Measure to Toughen U.S. Water Pollution Control Standards Voted by Senate

The Senate shook off Reagan Administration objections and a regional fight over sewer money Thursday as it overwhelmingly passed legislation that would toughen federal water pollution control standards for the first time since they were written 13 years ago.

It was the second major environmental proposal to steam through the Republican-controlled chamber in the last month, a trend that some activists believe signals a weakening ability on the part of the White House to impede anti-pollution measures.

On May 16, the Senate unanimously sent to the House a bill requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to set long-neglected standards restricting toxic chemicals found in drinking water.

Administration Complaints

In voting 94 to 0 to renew and strengthen the 1972 Clean Water Act, the premier law governing pollution of American streams and rivers, senators ignored Administration complaints that the measure was too costly and strict.

Detailing the Administration’s position in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.), EPA Administrator Lee M. Thomas said that the White House favors upgrading the quality of the nation’s waterways. But, Thomas argued, the measure passed by the Senate would grant his agency new responsibility to oversee pollution sources that would be better regulated at the state level.

Furthermore, he contended, the measure would authorize $18 billion in federal sewer construction money for state pollution projects through 1994, ignoring Administration plans to phase out the expensive grant program by 1990.

‘Simply Too Costly’

“The $18 billion authorized in the Senate bill is simply too costly in the face of present budget deficits,” Thomas said.

However, the Administration’s reservations got short shrift in deliberations over the bill, as floor debate over how best to purify the environment degenerated into an old-fashioned mudslinging match over how best to divide up projects among the states.

Senators from California and other big states complained that the Environment and Public Works Committee, packed with lawmakers from the lightly populated parts of the West and Northeast, ignored EPA “needs assessment” studies and allotted far more sewer money than necessary to the states of committee members.

Funds for North Dakota

For example, North Dakota, represented on the committee by Democrat Quentin N. Burdick, got nine times more in sewer money than the EPA said it needed, and Wyoming, with Republican Alan K. Simpson as a committee member, received nearly six times more.

In all, 32 states, mostly smaller ones, ended up with more money than the EPA said they were entitled to--enough to ensure passage of the committee formula. Present law closely follows the EPA recommendations in making the grant awards.

Although senators from the other states wrung some monetary concessions out of their smaller state counterparts during two days of often-bitter negotiations, the bill as finally approved penalized California, Great Lakes and Midwest states--home of some of the nation’s most serious pollution problems--granting them far less money to complete sewer projects than EPA studies had recommended.

California to Lose Money

Under the measure, California will lose about $175 million in sewer money over the next five years that it otherwise would have received.

Lost in the money scramble was any discussion of White House objections to the bill or the new regulatory powers it mandates. Despite EPA arguments that it should not be involved, the measure would direct the EPA to administer the disposition of $300 million in grants to the states to check the flow of pollutants that often run off parking lots, car washes, farm lands and a variety of other locations previously not subject to federal pollution controls.

The measure would also grant the EPA power to levy civil penalties of up to $25,000 for pollution violations without having to seek a federal court order. In addition, it would preserve a clause in present law, highly prized by environmentalists but which the Administration wanted to strike, which gives private citizens the right to sue to force compliance with water pollution rules.

Opposition Muted

While the Administration has successfully stymied passage of environmental legislation in the past, environmentalists say the White House appears to be shying away from open opposition to such legislation this year as more and more Republican lawmakers sense the bills are popular back home.

“I’m not sure the Administration is playing this field as aggressively as it did a year ago,” said David Kasting, an environmental expert with the National Assn. of Manufacturers. “They’ve got other fish to fry--tax reform, budget cuts, defense cuts.”