Figure 7. At the present rate it is estimated 

 that by the year 2000, man will be using and 

 contaminating more than two-thirds of the 

 Nation's fresh water flow. (Bureau of Sport 

 Fisheries and Wildlife photo by M. Fahay) 



ing, filling, or excavation of U.S. navigable waters. 

 As a result of this agreement, field representatives 

 of the Corps and of the Department of the Interior 

 confer before the Corps decides whether to grant a 

 permit affecting any navigable water. 



There is a fundamental weakness in a procedure 

 that attempts to persuade the Corps that factors 

 other than navigational ones should be considered 

 in its permit-granting activities but, at the same 

 time, does not give the Corps the needed clear 

 authority to act on these considerations. 



B. Insufficient Authority 



Some Federal agencies seemingly have no au- 

 thority to consider the effects of their activities 

 upon water pollution. For example, the Atomic 

 Energy Commission issues licenses for nuclear 

 power plants whose waste heat could seriously 

 pollute coastal zones. Yet this agency is not held 

 accountable for such thermal pollution. 



Executive Order 11288,*' issued by President 

 Johnson in July 1966, provided encouragement 

 and direction for pollution control but is not a 

 source of new authority. The Order insists that all 

 Federal polluters take corrective action. Further, 

 the Order requires water quality to be an impor- 

 tant consideration in all planning and construction 

 and operation of new Federal activities, building 

 and water resources projects, including additions 

 and rehabilitation. The Order also commits the 

 Federal establishment to what the States are 

 requiring of their cities— secondary treatment of all 

 wastes. 



The AEC has stated that Executive Order 

 11288 does not enlarge the agency's authority to 

 permit consideration of thermal pollution. The 

 Department of Justice agrees with this view and 

 says: 



It is evident that Section 7 [aimed at controlling 

 water pollution stemming from activities using 

 Federal loans, grants or contracts] is not intended 

 as an independent source of agency authority, but 

 rather a direction to the several agencies to con- 

 sider using such authority as they . . . have . . . ' * 



The Department of Justice also ruled out Section 

 11 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act''' 

 as authority for the AEC to consider thermal 

 pollution. This section directs Federal agencies 

 with "jurisdiction over any building, installation or 

 other property" to prevent or control water 

 pollution. This, the Justice Department says, 

 means proprietary jurisdiction, not regulatory ju- 

 risdiction. 



In view of the instances of unclear or non- 

 existent Federal authority to deal with water 

 pollution control problems, this panel suggests 

 that Federal agencies having responsibilities in the 

 Nation's coastal zone also have a responsibility to 

 see that their work and programs fully meet water 

 quality goals. The panel therefore recommends 

 that each Federal agency having such programs or 

 sponsoring such programs be assured prior to 

 approving them that they will not frustrate water 

 quality goals. If the programs do, then this 



'^F.R. Doc. 66-7460, filed July 5, 1966. 



'^Letter from Department of Justice to General Coun- 

 sel of AEC, April 25, 1968. 



17 



Ibid. 



111-56 



