WATER POLLUTION, THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
ACT, AND THE RIVERS AND HARBORS ACT OF 1899: EXERCISES IN FUTILITY
BRUCE ROBERSON
WATER POLLUTION, THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION ' CONTROL
ACT, AND THE R~VERS AND' HARBORS ACT OF 1899:
EXERCISES IN FUTALITY
AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM
~f t~e ' industrial
In analyzing the role
polluter of the
public waterways, one must realize what has for too long been
ignored by government, tndustry and the public at large, that
there is a limited amount of water., ' For too long 'America'S
,
water supply has been, the victim ' of over optimism.
To most
people, the water'supply
has consisted' of a never. ending com.,
,
modity, to ,be used
~
'
~ndiscriminately , for
drinking, for farm-
ing and for manufacturing, and i't has not been until the last
10 or 20 years, when the effects of ': pollution became apparent on the face of America's cherished and yet to of_ten
neglected waterways, that most Americans realized that there
were limits on the burden that could be borne by America's
water supply.
This attitude 'of
neglec~
is
ch~racterized
clearly by authors su~h as John V. Kritilla, uAmerican culture and character have been influenced profoundly by the
open rural country side and the wilderness beyond.
further we remove from the conditions of a more
The
prim~tive
America, the greater is our nostalgia for the conditions of
,
earlier times.
,
But despite the many influential and eloquent
1
2
advocates for preserving the American scene, the assaults upon the American landscape and the erosion of its
~natur~l
en-
vironment continue ... l
\ The urgency of the situation is best dramatized in Sigurd Grava's, The
~
Planning Aspects of Water Pollution
~
\
Control, where he states, ... (T) he time has come to apply this
knowledge of pollution control not as the basis for stop gap'
and emergency measures in crisis situations but in a systematic and preventive way for all urban settlements, regions
the President
of the
and the environment as a whole." 2 , Even
I
•
United States', when out).ining t~e legislative proposals and
administrative
ac~ions
to improve envi.ronmental quality,
~
noted the methodical past and ·the necessity for immediate
corrective action.
"(L)ike
tilled a plot of land to
tho~e
in the last century who
e~haustion
and the moved on to an-
other, we in this country have too casually and too long
abused our
enviro~~ent •
. ,The
ti~e
no longer to repair the damage
has come when we can wait
~lready
done, and to estab-
lish new criteria to guide us in· the future ... 3
advise of the
preside ~t,
it 'is not
~he
Heading the
objective of this
writer or this paper to search for villians among the rank
and file of industry, but to recognize that-industry, like
other parts of the American
pollution of ,the
so~iety,
public , water~ays,
have contributed to the
and once having estab-
lished that industry is responsible ·to some degree, to analyze
3
the possible effectiveness of two systems of enforcing acceptable standard short of zero pollution.
THE EXTENT OF THE WATER POLLUTION PROBLEM AND
THE NECESSITY. FOR ACTION
\
~
According to Harvey Lieber, director of ·the Washington
Semester Program, of the American "University, "The leading
I
source of man-made water po.i1ut~mts in the Unite,d States is
manufacturing, fo11o~ed by domestic or municipal wastes.,,4
The January 26, 1970 . issue of News.week: report,s that, "[N] ationa11y, Federal government experts' estimate the food, textile, paper and c1;lemica1, coal,
iro~, .
,rubber, metals, machin-
.\
ery and transportation iridustries ' spill a staggeri'ng 25 tri1lion gallons of waste water
c:
ann~a11y."J
In 1963 manufacturing
generated about three time's the amount of waste produced by
the 120 million people who were served by sewers in the United
States.
Today it ,~s est;i.mated ~hat this estimate would ap-
proach four to on~.6
Another consideration
when'd~a1ing
with the.prob1em of
water pollution at the indu$tria1 level is t~at industrial
"
pollution is more likely to
ammonia
arsenic
barium
boron
cho1oride
chromium
copper
iron
.
c~ntain
complex compounds such as:
lead
manganese
phosporous
su1phates
zinc
phenols
cyanide
4
It has also been noted that pollution control is complicated
by the 400 to 500 new chemical substances createG each year.'
