STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT, BY WALTER A. LYON, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, AUGUST 22, 1966 COMPARISON OF AMERICAN AND EUROPEAN PRACTICE IN WATER QUALITY CONTROL Since public policy in the field of water pollution control in the United States is in the process of undergoing a number of significant changes, there seems to be value in reviewing pollution control policy in other nations. This might help us to gain a better perspective concerning activities in this country. While there is a dearth of statistical information concerning pollution and pollution control progress in other nations, general reports from many of the European nations indicate that there has been a significant increase in stream pollution during the last half century. It is, for example, reported that in 1875, 100,000 salmon were delivered to the retail trade in the Netherlands. Between 1900 and 1915 there were only 20,000 to 30,000 per year. Toward 1930 the salmon fishery on the Rhine had lost all practical significance and its revival under present circumstances appears to be out of the question. Some European pollution appears to be more recent; for example, in 1954 the Grand-Morin, a tributary of the Marne, which drains part of the Paris basin, was reported to have been a trout stream. "Today the rived is dead and covered with filthy rainbow-colored greases and hydrocarbons. Less than 10 years were needed for this." 2 THE PUBLIC RESPONSE TO POLLUTION PROBLEMS The public response to such pollution problems and to fish kills seems to follow a similar pattern throughout the world. Here is a report from Poland: Recently in an artificial lake in Poland, where the waste matter-containing a fungus that deoxydized the water-discharged by a sugar refinery caused the death of some 20 tons of fry. The press called the lake the graveyard of millions of fish. There was one good point: the public indignation at the news which gave the event greater significance than the actual economic loss, and provided conclusive evidence that the whole community was awake to the problem. Legal action has been taken against the culprits. The Polish-Anglers Union now has over 200,000 members and is a leading opponent of water-polluting industries. As is the case in the United States, many voluntary organizations concerned with water conservation are being formed in Europe. During the last 15 years, voluntary water protection associations were 1J. J. Hopmans, "The Importance of the River Rhine for the Water Economy of the Netherlands," Rhine-Seminar, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Geneva, 1963. p. 161. 2 Report of Senator M. Maurice Lalloy, to the French Senate. No. 155, Paris, 1964, p. 28. 3 Joseph Litwin, "Control of River Pollution by Industry," International Association of Legal Science, International Institute of Administrative Sciences, 25 Rue Charifé, Brussels, Belgium, p. 12. 68-240-66—vol. II- -18 formed in Belgium, France, West Germany, Switzerland, Yugoslavia, and other European countries. They combined in 1956 to establish the European Federation for the Protection of Water. In Germany there exists a nonpartisan association of Federal and State legislators who are concerned with the problems of water conservation, particularly pollution. In France, a Federation of Fishermen's Associations and Amateur Anglers Defense Union played an important part in the passage of the new French water pollution control faw. While there have always been professional associations in Europe concerned with the problems of water pollution control, new organizations continue to be formed, such as the Swedish Association for Water Hygiene, an organization representing bacteriologists, jurists, chemists, physicians, and other technicians concerned with water pollution. A Yugoslav Association for Water Protection was formed in 1963. Its membership includes distinguished experts in the field of water economy, hydrologists, biologists, economists, and lawyers. One of its purposes is to keep the public aware of the need and advantage of pollution control. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that in Europe, as in the United States, sportsmen, conservationists and professionals are bringing pressure upon parliaments and legislatures to pass stronger water pollution control laws. The Swiss people, by referendum, in 1953, voted by an 80-percent majority that water protection ought to be the concern of the central government.5 LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY IN EUROPE Some countries have already passed stronger water pollution control laws and others are giving serious thought to such legislation. The Netherlands does not have a strong comprehensive water pollution control law at this time. Laws passed during the past 70 years do give the national government pollution control powers in the major rivers and ship canals. A comprehensive water code was passed in Poland which not only controls discharges, but also indirect pollution by air and soil contamination. During the early 1950's after some considerable study, the Belgium Parliament passed a comprehensive water pollution control law. This law is already considered inadequate and serious consideration is being given to new and stronger legislation in this field. In West Germany, the Federal Water Act of 1960 provides, for the first time, a uniform basis