354 



When the Senate Committee on Public Works held hearings on the bill, 

 the following points were advanced in opposition to it (summarized) : 



1. States and interstate agencies were not sufficiently consulted 

 in the preparation of the bill. 



2. Authority for Federal grants to States and interstate agencies 

 for water pollution control programs was unnecessary as grants 

 were not needed by the States, was undesirable as it might mean 

 Federal control of State programs and was an undependable 

 source of funds which discouraged rather than stimulated in- 

 creased State appropriations. 



3. Authority for establislmient of Federal water quality stand- 

 ards at State boundaries was unnecessary and was an unwarranted 

 usurpation of State authority. 



4. Modification of enforcement procedures authorizing Federal 

 court action against an interstate pollutor without consent of the 

 polluting State was an invasion of State's rights and sovereignty. 



5. There was no provision for control of pollution from Federal 

 installations.*'^ 



A compromise bill, meeting some of these objections was passed by 

 the Senate and endorsed by the Public Health Service, but was not 

 acted on in the House. 



Pai^sage of the 1956 amendme'nts; 'preXulential reservations 



Following adjournment of the <S4th Congress in 1955, State officials, 

 industry and the Government held a series of conferences to develop 

 proposed substitute legislation. Many of the compromises worked out 

 were incorporated into legislation introduced in 1056. Additional liear- 

 ings were held, and after extensive debate and conference committee 

 action, S. 890, amended, was passed and signed bv the President on 

 July 9, 1956 (Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1956) . In a 

 press statement released upon liis signing of the act. President Eisen- 

 hower indicated that the act went beyond the recommendations of hi.s 

 administration by providing funds for Federal grants for construc- 

 tion. He added that the bill was premature ; the Department of Health, 

 Education, and Welfare should first have prepared criteria for 

 eligibility of applicants for Federal aid. Although a sujjplemental 

 appro]>riation for the full amount of errants authorized was passed 

 soon after t'he President signed the bill, the Bureau of the Budget 

 Avaited o months before releasinc; the construction grant funds for 

 allocation by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. 



The 1956" act (70 Stat. 498) strengthened the Federal pollution 

 authority of the 1948 law (which expired Ju7ie 30, 1956) and extended 

 it to 1971. The new measure brought in the concept of prevention 

 as well as correction, and added protection of the wildlife environ- 

 ment as an objective. Collection and dissemination of basic data on 

 water quality, and other research authority, were enlarged. A Water 

 Pollution Control Advisoiy Board was created. Uniform antipollu- 

 tion laws in the States were encouraged. The expenditure of $500 

 million was authorized for construction of municipal treatment 

 facilities. 



President Eisenhower continued to oppose Federal pollution con- 

 trol throughout his second term; in particular, he vetoed a 1959 bill 



«i T'.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Water Pollution Control Act 

 Amendments of 1955. Chronology of their development, Congressional and public opinion. 

 Sept. 8, 1955. (Typed, in-house report), p. 11. 