It should be remembered that in . addition to these comparatively new wastes, that in 'many cases defy present methods of
treatment and or
o
removal,~
that increasing production of goods
increases the amount of common industrial waste products that
are dumped into the waterways. 'Estimates of the
,
services dramatically
protr~ys,
'in billions of
~ublic
g~llons
health
per day,
'j
the increasing demand · for water
.
and
e~perienced
by all sectors of
,
the American society,
Municipal
Industrial ,
especially industry:
1900
1920
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
3.0'
6.0
10.1
14.1
22.0
27.0
37.2
15.0
27.2
52·.0
14.0
159.9
218.3
394.2
74.l"
104.6
141.0
165.9
165.7
..
Agricultural
22.2
58.4
The net effect of this increasing demand among all sectors of the societ}!"
for
. Americ~s
limited water resourc-e, is
that there has been a dramatic increase in the· amount of
pollutants "dumped" into a
demin~s~ing
supply of
~'usable"
water.
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM:
THE PRIVATE SECTOR
Having established that some action is necessary to pro··
tect the water supply, the next question then is what agency
5
is the proper channel to deal with the problem.
be considered is the private sector (i.e. the
The first to
in~tatio~
of
action by the individual citizens or private interest groups).
It is apparent from even a cursory reading of material available on the subject that the private sector lacks both the
willingness ,and the financial abil{ty to cop~ with the problem.
"Although some industriaYwastes are very difficult to
I
advance~
remove from water and technOlogy has not
sufficiently
~
to handle such a· problem, most
to control. iO
in~ustrial
The problem is cost. ll
wastes are subject
Next is the proposi-
tion that industry itself can effectively deal with the problem.
Again the
f~nancial considera~io~
comes into
play~
but
this time its effect is substantially 'different •. ~ndustry,
I
,
like practically all other , segments of the American economy
is based on the cornerstone of competitive 'advantage, and it
would be foolish to conceive of any industrialist, no matter
how well intentioned, who would _sacrifice a competitive-ad!
-
vantage no matter how small, and thereby jeopardize the very
existence of his 'company, for the goal of pollution control
or elimination.
Secondly, there is the very real probability
.
"'
.
that many industrialists don't, feel that it is , their obligation to deal with the problem. l2
ized by statements like:
'This attitude is character-
"Some degree of pollution is part
of the cost involved in achieving benefits made possible by
a
technologiC~l society.~~3
"Industry can spend nothing on
6
water pollution control it does not first earn in profit.
nl4
npublic enthusiasm for pollution control 'is matched by ,reluctance to pay even a modest share of the cost.n lS
Therefore
it would seem unrealisti9 to assume that industry will, without a significant change in the attitude of either, the public,
\
or an improbable reversal in the American economic structure,
make more than a publicity orientated effort to ~eal with
the problem of industrial P9llution of the public waterways.
The final possible solution to the water pollution problem is
the government, and
~merica
has seen a , defini~e response from
the governmental sector, with
v~rying
levels of achievement.
I
POSSIBLE &OLUTIONS TO
T~E ' PROBLEM:
TH~
GOVERNMENT AND CONFLICTING INTERESTS
It is because of these varying degrees of success that
it became important that this paper deal with the pollution
problem.
Not only/is it
,necess~ry 'th~t
something be done
about the problem of pollution, ,but it is additionally necessary that the problem be deal~ wltbon a ~niversally equal
plane.
To do otherwise woul'd , be to '_place an impossible bur-
"
den on certain industries which, although they do contribute
to the problem, contribute no more and no less than any other
industry.
In addition to the necessity of evenhandedness, that
must be an overriding consideration,' is the additional con-
?
sideration that was observed by Roscoe Pound when he stated,
"the end of law is the adjustment or harmonizing of con.flicting or overlapping desires and
~laims,
so as to give effect
to as, much as possible -'with the least sacrifice. ,,16
What then are the conflicting and overlapping.desires and
claims that'JDust be harmonized by any solution to the ' pollution problem?
First there is the desire of the various inI
The tradi~.ional ap-
dustries involved to maximize profit.
-~
proach to the goal of , maximum
pro~it
has been to lower the
costs of production by disposing industrial wastes in the most
inexpensive manner possible, which in many cases necessitates
disposal in public waterways.l?
I
As was noted by Arnold W.
'
,
Rei tze, Jr., in "Was'tes, Water., and Wishful Thinking: . The
,
Battle of Lake Erie," in Vol. 20, Case Western Reserve L.R.,
"(I)n the extreme case, .a businessman faced · with removing a
building might burn it down rather than remove it piece by
piece even though tfe burni~g p ~ocess would destroy a town.