for water pollution control throughout West Germany. The act provides for a permit system and imposes implementation of the act upon the West German States of Laender. Three of the West German States have refused to implement the new law and in October 1962, won a Federal court case which declared many of the provisions of the new act null and void and unconstitutional because it infringed upon the lawmaking rights of the West German States.6 7 Litwin, op. cit., p. 70. C. J. Jackson, "Trade Effluent Disposal and Water Supplies in Western Germany," Federation of British Industries, 1962, p. 9. A comprehensive water pollution control act was passed in France in 1964. It includes all French waters including underground and coastal waters. It is not limited to discharges but covers "any activity likely to cause or increase pollution by altering the physical, chemical, biological, or bacteriological characteristics of the water." The French act is very broad and leaves the details of implementation to the executive branch of the Federal Government. In the United Kingdom, legislation passed during the last 10 years has greatly strengthened the power of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the river boards in the field of pollution control. The Tidal Waters Act of 1960 extended control of water pollution to tidal rivers and estuaries. The 1951 Rivers' Prevention of Pollution Act has exempted from control all pre-1951 discharges which had not materially changed in quantity or quality. The Public Health Act of 1961 requires applications for consent for the continuation of pre1951 discharges. The 1961 act and the Water Resources Act of 1963 greatly strengthen the role of the river boards and changes the name to "river authorities." 9 10 Yugoslavia has no comprehensive Federal water pollution law now. Pre-1940 legislation in the various Yugoslav republics still apply except in Slovenia and Macedonia. Comprehensive Federal legislation establishing water quality standards and classifications are now being drafted.11 INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONSHIPS Federal legislation in the United States has, during the recent years, caused a significant shift in Federal-State relations, particularly in the field of enforcement. It is interesting to review briefly this area of intergovernmental relations in European water pollution law. As mentioned above, in Yugoslavia the prewar water laws of the Republic prevail at this time. Only two of these Republics, Slovenia and Macedonia, have recently passed water pollution regulations enforceable within their own territories. They explicitly provide for the treatment of wastes. The other Republics, if they had any pre-Second World War water pollution control laws or regulations at all, these were very general or nonexistent. Each of the Republics has its own regulations for the protection of fisheries and these may require the installation of treatment facilities. In the field of industrial wastes, there is a Federal law which requires that no industrial enterprise may be set up or altered in any way without authorization of its investment program by the Federal Government. This includes consideration of industrial wastes pollution problems and they are, in that context, considered by the Federal Government." As mentioned above, Germany, in 1960, adopted a comprehensive Federal water pollution law which has now been, in principle, declared unconstitutional as it was attacked in court by three of the German States. Prior to that time and presumably still in force are the statutes of each of the former German States which existed before the s Litwin, op. cit., pp. 25, 96. Garner, J. F., in Litwin, op. cit., p. 149. 10 Lyon, W. A., and Maneval, David, "The Control of Pollution From the Coal Industry and Water Quality Management in Five European Countries," Pennsylvania Department of Health, Division of Sanitary Engineering. Publication No. 13, 1966, p. 1. 11 Stjepanovic, Nikola in Litwin, op. cit., p. 170. 12 Stjepanovic, op. cit., p. 180. Second World War and these are quite varied and complicated by the fact that some of the former German States have been combined and reapportioned to form other states. Generally speaking, Prussian law is typical in Germany, and it generally prohibits pollution and imposes the riparian concept of water law.13 14 English law gives nearly all of the specific powers for the management of water and control of pollution to the river authorities. The Minister of Housing and Local Government merely hears appeals, which is rare. He also is responsible for formulating a national policy relating to water. In Holland, Federal authority is limited to major rivers of national interest as is the case in the United States. Power over lesser rivers is in the hands of local watershed authorities established by the provinces.15 THE USE OF CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS The principle of stream classification crops up occasionally in European legislation. The Belgian Parliament seems to have been the first to consider this principle as is the case in some States in the United States, in the 1965 Water Quality Act, which requires the States to submit water quality criteria which, of course, is a form of classification. Poland is drafting regulations providing for classification of its streams and this appears also to be the case in the U.S.S.R. and