mineralized from natural pollutants alone as to render the water undesirable for municipal or irrigation usage."

This brings me to comment on the proposed clean river program (S. 2987). By a resolution of the Senate Public Works Committee (Dec. 16, 1959), the Corps of Engineers made a survey of the natural pollution of the Arkansas and Red Rivers. In this survey they were aided by the Public Health Service.

The District Engineer in his report found that natural salt pollution, in conjunction with manmade brine pollution, must be controlled to alleviate short- and long-term water shortages in the Arkansas and Red River Basins. Associated with mineral pollution is the problem of maldistribution of existing usable water supplies. Effective water quality control measures are required to be in operation in the Red River Basin by 1980 and in the Arkansas River Basin by year 2000.

The district engineer further found that salt pollutes over 1,000 miles of these two rivers to the degree of making the water unusable for most municipal, industrial, and agricultural uses. Each day 27,000 tons of salt are carried by the Arkansas River past Van Buren, Ark., and by the Red River past Index, Ark. Fifteen significant sources of natural chloride pollution in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas are identified as the primary cause of the mineral degradation. Manmade brines entering the basins' waters are largely the consequence of petroleum and natural gas production. State water pollution control agencies of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas indicate that over 95 percent of the oilfield brines are reinjected into producing strata for secondary petroleum recovery or pollution abatement. These States have adopted measures for continued and strengthened control of manmade brine pollution.

The district engineer determined that natural brine emission from the 15 major sources can be controlled in varying degress to serve as compatible additions to comprehensive basin water resources development. Three low-flow dams, with facilities for pumping to offstream reservoirs, to control natural salt pollution from three sources in the Wichita River Basin, Tex., constitute a technically and economically practical plan. Studies continued on the other natural salt sources in the Arkansas-Red River Basins to develop control plans which will be presented in part II of this report, which was scheduled for submission in late 1965.

The district engineer proposed construction and operation of the Wichita River project entirely at Federal cost on the basis of widespread improvement of interstate waters and urgently needed new water supply sources in the Southwest region of the United States. He recognized that public has not been established for division of responsibility between Federal and non-Federal interests for control of natural pollution of the Nation's streams.

The district engineer found that the States of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas advocate that the Federal Government should be responsible for the costs of construction and operation of projects to control natural salt pollution of streams, and that non-Federal interests should bear the full responsibility and costs of programs to control manmade brine pollution.

The district engineer recommended construction of the Wichita River project consisting of water quality control measures in the Wichita River Basin at an estimated total first cost of $46,400,000 for construction and an annual operation, maintenance and major replacement cost of $216,300, provided local interests assure to continue and strengthen reduction of manmade salt pollution and to meet other requirements of local cooperation.

The District Engineer also recommended continued operation and expansion of the existing water quality monitoring programs in the Wichita River Basin, together with accomplishment of a detailed investigation of ground water hydrology and movement of brine in the project area during preconstruction planning.

Early this year the district engineer of the Tulsa district had completed and submitted to the Chief of Engineers the survey report on the Arkansas and Red River Basins water quality control study in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. The Chief of Engineers in turn submitted the project to the Secretary of the Army. Upon discovery that the report was posing inactively upon the Secretary's desk, I wrote to him, urging that he transmit the project and pointing out that the survey report was surely in conformity with the President's state of the Union message, in which the President stated:

"Of all the reckless devastations of our national heritage none is really more shameful than the continued poisoning of our rivers and our air.

"We must undertake a cooperative effort to end pollution in several river basins, making additional funds available to help draw the plans and construct the plants that are necessary to make the waters of our entire river systems clean and make them a source of pleasure and beauty for all of our people."

Further, I pointed out to the Secretary that it was fully understood by the affected States that if the Federal Government took care of the natural pollution, local interests would eliminate the manmade pollution. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, which is monitoring this situation, indicates that the elimination of manmade pollution will cost about 50 percent of the total cost of the project. Therefore, this becomes a cost-sharing project. But most of all, we need to get started on cleaning up the natural pollution of these two great rivers.