This is not very different from
~hat
is presently being done
to our environment by industrial·.w~ter pollution. ,!18
And as
is noted later in the article: by Mr. Reitze, "the capitol
,
-
'
requirements of dealing with the ·pollution problem are astronomical, and any attempt to regulate pollution would likely
bring a cry of anguish followed , by "scientific" proof that
it would drive the company out of business and cost-many
workers their jobs.,,19
8
On the other side of the coin of conflicting interests
that will need to be balanced by any action that 'is in~tiated
to deal with the problem of water pollution,' is the necessary
quali.ty of life that is to be: maintained by citizens of the
united States and the world.
Conservationists are quick to;point out that unless some
action is' taken within the immedi~te ' future, no amount of
I
action will suffice to meet.; the ' needs of future generations.
"
As was pointed out by Rene' Dubos,in the Environmental Handbook, "Man has a remarkable ability to:
develo~
some form of
tolerance to conditions~extreme~y different from those under
which he evolved.
. This ' has , led
to the . belief that through
~
\
social and technological 'innovations, 'he can endlessly modify
his ways of life without risk.
But the facts do not justify
-
this euphoric attitude. : Modern man can adapt biologically to
the technological environment · only in so far as the mechanisms
of adaptation are }fotentially
For this reason, we can almost
cannot achieve successful
p ~ esent
~ake
biologic~l
in his generic code.
it for granted that he
adaptation to insults
with which he has had ,no experience. with in
h~s
biological
past, such as the shrill noises of modern equipment, the exhausts of automobiles and factories, the countless new synthetic products that'get into t?e air, water and food.
The
limits that m~st be imp~sed o~ social and technological innovations are determined 'not by scientific knowledge or
9
practical know how, but by the biological and mental nature of
man which is essentially unchangeable. ,,20
This seems t;.o re-
present the attitude of many of . the ecologists, in that they
are Of the opinion that
~he
ecosystem of the United States
has reached the point of diminishing returns and that unless
effective aQtion is taken man will 'no longer 'b e able to adapt
to the environment which he has" p~oducted for himself.
r
In addition to this co~sideration it seems ~at many
believe that efforts to produce the technology to deal with
the problem will only result in further additions to the
problem and thereby compound the situation.
Jon Breslaw in
th~
As was noted by
Environmental HaItdbpok, "Market economies
~
are effective instruments' for ·organizing production and al1
locating resources insofar . as
th~
utility functions are as-
sociated with two-party .transactions.
But 'in connection with
waste disposal, the utility functions involve third parties,
and the automatic ~arket exchan<J:e process fails.,,21
THE GOVERNMENTAL APPROACH:
VARYING
DEGREES OF SUCCESS
It is this failure of the\market exchange process that
has precipated governmental intervention into the field of
water pollution control.
The PFocess . of effecting change
within the sy~tem has evolved .on many different levels with
varying approaches, and with these varying approaches have
10
corne varying degrees of success (as previously noted).
The
unifying factor has been that legislators have refused to conceive any new enforcement approaches and have stuck doggedly
with ~pproaches that have worked in the past in other areas,
with blind faith that they will work in the future.
These
\
approaches are best emphlified in two acts; the Federal water
Pollutioh "Control Act as amended,2,2 and the Rivers· and HarI
bors act of 1899 as amend~d.~ 23
'i
These acts, and their respec-
tive enforcement provisions,have·been the major tools of
congress and its enforcement agencies
~ike th~
Environmental
'"
Protection Agency in dealing
with the water pollution prob-
lem.
Each has stated objectives
or ~ enforcement
provisions
~
which makes obvious the goal o~ achieving a high standard of
\
water quality.
The first '·of these acts, the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act
point~
to this priority in section One,
the "Declaration of Policy," wherein it states, "The purpose
of this act is to enhance the
q~ality
and value of water re-
sources and to establish a national policy for' prevention,
control, and abatement of water pollution."