in Bulgaria.16 In Yugoslavia too, legislation is being drafted to include classification of water. In France, the question of classification was debated considerably when the 1964 bill was considered by the Parliament. The French Government proposed classification but the French Senate, after the first reading of the bill, rejected the classification proposal and prescribed instead an inventory of all surface waters which would specify the degree of pollution of all the streams. The French Assembly amended the bill stipulating that water quality criteria were to be established for each stream within a fixed period of time. THE ORGANIZATION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL EFFORTS When one considers the organizational framework which exists in the field of water pollution control among most of the European nations, one finds an interesting trend to the management of most water pollution problems on a drainage basin basis rather than on a state or federal basis. In Holland, for example, although the major rivers are now and will continue to be under the supervision of the Federal Government, particularly the Ministry of Transport and Water in the National Institute for Purification of Waste Water and the Ministry of Social Affairs and Public Health, all of the other rivers are administered by watershed authorities which are formed by the provinces, and had their origin in the need of farmers to jointly share their efforts in the construction of dikes to provide protection against the sea. It is very likely that the new laws in Holland will strengthen 13 C. J. Jackson, "Trade Effluent Disposal and Water Supplies in Western Germany," Federation of British Industries, 1957, p. 16. 14 Litwin, op. cit., 29. 15 Lyon and Maneval, op. cit., p. 10. 10 Litvinov, N.. "Water Pollution in Europe and in Other Eastern European Countries," Bulletin of the World Health Organization; vol. 26, No. 4; 1962. the role of these watershed authorities which now manage most of the pollution problems of the watershed by collecting a revenue and treating the wastes of the communities and some industries.17 The French act is very broad in scope and leaves its implementation to the Conseil d'Etat (Council of State) through state agencies with water pollution control responsibilities, such as the Higher Council of Public Health, the Directorate of Water and Forestry, the Highways Administration, the Rural Engineering Administration, the Department of Housing, the Higher Council of Fisheries, the Ministery of Commerce and other national and local agencies. The act, for purposes of planning and implementation, sets up specific river basin authorities representing water users, local government, and other units of government. It also provides for financing, the right to levy revenues and even the power to collect effluent taxes from the polluters to compensate for the harm they caused to the general economy. The act authorizes financially autonomous river basin authorities which can implement water management on a comprehensive basis.18 It is probably in the United Kingdom where one finds the most sophisticated decentralized system of water quality management. While the Minister of Housing and Local Government has responsibilities in the formulation of national policy and hearing of appeals, broad comprehensive pollution control authority rests with 27 river authorities covering the entire Nation. They are responsible for not only the management of water pollution control matters, but matters relating to the entire water resource program. Each authority is, by law, an independent corporation and is not subject to detailed supervision by any central government agency although in many of its administrative duties, it may have to obtain central government consent and its decisions regarding applications for permits to discharge effluents into a stream are subject to appeal to the Minister. The river authority is governed by between 21 and 31 members which do not receive any remuneration except for expenses. The authority has a staff and is financed by contributions from the counties and boroughs which it serves.19 The organization of the water pollution control program in Poland provides a contrast to the United Kingdom insofar as its program is a highly centralized one. The agency responsible for water pollution control under the new 1961 law is the Central Water Economy Office, an office established outside of the purview of any of the existing ministries or departments. It is directly under the supervision of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers and has responsibility for coordinating all problems of water resources development in the Polish Government. The Water Economy Office is represented at lower levels of government but these are merely units of the central office. The office is responsible for the coordination of all state offices which have any responsibilities in the water field.20 The 1961 act provides for the development of regional plans for the protection of water. In Yugoslavia, the responsibility for water pollution rests with the central government for the more important streams and with the local units of government for the less important ones. This, as in Holland, 17 Lyon and Maneval, op. cit., p. 9. 18 Dondoux, P., in Litwin, op. cit., pp. 96-97. 19 Garner, J. F., op. cit., 150-151. 20 Litwin, op. cit., p. 117. |