281 



out any criteria or regrilatioiis as encompassed in this one act. In fact, 

 we have tried to protect the Federal Water Polhition Control Act as 

 we have it now in conference. It is a tenuous thing to try to touch on 

 coastal zones and on the matter of water use and then say in the devel- 

 opment of coastal zones that they not be given any consideration. AVe 

 think water use should be considered, among other things, and we do 

 not think we should try, and do not try, to preempt in any manner 

 or means the provisions of eitJier the Federal Water Pollution Control 

 Act or the Clean Air Act which we are supporting in conference with 

 the House. Therefore, I would be glad to accept the amendments. 



Mr. Baker. I would like to have the understanding of the floor man- 

 ager of the bill as to the intent of these amendments because this is 

 tiie only opportunity we will have to make any legislative hislor;/ 

 and elaborate upon congressional intent. 



I W'Onder whether the Senator from South Carolina would agree 

 with me that the amendment which provides, and I (|uote in part : 



"Such requirement shall be incorporated in any program developed 

 pursuant to this Act and shall be the water pollution control and air 

 pollution control requirements a]:)plicable to such program" means 

 "the" water pollution and air pollution control requirements, includ- 

 ing State and local requirements pursuant to the Federal Clean Air 

 and Water Acts to the exclusion of any other requirements? What 

 I am saying is that the w^ord "the" as used in "and shall be the water 

 pollution control and air pollution control requirements," the word 

 "the" for our purposes of emphasis, would be underscored to mean 

 exclusive of any other pollution control program ; is that not correct? 



Mr. HoLLiNGS. That is my understanding. That is perfectly clear. 

 That is the intent of the bill. 



JNIr. Baker. I thank the manager of the bill. That is a helpful addi- 

 tion to the legislative history. I am happy to support the amendments 

 as offered by the distinguished Senator from Delaware. ]Mr. BogcxS. 



Mr. Stevens. Mr. President. I want to make certain I understand 

 correctly the answer of the Senator from South Carolina to the Senator 

 from Tennessee, Mr. Baker. 



Do I understand correctly that the effect of the amendments oil'ered 

 on behalf of the Public Works Connnittee Avill be such that the State 

 and local government which presents a plan to the Secretary pursuaiit 

 to our Coastal Zone Maiiagement Act would refer to the standards of 

 criteria and regulations that are in effect at that time under the Federal 

 Water Pollution Control Act oi- the Clean Air Act ? Is that the under- 

 standing of the Senator from Tennessee ? 



Mr. IIoLLixGS. Including any other amendments made to the sub- 

 stance of the legislation, the Water Pollution Control Act or the Clean 

 Air Act. In othei- words, this is not a pollution control or clean air con- 

 trol measure. This is a coastal zone management bill. I think — if we 

 could conceive of both measures, in the development of the coastal zones 

 legiilations for air and water pollution — that they are both concerns 

 of both measures. But where they could be, I cannot imagine in this 

 bill there could be a conflict with the substance of the Water Pollution 

 Control or Air Pollution Control Acts. They would govern, and some 

 programs approved by the Governor and amended, amended from 

 time to time l.'V the Governors and the Department of Conmierce for 

 ccasti'.l zone management liave got to conform to the Water Pollution 

 Control and the Clean Air Acts. 