Further in the
act, at Section · 1 (B),.., it states,' "j..n consequ~nce of the
benefits resulting to the publlc ' health and welfare by the
prevention and control of water pollution, rt is hereby declared to be the policy of cong.ress to recognize, preserve,
and protect tpe primary ,responsibilities and rights ' of the
states in preventing and 'controlling water pollution,
,,24
11
Unlike the Federal Water Pollution Control Act the Rivers
and Harbors Act of 1899 has no declaration of po~icy but its
goals and objectives become obvious with a careful reading
of section 407 of the act, which states, "It shall not be
lawful to throw, discharge, or deposit or cause, suffer, or
procure to ~e thrown, discharged, ~r deposited either from or
out of any ship, barge, or ot.her floating craft ~fi any kind,
I
or from the shore, warf,
ma~ufa6turing
establishment,
~r
mills
'j
of any kind, any' refuse matter of.any kind or description
,, 25
whatever • • • , into any navigable water,
These two statements quoted from the texts of the respective acts
dra~atize·the
.almost
~niyersal
concern for the
quality of America I ~ water supply,' and · yet the effectiveness
I
~
of the two 'm ethods of enforcemen~ is severely limited and
hampered by the legislative construction of the enforcement
provisions, with net result of almost universal ineffectiveness of the acts. .IThe. two acts ...provide for approaches to the
problem of water pollution which are different' and the effectiveness of each will be analyzed t.o determine which is most
capable to deal with t?e
wat~r poll~tion prob~em
as it exists
in the United States.
THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
The first approach
~hat
has been utilized is that of
abatement, embodied in section 10 (A) of the Federal Water
12
Pollution Control Act, and it states:
"The pollution of in-
terstate or navigable waters in or adjacent to any
stat~
• • • ,
which endangers the health or welfare of any persons shall be
,
~~
subject to abatement as provided by the
act." ~ -
This statement of determination seems at first to be a
clear statement directing action on a broad scale to restrain
polluters and pollution.
However, the last five words of the
f
quoted section are the limiting 'factor which has, up to this
point, and logically will in the future, limited the overall
effectiveness of the act.
The procedure of the act, which
must be followed, provides loopholes, and opportunities for
delay unequaled in, contemporary
leg;sl~tion.
The primazyloop-
hole in the enforcement provision ~s contained in section 10
(H), wherein it states:
"The court shall receive into evi-
dence in any such suit a transcript of the proceedings before
the board and a copy of the recommendations and shall receive
such further evidence as the
proper.
co~rtin
-
its discretion deems
The court, giving due consideration to the practcal-
ity and the physical and economic
abatement of any
pollu~ ion
proved,
~easibility
~hall
of securing
have jurisdiction
to enter such judgment and order enforcing such judgment, as
the public interest and the equities of the case require.,,27
This loophole, of magnificent proportions, allows wholesale disregard for the general policy of the act.,
Simply by
establishing a production' facility of enorrnouscost which re-
13
lies on, to a large extent, the use of water, either for production or waste disposal purposes, in such manner to ppllute the water, the industrialist avoids the necessity of complying with the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act.
This f~ature is doubly true i~ light of provisions 10 (0)
of the act which relates to initiating action to bring about
abatement under the terms of the act.
vides in part:
Section 10 (0)
(1) pro-
"whenever requested by the governor of any af-
fected state or a state water pollution control agency, or
• • • the governing body of any municipality, the secretary
shall. • • give fO,r mal notification thereof to the water pollution control agendy • • • if any • • • and shall'call a
1
conference. ,,28
The significant language is, "whenever re-
quested by the governor of , any affected state."
This pro-
vides an immediate out for industries to locate in states
where the priority" for one , or C?ne of any number of reasons,
is on short run economic advantage as opposed to long term
ecological stability.
Without the request of the governor or
the state water pollutfon control
a~ency
or the governing body
of a municipality, the secretary has no means to enforce the
provisions of the act.
The immediate response to
~his
argument is two fold;
first, that the governor of a state, or the state water pollution control agency or the governing body ofa municipality,
14
has a more intimate knowledge of the problems and the requirements of that state's economic system, and should· there,fore
have the final veto over agency action to regulate the industry
that.is involved, as such regulation might have an effect on
the economy of that state; secondly that the provisions mentioned and referred to above apply only where' the water pollution problem is confined in
bot~
origin and effects to one
!
state, and it should therefore be up to that state to police
itself, without the interference of a higher governmental
agency.
In reply to this argument it should be noted that the
time has long since passed where either the economic system
or the problems of anyone state are confined in ultimate
effect to that state, and ' so with water pollution problems
and their effects.
