What is the price for cleaner water?;

              The Crisis in Pollution
WHAT IS THE PRICE FOR CLEANER WATER?
By A. KENNETH BUNGER/Partner, Louisville
Water quality is a matter of public concern. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tells us that one-third
of our stream miles are in violation of acceptable
water quality standards—that all 79 cities included in a
recent survey, for example, showed traces of volatile
organic chemicals in their drinking water. Despite the
fact that government and industry have already spent
billions on pollution control, we are also told that the
improvements in waste treatment have been negated by
the increasing volume of discharges, and that the waste
treatment process itself accounts for at least some of the
contamination in our drinking water.
Tough problems call for tough solutions. A new federal
law on water pollution went into effect in 1972, billed as
the most stringent and far-reaching measure ever.
Since then, municipal officials and private industry
have devoted time, money, and effort trying to hammer
out feasible methods for complying with its terms. If they
do not adopt sophisticated treatment methods, the EPA
says, they risk fines and even jail terms. Hard put to bear
the expense amidst an era of economic uncertainty, their
dilemma intensifies as the deadlines built into the law
draw nearer. Meanwhile a quasi-legislative body in
Washington known as the National Commission on Water
Quality is struggling to complete its appointed task of
determining—before any conclusive results from the past
three years' efforts are available—whether the provisions
of the federal law should be modified, refined, or
abandoned altogether.
Focus on Effluents
The source of this current activity and controversy is
Public Law 92-500: the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972. Enacted over a Presidential
veto, P.L. 92-500 was the result of a protracted debate on
the importance of clean water and the lengths to which
the nation should go to reclaim and protect this natural
resource. A month-long conference between the Senate
and House was required to reconcile their differing
approaches, and when the dust settled, the nation found
itself committed to two national goals:
• Zero discharge of pollutants by 1985.
• Water clean enough to allow swimming and fish
propagation by July 1983, wherever possible.
Some have dubbed these aims the "1491 standard,"
since they seem to require the quality of water that
prevailed before Columbus discovered America. Beyond
these lofty but non-mandatory goals are a whole series of
much more specific controls that municipalities and
industries will be required to meet in the future:
—The discharge of pollutants into navigable waters is
unlawful except under prescribed circumstances and
conditions.
—Any discharges to be allowed are determined by EPA-defined
effluent limitations.
—In general, the effluent standards for industry require
the application of "best practicable" waste treatment
technology by July 1977, and the "best available"
technology by July 1983.
—For municipal sewage treatment plants, the comparable
requirements are for "secondary treatment" by July
1977, and "best practicable" technology by July 1983.
—Whenever the technology-based effluent limits are
inadequate to meet water quality standards set by EPA
or a state, even more restrictive controls are applied.
An innovative feature of the pollution control program
prescribed by P.L. 92-500 is its focus on effluent: the
output from each sewer, pipe, ditch, channel, or other
conduit that opens onto navigable water. Formerly the
emphasis was on water quality. To impose restrictions or
penalties, an environmental agency had to prove there
was a link between a polluter's discharges and a
deterioration in the quality of the receiving body of
water. Establishing this connection was difficult technical­ly,
especially if adjacent manufacturers (or cities) dumped
their wastes into the same stretch of river.
The primary concern is what comes out of the
pipe or other point of discharge. If the effluent
doesn't meet required standards of purity,
action can be taken against the polluter without
reference to the effect on water conditions.
Now that P.L. 92-500 is being implemented, the primary
concern is what comes out of the pipe or other point of
discharge. If the effluent doesn't meet required standards
of purity, action can be taken against the polluter without
reference to the effect on water conditions.
Further simplifying the enforcement process are the
effluent limitations specified by EPA for municipal
treatment works and each of 45 industries. These precise,
quantitative limitations serve as the minimum discharge
standards nationwide. Their proponents point with
approval to the relative ease with which the standards can
be applied and the equity that comes with holding all
plants in the same industry to the same basic level of
performance. But others question the logic of requiring,
42