, or whether the costs associ-
<br /> ated with reaching this ultimate Stan- In short, while Congress wanted to ax
<br /> eliminate pollution if practicable, it real-
<br /> dard, in some instances, may far out- real-
<br /> ized that it might have to settle for
<br /> weigh the benefits derived. g
<br /> something less. '
<br /> Significantly, the Senate's commitment -
<br /> ' to a zero-discharge policy, qualified The legislative history of the 1977
<br /> though it was, was not fully shared by the amendments further suggests caution in 1 :
<br /> House. What started out as a national indiscriminately relying on the § 101(a) y=
<br /> "policy" in the Senate bi1170 was watered "goals" to alter the meaning of specific
<br /> down to a "goal" in the House. Further- Provisions of the Act. In 1977, Congress
<br /> more, the House, after extensive debate, statement of Rep. Blatnik) ("the technology
<br /> made both the zero-discharge goal and
<br /> the best available technology require-re uire for 'no discharge ... does not now exist"); id
<br /> � at 10,213, 1972 Leg. Hut. 375 (statement of ;
<br /> ment purely hortatory—they were not to Rep. Clausen) ("no one knows whether or not
<br /> take effect unless adopted by a subse- we can meet the 1985 goal of no discharge ...
<br /> quent Congress after an expert commis- for] whether or not we should establish the
<br /> sion reported back to Congress on the 1985 goal") (emphasis added); and id. at
<br /> costs and benefits of stringent water 10,799, 1972 Leg. Hut. 739 (statement of Rep.
<br /> pollution contro1.71 While this position Crane) ("The House position is that technolo-
<br /> gy is not available to enforce 'zero discharge'
<br /> cation to view this bill as a 'no-discharge' bill")- without serious disruption of industry.") unth,
<br /> id at 38,834, 1972 Leg. Hiss 1336 (statement e.g., id at 10,249, 1972 Leg. Hut 470 (state-
<br /> of Sen. Baker) ("Certainly, this bill does not... menc of Rep. Dingell, an unsuccessful sponsor
<br /> cry to eliminate all pollution at this time nor, of major "clean water" amendments to
<br /> ideally, even by 1985."). strengthen the House bill) ("I, for one, do not
<br /> 70 S. 2770, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. § 101(a) believe it necessary for the 92d Congress to
<br /> (1971), 1972 Leg. Hut. 1535. defer to the 94th Congress on ... asking '
<br /> 71 H.R. 11,896, 92d Cong.,2d Sess. §315(a) polluters to install and use, nearly a decade
<br /> (1972). 1972 Leg. Hut. 1042-43. The House from now, the best available technology to
<br /> debate is reported in 118 Cong. Rec. 10,201- treat their wastes."); and id at 10,639, 1972
<br /> 68, 10,611-73, 10,748-831 (1972), 1972 Leg. Leg. Hut. 516 (statement of Rep. Harrington)
<br /> Hist. 343-751. Compare, e.g., id at 10,206, 1972 ("These are only goals — not a legislative
<br /> Leg. Hist. 355 (statement of Rep. Harsha) mandate — but they are dates which give us a
<br /> (incorrectly reported in 1972 Leg. Hist. as the framework for our efforts.").
<br />
|