178 



very serious and thorough consideration as to certain limits, cer- 

 tain standards, certain requirements as guidance. I think Congress 

 cannot relinquish its responsibility just by shoving off to the admin- 

 istrative agency complete discretionary authority. This is something 

 that we will all be discussing, of course, in the days ahead. 



Mr. Rogers. Would the gentleman yield ? 



I think it will be well to have your comment, Mr. Train, about the 

 provisions that those of us who introduced H.E. 3662 provided in this 

 proposed legislation, my bill, to begin to set deadlines as to treatment 

 of wastes before they can be dumped into the water; for instance, 

 primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment to set specific dates just 

 like you did in the air pollution bill. 



JSTow, unless we have goals and dates set, I am afraid all of this dis- 

 cretion in the administration bill will end up in no decisions and no 

 real progress being made. I think it is essential for us to have deadlines 

 as to when we must have primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment 

 before they can be dumped. I think it would be helpful if we could 

 have your opinion in the record on this. 



Mr. MosHER. Of course, the Air Quality Act was unique, because 

 Congress for the first time did establish quantitative standards and 

 deadlines, and I think this will be almost the prime question before 

 us as to whether we want to follow that example or not. 



Mr. Rogers. I think the gentleman is correct. If you could let us 

 have your comment on that ? 



(The comment follows:) 



Requirements for primary, gecondary, and tertiary treatment of wastes would 

 generally apply to those liquid wastes wliieh are discharged through outfalls. 

 Discharges of effluent from outfalls are excluded from regulation under H.E. 

 4723, with the expectation that such discharges will be ad<iressed under the Fed- 

 eral Water Pollution Control Act and the Refuse Act. The Administration has 

 proposed amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act which are now 

 being considered by other Committees; Mr. Ruckelshaus, the Administrator of 

 the Environmental Protection Agency, could and to my knowledge will discuss 

 the details of these water quality proposials with you. 



Mr. Lennon. The gentleman from California, Mr. Anderson. 



Mr. Anderson. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Train, to follow up Mr. Felly's question a moment ago concern- 

 ing the establishment of no-dumping sanctuaries for marine life, 

 would you be opposed to an amendment to your bill that would incor- 

 porate the concept of the no-dumping sanctuaries ? 



Mr. Train. No, I am not opposed to it. I am personally rather in 

 favor of the establishment of marine sanctuaries and some system 

 of that sort. As you know, the administration bill proposed legislation 

 last year for the acquisition of Santa Barbara oil leases and the estab- 

 lishment of a marine sanctuary in that particular area off the Santa 

 Barbara Channel. So this is a concept which, I think, speaking very 

 generally, I would strongly favor. 



There can be, obviously, differences in detail. "Wliether this is the 

 proper vehicle or not is something else again. I think that the authority 

 for the establishment of marine sanctuaries is probably more appro- 

 priately placed in the Secretary of the Interior, which I think the bill 

 in question does do, rather than in the Administrator of the Environ- 

 mental Protection Agency, for example. 