If an economic problems arises within a
state, then its effect will determine, to some degree, the
policies and
progr~ms
their eco-systems.
lution.
of the other 'states in dealing with
The same is true in cases of water pol-
When one state sacrifices its vital water resources,
it places an additional burden on the water
jacent states.
r~sources
of ad-
"
While a governor might have intinate knowledge
of his state, it cannot be said that the water pollution problems of that state must therefore be automatically within his
exclusive "domain, it simply isn't, and this should be recognized.
15
Like the previously discussed loophole of requiring gubernatorial sanction to proceed under the terms of-the Federal
Water Pollution control Act, another road block to the effectiveness of the act is found in the second part of section
10 (D)
(1), wherein it provides that the secretary, at the
request of the governor or the designated agency shall call a
conference under the provisions of the act, " . . . . . unless, in
t
the judgment of the Secretary, the effect of such pollution
on the legitimate uses of the water is not of sufficient significance to warrant exercise of Federal jurisdiction under
this section.,,29
While 'it was probably the intent of congress ,
by including this phrase, to eliminate vexacious proceedings
when there is little' or no effect on the water regulated
under the terms of the act, the words chosen by congress to
impliment this intent do far more.
Not only does the secre-
tary have the power to refuse to pursue compliance with the
provisions of the
~ct
in the instances mentioned above but
also the secretary is cloaked with the power to make determinations, independent of any approved state or federal
water pollution standards, that a water pollution problem
doesn't exist in such substantial proportion to warrant action under the jurisdiction conferred by congress.
seemingly innocuous power
grant~d
This
to the secretary is para-
mount to that granted to the , governor of a state, or 't he
designated agency, to refuse to request action under the act,
16
for even if a governor or the appropriate state or local
agency were to request the initiation of procedures to bring
about abatement under the terms of the act, the secretary has
a veto, and can refuse on the; basis of his subjective determination that the problem is not of sufficient significance.
The fuhdamental stumbling blodk to effective action
under the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control
,
Act is that there are time requirements that are. unrealistic
in light of the urgency of the water pollution problem.
In
considering the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as it
presently stands, it takes a minimum of twelve months before
the secretary can .initiate anything other than jawbone diplomacy to deal with industrial polluters of the public water
ways.
While there are undoubtedly examples of voluntary
compliance with the pollution standards that have been promulgated under the auspices of the act or because of the
secretaries
jawbon~
tactics,
mo~e
than likely this form of
voluntary compliance will not be forth coming from those polluters in industries which operate with high cost risk fac-
,
tors as an integral part of the industry struyture.
This
high cost risk factor makes voluntary compliance, on other
than an industry wide scale, economic suicide, and yet it is
in many cases these very industries that contribute to the
urgency of the water pollution problem.
In sum the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is fraught
17
with inconsistencies that make it's application difficult if
not impossible at times.
If the Federal Water ' Po~lutio~ Con-
trol Act is anything more than an example of the water pollution control acts that attempt to utilize abatement as the
att~mpts
enforcement device, if it does exemplify those
to
control water pollution, then the entire effort is doomed to
' less than spectular results.
If on the other hand· some of the problems of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act have
~een
cured with additional
legislation or could be~ured with additional legislation
then abatement procedures would in fact be a significant tool
in dealing with the water pollution problem.
However, it is
the proposition of tbis writer that it' is a tool that is
\
best saved and utilized only as a last resort, for the effect
of abatement as is devastating on the industry involved as it
is dramatic in the results that it can achieve.
It should be
further remembered ,abatement does nothing about the pollution
that already exists.
In addition there is the ' problem that
systems like the Federal Water Pollution Control Act have no
power to generate operating funds and depend
~n
the gener-
osity of the congress to supply its operating capitol.
In
this respect legislation like the Rivers '· and- Harbors Act of
1899 have the advantage.
THE RIVERS AND HARBORS ACT OF 1899
Under the terms of the Rivers and Harbors Act much of
18
the operating capitol that is needed to make the program successful is made available through the fines that are imposed
on the polluters, secondly as much as one-half of the fines
that are collected goes to the individual that provides the
information necessary for the conviction of the polluter.
This second'provision that one-half of the fine goes to the
individual or group responsible
,
f~r
the conviction. has the
additional advantage that a 'much smaller enforcement staff is
necessary.
It should be stressed that because the Rivers and
Harbors Act has the advantage in these two respects that it
i J;Without disadvantages, or that it is the ultimate solution
to the water pollution problem.