The Office of the Secretary replied to my inquiry, stating that the Secretary was returning part I of the survey report to the Chief of Engineers and asking that it be combined with part II. In his letter he said that the favorable benefitcost ratios of the projects recommended for authorization on the Wichita River (pt. 1) depend upon benefits which would not be realized until the proposals of part II (the remainder of the basin) are developed.

The report presently is in the Office of the Chief of Engineers.

During hearings before the Subcommittee on Public Works, Chairman Allen Ellender again expressed his interest in this project, as he has many times in the past. He has written to Lt. Gen. Wm. F. Cassidy, Chief of Engineers, as follows: "During the course of the hearings on the public works appropriation bill, I became aware of the fact that your proposed report on the water quality control study of the Arkansas and Red River Basins, recommending for authorization projects in the Wichita River Basin, had been returned to you by the Secretary of the Army for further consideration and consolidation with part II.

"It is my understanding that although every echelon in the Corps of Engineers considered it important to process part I as an interim report, review in the Office of the Special Assistant (civil functions), Office of the Secretary of the Army, determined that the benefit-to-cost ratios of the projects recommended for authorization on the Wichita River (pt. I) depend upon benefits which would not be realized unless the proposals of part II were developed. In view of this finding, the report was returned to you.

"While there is no question in my mind as to the propriety of the Secretary's Office coming to any conclusion, their studies indicate they should not prevent the recommendations of the reporting officers reaching the Congres which directed the study and financed the investigations. The Secretary can submit his views along with your recommendations to the Bureau of the Budget for information as to the relationship of the report to the program of the President. It is then up to the Congress to consider all of these views and determine if it wants to include the recommended works in an authorization bill for presentation to the President.

"With respect to the relationship of this work to the program of the President, you will recall that as a U.S. Senator from Texas he urged increased appropriations for this study, and in emphasizing the importance of moving ahead at the corps capability he stated: 'I am told that the study has progressed to the point of indicating that by the control of this salt the waters of the great Lake Texoma may be made usable by industrial, agricultural, and domestic consumers.' We are all aware of the President's continued and growing interest in the ways and means to alleviate both manmade and natural pollution. In view of the President's devotion to the proper use and full development of our water resources, it is inconceivable that he would take the position that the submission of this report is not in accord with his program.

"As you well know, after any works recommended in that report have been authorized, there will be several years of planning required. This planning can be accomplished in consonance with the findings of the Corps of Engineers in part II of the report.

"In view of the above, I request that you resubmit your report to the Secretary of the Army. I am today writing the Secretary requesting him to promptly process this report to the Bureau of the Budget. I am also furnishing the Secretary a copy of this letter for his information and consideration."

Due to your consideration of S. 2987, the proposed clean river program, and due to the fact that the original survey for the water quality control study of the Arkansas and Red Rivers originated in this committee, I respectfully urge

that the proposed legislation you are considering be enacted and that the committee urge the Corps of Engineers to submit forthwith part I of the survey and complete part II of the survey at an early date.

It is quite evident from the correspondence from the Oklahoma State Board of Health, which I have made a part of this record, that difficulty will be encountered in complying with the procedures proposed in S. 2947, which is a proposed amendment to Public Law 660, unless the natural salt pollution of the Arkansas and Red Rivers can be alleviated or unless indications that it will be are apparent.

I thank you for your courtesy in considering this matter which is so important to the State of Oklahoma.

STATEMENT OF HON. VANCE HARTKE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA

As a sponsor of S. 2947 introduced by Senator Muskie to expand and improve the Federal Pollution Control Act and also as a sponsor of S. 1479 introduced by Senator Nelson which would establish a specific program to abate water pollution created by synthetic detergents, I appreciate this opportunity to add my testimony on the important matter of pollution control now before this Subcommittee.

The National Association of Counties reports that the fresh water supply available today in lakes, streams and impoundments is estimated at 315 billion gallons a day. By projecting this estimate to 1980 we find that only 515 billion gallons a day can be developed and maintained by current methods. However, the needs of 1980 for water consumption will reach nearly 600 billion gallons a day. By modest estimate the United States will be 85 billion gallons short in 1980 on a daily basis!

