Opinion ID: 411109
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Text of the Purposes Section

Text: 81 The district court, in giving pollutant and addition a broad reading, relied heavily on the purposes section of the Act, Sec. 101(a), 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1251(a). That section declares (emphasis added): 82 The objective of this [Act] is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. In order to achieve this objective it is hereby declared that, consistent with the provisions of this [Act]-- 83 (1) it is the national goal that the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters be eliminated by 1985;(2) it is the national goal that wherever attainable, an interim goal of [fishable and swimmable] water be achieved by July 1, 1983; 84 (3) it is the national policy that the discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts be prohibited .... 85 Undeniably, Congress' strong statement of its objective must color EPA's and our interpretation of specific provisions of the Act. But, as any student of the legislative process soon learns, it is one thing for Congress to announce a grand goal, and quite another for it to mandate full implementation of that goal. Read as a whole, the Clean Water Act shows not only Congress' determined effort to clean up our polluted lakes and rivers, but also its practical recognition of the economic, technological, and political limits on total elimination of all pollution from all sources. The Act contains numerous requirements that cost be taken into account in establishing effluent limits, 65 as well as assorted exemptions from those limits. 66 Moreover, the purposes section, in its own right, suggests that Congress recognized that the substantive provisions of the Act fall short of completely achieving the announced goals of the Act. Congress hedged the purposes section by making it apply only as consistent with the provisions of this [Act], and explicitly distinguished between the congressional policy to eliminate discharge of toxic pollutants and the presumably weaker goal of eliminating discharge of all pollutants. 86 Moreover, even if we accept the purposes section at face value, it is only suggestive, not dispositive of whether EPA must issue NPDES permits for dams. Caution is always advisable in relying on a general declaration of purpose to alter the apparent meaning of a specific provision. Here, Congress' expressed goal to eliminate the discharge of pollutants does not necessarily require that we expansively construe the term pollutant, which Congress itself specifically defined. As for the interim goal of fishable and swimmable water, the purposes section does not tell us how that goal is to be achieved. And Congress, although recognizing the weaknesses of past state water pollution efforts, explicitly chose not to completely federalize water pollution control, but instead directed the states to establish their own pollution control programs under EPA oversight. Had it considered the matter, Congress might well have decided that dam-caused pollution was a problem best addressed through state programs. 87 In addition to our general doubts, expressed above, about how heavily to rely on the broad goals of the Act, we find specific indication in the Act that Congress did not want to interfere any more than necessary with state water management, of which dams are an important component. Section 101(g), 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1251(g), states: 88 It is the policy of Congress that the authority of each State to allocate quantities of water within its jurisdiction shall not be superseded, abrogated, or otherwise impaired by this [Act]. 89 In light of its intent to minimize federal control over state decisions on water quantity, Congress might also, if confronted with the issue, have decided to leave control of dams insofar as they affect water quality to the states. Such a policy would reduce federal/state friction and would permit states to develop integrated water management plans that address both quality and quantity. See H.R.Rep., supra note 52, at 96, 1972 Leg.Hist. 783 (In some states, water resource development agencies are responsible for allocation of stream flow and are required to give full consideration to the effects on water quality; those states should continue to exercise the primary responsibility in both of these areas and thus provide a balanced management control system.). 67 90