Statement of Administration Policy: S. 1178 - Coastal Protection Act of 1990

(Senate)
(Mitchell im Maine and 12 others)

The Administration opposes enactment of S. 1178. The bill would impede current Federal regulatory efforts to protect coastal resources. It would disrupt the existing Federal/State relationship established by the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA). The bill would duplicate existing Federal efforts, and impose unreasonable timie-frames, unworkable standards, and excessive reporting requirements on States and Federal agencies. Finally, the bill would require mandatory programs where discretionary use of authority is most appropriate.

Among its most objectionable provisions, s. 1178 would require the mandatory use of chemical-specific numerical sediment quality criteria for dredged materials. Although the Administration does not oppose the eventual use of such criteria, it does oppose their mandatory application in the near term as required by S. 1178. This requirement may not necessarily provide additional environmental benefits. It would, however, dramatically increase the cost of maintaining harbor access for shipping and generate additional paperwork, laboratory expense, and other staff costs.

An equally objectionable provision would authorize States to adopt their own more stringent rules, regulations, and criteria relating to ocean dumping within their jurisdictions. This provision would severely impinge upon the ability of the Federal Government to exercise its responsibilities for maintaining navigation for interstate commerce and public vessels.

If S. 1178 were enacted containing the above two provisions, the Secretary of Defense would recommend to the President that the bill be vetoed.

Additionally, the Administration objects to provisions which would:

—  require the elimination of combined sewer overflows (CSO) and the implementation of stringent storm event design standards. The requirements would disrupt the extensive correction program already underway, unnecessarily escalate costs, and require expensive CSO controls with little additional environmental benefit;

—  create an overlap between CWA ana mpksa requirements. Such overlap could require expensive and unnecessary formal redesignation of hundreds of dredged material disposal sites;

—  require the EPA Administrator to consider applying ocean discharge criteria to all those who discharge into priority designated waters. This would significantly delay permit issuance and increase the resources required to permit such discharges without necessarily resulting in significant environmental gains;

—  authorize costly coastal monitoring and research programs that are administratively burdensome and duplicate existing programs. Rather than allocating scarce research and monitoring funds where the scientific and management needs are greatest, the bill would fund new national and regional bureaucracies at an annual cost of $45 million; and

—  set an undesirable precedent in the National Estuary Program by authorizing funds to implement comprehensive conservation and management plans for the Long Island Sound. Federal agencies are authorized to implement 6uch plans through their normal programs. States and localities, however, must continue to be responsible for the incremental cost of implementing the plans in their estuaries.

Finally, the bill would impermissibly infringe on the President's authority under Article II of the Constitution. It would do this by:

—  vesting significant governmental authority in members of the Lake Champlain and Onondaga Lake Conferences who are not presidential appointees;

—  requiring the President to accomplish certain tasks in conjunction with the Government of Canada; and

—  requiring Executive branch officers to make legislative recommendations to Congress.