This is shocking. However, we have known for several years that this would occur. That this rich nation with its tremendous economic wealth would one day become so desperately short on precious clean water, is almost incredible. No particular unit of government or the private sector is willing to accept the blame for this shameful waste. We know that pollution is an aggregate of local problems: septic tanks, industrial waste, sewage, detergents, marine wastes, litter, insecticides and fertilizers.

We have recognized the problem and have begun slowly to abate the pollution and reclaim valuable water. The legislation before this Subcommittee would

substantially speed up the process.

We need usuable water supplies for municipalities, for towns, for rural areas, for recreation purposes, for power, for transportation, for farm use, for animal life, for commercial and pleasure fishing and for industrial use.

We must attack this problem of pollution in two ways: abatement and reclamation.

Present pollution can be stemmed by the installation of sanitary sewer systems, treatment plants, by requiring that industries treat waste and by products of industry and by controlling residue from commercial and pleasure boats.

Reclamation of polluted waters such as Lake Erie or a small lake such as Cedar Lake in my own State of Indiana comprise the second part of the attack and our plans for the future. Reclamation by mechanical and chemical means is relatively new. We have not experimented enough to know which of the proposed methods will work best or which is most appropriate for the particular area or problem. An increase in federal funds for reclamation-demonstration projects then is imperative.

Pollution control costs money-a lot of money. But we can not underscore the need enough. If we do not launch a more substantial program in a relatively few years we will have to ration water, put boats in dry docks and suffer polluted stagnant waters were once beautiful rivers flowed and lakes sparkled. Without substantial federal expenditures, state cooperation and local efforts every water way in the nation will be, as many are now, unsafe for recreation and a menace to health and welfare.

A significant deterrent to this menace is S. 2947, which provides for greatly increased federal grants for pollution abatement-$6,000,000,000 over a six-year period. Beginning with fiscal year 1968 we would be able to offer some $600.000,000 in 30 percent federal grants to towns and municipalities for sewer systems and treatment plants. A 10 percent bonus for those states which contribute 30 percent to the project is essential to encourage the states to help meet their prob

62-611-66- -6

lems. Another excellent feature of this bill is the long term low interest rate loan provision where local funds are not sufficient to meet their requirements. I think we should expand federal participation even further. We might consider a broader formula for pollution control grants. Let us provide a 40 percent Federal base, an additional 10 percent for states which contribute up to 30 percent of the project cost, and a 10 percent bonus for regional-interstate planning. Possible consideration might be given to a bonus of 5 to 10 percent for areas declared by the Economic Development Administration as economically distressed. In these, more than 1200 areas of underemployment and rural poverty, the sewage treatment facilities and sewer systems should not necessarily be a part of immediate industrial expansion as E.D.A. now requires for approval.

By using this formula we could have a maximum of 70 percent federal fundsnot high when we consider, for example, $20,000,000,000 needed to abate pollution and reclaim the Great Lakes.

The 10 percent bonus for state participation is essential if an awareness by the states of their share of responsibility for pollution is to be created. My own State of Indiana has operated without a state matching program in this area. The Governor and the State Legislature are well aware of the problems and Indiana may qualify for this bonus by the end of the 1967 session of the Indiana State Legislature.

Regarding S. 1479, I have been advised that our own detergent industries in Indiana now manufacture soft detergents. However, it would be advisable to set up either a general pollution control commission or a separate commission as a detergent control group which S. 1479 provides. National standards for detergent composition may also be advisable. However, the companies are wary since this is a highly competitive market. It may therefore be desirable for the commission to report on violations before standards are set. I want to join with the Committee in giving credit to those industries which have already taken voluntary action to change the composition of their products in the public interest.

Finally I would like to bring several other points to the Committee's attention. It is important that the Committee encourage the Interior Department now the central authority for pollution control, to maintain a balance throughout the country and not create an imbalance by concentrating disproportionately on problems like the Potomac River, the National Parks and the western reclamation states. With proper balance, I feel that the Interior Department will continue the excellent work begun by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

I hope that the Interior Department will work out a realistic program to coordinate the federal funds available for sewer systems now administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Economic Development Administration, the Farmers Home Administration and the Department's own central authority. It is essential to simplify this cumbersome process.