\
Like the Federal Water Pollution Control Act the Rivers
and Harbors Act has
utilization.
disadvantage~
and obstacles to effective
The first of ' these obstacles is that the Rivers
and Harbors Act provides for fines that, while they might
have been appropriate in 1899
passed, are unrealistic today.
w~enthe
act was initially
While the fines may have been
a deterrent in the early 20th century when the united States
had a gross national product' on One Hundred Billion Dollars
"
.
'
today when the GNP is soon to exceed One Trillion Dollars, and
major industries regularly have net earnings' in excess of
Five Hundred Million Dollars it is hard to expect that a fine
of Twenty-five Hundred Dollars would have more than ' an annoying effect on a polluter.'
This is especially true when the
19
polluter is faced with the prospect of spending millions of
dollars in order to comply with the terms of the 'act.
This compliance with the terms of the act brings to mind
another problem, that being the setting of standards under
the Rivers and Harbors Act.
As the act stands there are no
standards by which to judge the actions of the polluters.
There are no definitions in the' act, thereby necessitating
,
the expenditure of large,'unrecoverable sums in proving that
there is a pollution problem or
t~e
extent that anyone in-
dustry or factory contributes to a pollution problem.
until
this problem can be solved, there is ' little prospect that the
administrator of t ,h e Environmental Protection Agency, in effect the alter ego of the government in matters concerning
the environment, will undertake expensive litigation in cases
where the question will be difficult.
An additional limiting factor on the effectiveness of
the Rivers and
Har~ors , Act
of
1~99,
is found in Executive
Order 11574, which deals with the Rivers and Harbors Act.
Section one of the Executive Order provides for a system of
,
permits to allow industries to deposit waste products in the
waters that are subject to the · provisions of the act.
Sec-
tion Two (A) of the Executive Order, by using inverse logic,
implies that such a permit shall be issued when section 21
(B) of. the Federal Water Pollution Control Act has been complied with.
Section 21 (B) of the Federal Water Pollution
20
control Act provides that:
• shall provide
"Any applicant
the licensing or permitting agency with
a
certificatio~
from
the state in which the discharge originates or will originateA • • • that there ' is reasonable assurance, as determined
by the state
.' that such activity will be conducted in a
manner which will not violate the applicable
standards."
fac~s ~ the
This provision
~ater quality
same difficulty that was
I
faced by the Provisions of the Federal Water
Pol~ution
Control
'j
Act that were mentioned previously, in that it is up to the
state to make the deter~ination that a industry or factory
will be subject to the provisions of" the act.
If the state
.
has made the determination that it will sacrifice long run
,
'
ecological stability for short ruri economic gain then. there
\
is little if anything that,can
b~
done to prevent the pollu-
tion, except that the administration of the EPA can veto, a
power discussed earlier.
The net effec-ty. of,the,
prov~sions
outlined above is·that
the Rivers and Harbors Act is fa?ed with many of the same difficul ties that faces the Federal',Water Pollution Control Act,
in some cases out of necessi~y' in · that it uti~izes many of the
' .'
same provisions, and in some cases makes direct reference to
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Orr the other hand
the difficulty arises in part because the Rivers and Harbors
Act is a product of the same limited in scope thinking that
produced the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Both acts
21
are devoid of a dirth of creative thinking so necessary if
there is to be an approach developed with any rea~onable
chance of success.
This is not to say that all of the pro-
posals that are incorporated in the two acts are ineffective
but only that the methodology through which they have been
employed lacks the requisite creativity to make the acts effective tools to deal with the pollution problem.
SOME CLOSING OBSERVATIONS
Perhaps the most eloquent statement of what is needed to
effectuate change within the present structure under which
polluters have found an apparent haven in which to operate
appeared in the message of the President of the United States
outlining legislative proposals and administrative actions
taken to improve the environmental quality,. wherein he stated,
"I propose that we take an entirely new approach:
one which
concerts Federal, s~ate .'and private .efforts, which provides for
effective nationwide enforcement, and which rests on a simple
but profoundly significant principle:
waterways belong to us all,
,
nor an industry should be
~nd
that the nation's
that neither a municipality
allo~ed
to discharge wastes into
those waterways beyond their capacity to absorb the wastes
without becoming polluted."
It was at this point that the President outlined a series
of proposals to effectively deal with the water pollution