effectively the energies and money to reach these 

 ends, and (3) to realize them expeditiously. We 

 therefore suggest that States look ahead 10-20 

 years and enunciate their long-range plans and 

 priorities for the water quality of their coastal 

 zones. In turn, the Federal Government should use 

 these programs and priorities as guides to rank 

 Federal priorities and assign funds to States. 



The second of the recent amendments to the 

 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Clean 

 Water Restoration Act of 1966, authorized $3.4 

 billion in Federal grants to rhunicipalities over a 

 four-year period to help build sewage treatment 

 plants and interceptor sewers. This money is 

 intended to help remove the backlog of con- 

 struction of waste treatment plants and to help 

 keep pace with the need for new construction 

 created by increased population and output of 

 effluents. 



On a cost-sharing basis with municipalities and 

 the States, the money would buy about $8 biUion 

 of construction. However, Congressional appropri- 

 ations have lagged authorizations. Starting in FY 

 1968, the annual authorized funds are as follows: 

 $450 million, $700 million, $1 bilhon, and $1.25 

 billion. But the appropriation for FY 1968 was 

 only $203 million, and for FY 1969 only $214 

 million. In other words, about $1.7 bilhon of 

 municipal waste treatment plants and sewers envi- 

 sioned in 1966 will not be constructed within the 

 time originally anticipated. We urge that funds for 

 waste treatment works be appropriated at author- 

 ized levels in the remaining two fiscal years. 



A. Unclear Authority 



In the face of the Nation's clean water goal, 

 some Federal agencies have unclear or insufficient 

 pollution control authority to carry out the 

 Nation's desires. 



The Army Corps of Engineers has probably 

 affected the shape and ecology of many of the 

 Nation's estuaries and much of its coastline to a 

 greater extent than any other Federal agency. The 

 Corps' influence stems from the Corps' own 

 dredging activities in addition to its power to grant 

 or deny permits for dredging and filling navigable 

 waters, an authority based on the Rivers and 

 Harbors Act of 1899.'° 



When that Act was passed, commerce and not 

 pollution attracted National attention. Thus, the 

 Act is concerned solely with the navigational 

 aspects of waterways. More recent Federal regula- 

 tions appear to give the Corps the added responsi- 

 bility of preventing undue destruction of the 

 resource-rich estuaries. Literature of the Corps 

 states: 



The determination as to whether a permit will be 

 issued will be based on an evaluation of all relevant 

 factors including the effect of proposed work on 

 navigation, fish and wildlife, conservation, pollu- 

 tion, and the general public interest. The Corps 

 will accept comments on these factors, which will 

 be made part of the record and will be considered 

 in determining whether it will be in the best public 

 interest to grant a permit. * ' 



Yet whether the Corps can deny an appUcant a 

 permit on any basis except navigation has not yet 

 been fuUy tested in court.' ^ 



Several regulations purport to affect the grant- 

 ing of Corps' permits for reasons other than 

 navigation. One of these stems from the Fish and 

 Wildlife Coordination Act.' ^ This was amended in 

 1958 to require the Corps, and any other private 

 or pubhc agency needing Federal permission to 

 alter the course of any body of water, or phys- 

 ically change it even for a navigation or drainage 

 end, to consult both with the Fish and Wildlife 

 Service of the Department of the Interior, and 

 with the Wildlife Resources Office of the affected 

 State. The Act requires that the recommendations 

 of both these resource agencies regarding the 

 wUdhfe aspect of the project be expUcitly consid- 

 ered in the planning. 



The second influence on the Corps resides in an 

 agreement''* between the Corps and the Depart- 

 ment of the Interior, signed in 1967, in which there 

 was a declared policy to combat pollution in dredg- 



10 



ch. 425. 



Act of March 3, 1899, 30 Stat. 1121, 33 U.S.C. 407, 



Office of the Chief of Engineers, Department of the 

 Army, Civil Regulatory Functions, ERl 145-2-303, sec- 

 tion 4d. 



^'^Zabel V. Tabb, No. 67-200, Civ-T, Middle District, 

 Florida, Mar. 14, 1968. See discussion of this case in 

 Chapter 8. 



'^Act of March 30, 1934, 48 Stat. 401, 16 U.S.C. 

 666c, ch. 55. 



Memorandum of Understanding between the Secre- 

 tary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Army, July 

 13,1967. 



III-55 