I am personally interested in semi-annual reports from the Interior Department on pollution control progress and feel that the scope and impact of this vast problem makes imperative that progress reports are made available to all members of the Congress.

There is currently a desperate shortage of engineers, chemists and other personnel trained in the water and air pollution field. This Committee should recommend to the President the initiation of a program for assistance to undergraduate and graduate students in this area of study on a five year crash program basis. We ought to provide fellowships for these studies as well as making certain that grants are readily available to the colleges and universities to work on demonstration and technical projects for pollution control and water reclamation. There is a need for additional funds to permit bright young students. under existing work study programs, to have experience with the engineering firms or advanced municipalities working on pollution abatement and water reclamation.

I appreciate the Committee's attention to my request and wish to congratulate the Members of the Public Works Committee for past accomplishments in this important struggle for clean air and water. I certainly support Senator Muskie and the members of this Subcommittee who have shown a willingness to do even more to insure our citizens of a better life in an America which will one day pay greater attention to the conservation of her vast natural resources.

STATEMENT OF HON. HARRISON A. WILLIAMS, JR., A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, appreciate this opportunity to appear before the subcommittee today to discuss one of our most pressing and potentially paralyzing problems-water pollution.

This subcommittee has shown outstanding leadership in developing the Federal Government's role in this field and in focusing congressional and public interest on this increasingly serious problem.

I have long been interested in programs which will bring Federal, State, and local resources to bear on successful water-pollution abatement. The hearings today on additional programs at the Federal level bring us one step closer to the development of a truly comprehensive water-pollution-control program.

First, I should like to address myself to proposals for strengthening and expanding existing Federal activity in this field. Then I should like to make a few comments on the administration's proposal for cleaning entire river basins.

This subcommittee's recommendations to the full Committee on Public Works earlier this year for changes in existing water-pollution-control programs merit full congressional consideration. I am particularly pleased and encouraged with the proposed changes in Public Law 660, which provides grants, through the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, for the construction of sewerage treatment plants.

At the present time, Federal participation in the construction of treatment plants is limited to 30 percent of the estimated reasonable cost of the project or $1.2 million, whichever is less. In the cases of projects serving several communities, maximum Federal participation is set at $4.8 million.

In my estimation, the dollar-ceiling limitation in this program is unrealistic and unnecessary, and I concur with the subcommittee that it should be eliminated.

The dollar-ceiling limitation works to the disadvantage of both large cities and small communities. For either, the cost of a sewerage treatment facility is formidable-in many cases it places such a burden on the community that construction becomes virtually impossible. In fact, for the vast majority of communities, the cost of new construction is so far above maximum Federal participation that Publlic Law 660 provides little, if any, stimulus and encouragement to commmunities confronted with the need for large expenditures for treatment works. In its recommendations to the full committee, this subcommittee cites a graphic example of how unrealistic the dollar-ceiling limitation is for our large cities.

Several years ago St. Louis voted a $95 million bond issue to finance the construction of sewerage and sewerage treatment facilities. At that time maximum Federal participation was limited to $250,000. Had St. Louis waited until today to begin its project, it could have counted on $1.2 million from the Federal Government. In other words, Federal participation would amount to less than 1 percent of project cost.

Small communities do not face having to raise as much as St. Louis for their sewerage facilities. But for them, too, the cost can be staggering. It's not unusual, for example, to find a community of only several thousand people faced with the need for new facilities costing many millions of dollars.

The problem of financing the facilities for these essential community services is, in almost every case, left to the community alone. Only six States provide State funds to communities for this purpose. The subcommittee's recommendation that communities be permitted to apply directly to the Federal Government when State funds are unavailable is particularly significant.

Under Public Law 660, communities seeking grant funds for sewerage treatment plant construction must first apply to the appropriate State agency and obtain its approval before the Federal Government may consider the application.

This procedure frequently works to the disadvantage of the small community. State approval of an application is based upon the State's overall needs and priorities—and more frequently than not, applications from larger cities receive the necessary approval.

I know from my personal experience in New Jersey of one small community which has an absolutely intolerable sewerage problem. Existing facilities were outdated years ago; local financial resources are inadequate to meet current needs. Today, local officials tell me that raw sewage flows in ditches and streams