282 



Mr. Stevexs. Mr. President, I understand tlie comment of my good 

 friend, tlie Senator from South Carolina. In the event a State or local 

 government intends to increase these standards — and we have testi- 

 mony that some desire to do this — and they present a plan which is 

 more stringent than the controls and criteria contained in either of 

 these two acts, then I am assuming that we are providing in the amend- 

 ment that it must be at least equivalent to the criteria establisJied in the 

 two acts. Is that correct ? 



Mr. HoLLixGS, The basic Water Pollution Control Act permits that 

 as of now. 



Mr. Baker. ]Mr. President, if the Senator from Soutli Carolina would 

 yield, the Senator from Alaska made reference to my previous com- 

 ment. 



Mr, HoLLiNGS. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee. 



Mr. Baker. Mr. President, I think that the amendment from which 

 I read in part does provide that the effect would be to include any fu- 

 ture amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or the 

 Clean Air Act. 



xls a matter of fact, I will read the firet clause from subsection (e) 

 of the third amendment : 



Notwithstandiug any other provision of this Act, nothing in this Act shall in any 

 way affect any requirement (1) established by the Federal Water Pollution Con- 

 trol Act, as amended, or the Clean Air Act, as amended. . . . 



I think clearly this language is intended to include any future 

 amendment, including S. 2770, the 1972 amendments to the Federal 

 Water Pollution Control Act, which is now in conference. I think, 

 from my vantage point and from my understanding of it, the answer 

 to the question put by the Senator from Alaska as to whether a local 

 jurisdiction, State, or local agency might require standards in excess 

 of those spelled out in the act, is yes; it is clearly provided for under 

 the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the Federal Clean Air 

 Act. The amendment would provide that such more stringent stand- 

 ards or requirements would be made a part of the coastal zone man- 

 ageinent program. 



So, not independently, nor by reason of this amendment, but by 

 reason of authority already in the Federal water and air pollution acts^ 

 local authorities could require standards in excess of Federal criteria. 



The important thnist of these amendments, as I underetand them, 

 and as I understand the Senator from South Carolina to express his 

 sense of that understanding, is to make sure that regidatory require- 

 ments under the air and water acts are the ones included in the coastal 

 zone program under this act and not some other separately established 

 requirement. 



Mr. Rollings. The Senator is correct. 



Mr. STE^^3NS. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Ten- 

 nessee. However, I want to mal^e certain that the Water Control and 

 Clean Air Act requirements contained in this plan may exceed the re- 

 quirements set out under the two Federal laws. 



Mr. Baker. ISIr. President, my answer is yes, that autliority is in both 

 of those acts. This does not change it but incorporates it into this 

 coastal zone program. 



Mr. HoLLixGs. So long as it does not increase the authority of tlie 

 Federal Government. 



