Senator RANDOLPH. That is right. Reasonable.

Mr. GALLAGHER. Oh, yes; reasonable, certainly reasonable. As we all know, the solutions to these problems are expensive and complicated.

Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Gallagher, that is why I ask if you are recommending that the 6 months be changed? Are you asking for

an amendment?

Mr. GALLAGHER. As the present Water Quality Act reads now, it has this 6 months' grace period in there.

Senator RANDOLPH. Are you asking that that be changed?

Mr. GALLAGHER. We ask that that be left in the present Water Quality Act.

Senator RANDOLPH. All right, leave that in the present bill.

Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes.

Senator RANDOLPH. Now if the polluter or the State is able to handle this problem, to cancel it in 2 months, why do you believe that it is necessary to allow the 6 months, during which time further damage to the resources may occur?

Mr. GALLAGHER. Because this is general, Mr. Chairman. In some cases they may be able to do it in 2 months. But we think the 6 months' period ought to be there because it covers everything.

Senator RANDOLPH. As you discuss the balance between the Federal and the State and-the governments, do you think there is an inequitable relationship here?

Mr. GALLAGHER. As the present Water Quality Act states now, this is done with the consent of the Governor. This is what we are in favor of. This S. 2987 eliminates that.

Senator RANDOLPH. The State can still act, can it not, after the conference?

Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes. As we understand S. 2987, it allows the Secretary of the Interior to operate without consent of the Governor. Senator RANDOLPH. We had felt that there was an incentive here to have the State act and that if the State did not act the thinking was that then there would be reason for action to come from the Federal Government. What do you think of this?

Mr. GALLAGHER. Throughout the testimony, Mr. Chairman, we said we would like to see this left like the Water Quality Act of 1965 on a conciliatory basis rather than on a threatening basis. That is why we say, leave the consent of the Governor; that the State and the Federal Government would work together to do it rather than the Federal Government stepping in.

Senator RANDOLPH. We felt that is what we were doing. We felt we were establishing a Federal-State partnership, with a proper level of responsibility assigned to each member.

Mr. GALLAGHER. But when you eliminate the necessity of getting the written consent, then the Secretary could act without the Governor of the State.

Senator RANDOLPH. And you think if the problem is a bad problem it should remain a bad problem and no one act because the State would not act?

Mr. GALLAGHER. No, I think it should be done cooperatively. Senator RANDOLPH. But you just said if the State did not act, the Secretary could act without the consent of the State.

Mr. GALLAGHER. No.

Senator RANDOLPH. If the State does not act what happens? Mr. GALLAGHER. If the State does not act, then the Secretary should get together with it and see that it does act.

Senator RANDOLPH. There has to be a request, as I understand it, but if the State does not make such a request how are we going to bring this into being?

Say the State does not make this request, what is going to happen? Mr. CANNON. If I could comment on that, Senator, I would like to point out that we are in this context discussing cases that are purely within the boundaries of one State and there is no interstate impact, so the question is as to the propriety of the Federal Government intervening in what is essentially a local

Senator RANDOLPH. Isn't the problem of pollution as bad on an intrastate stream as on an interstate stream?

Mr. CANNON. It could be. I was discussing it in the context of appropriate governmental roles.

Senator RANDOLPH. Certainly it is not good public policy to allow pollution on an intrastate stream, is it?

Mr. CANNON. I think it is a question of which sovereign government should exercise the appropriate policing role in that particular situation.

Now, in an interstate pollution case, of course, there is no requirement to get the consent of the Governor or having to wait for a request, but when the Congress drew up the act originally I think they saw fit to make different rules for the intrastate case.

So far as we know, no serious problems have arisen to provide any sort of foundation to radically alter the framework of the act at this time.

Senator RANDOLPH. I understand your viewpoint here, but I think a person living on the intrastate stream needs just as much protection as one living on an interstate stream.

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir. I think we all agree. It is a question as to whether the Federal Government should move in on a purely intrastate situation.

Senator MUSKIE (presiding). I am sorry that I have not had a chance to read your statement thoroughly. I have glanced through it. I am sorry that I was not here for the presentation and discussion. I note that you are opposed to lifting the ceiling on the dollar limitation on Federal grants.

Mr. CANNON. I think primarily, Senator, what we point out in the prepared testimony is that the total authorization will be lifted considerably above the present level and we suggest that this raises some questions or considerations that should be carefully weighed by the subcommittee before making a decision as to the appropriate level of authorized annual appropriations.

Senator MUSKIE. I was not speaking so much of the total authorization now as I am about the dollar limit.

Mr. CANNON. We have no comment on that feature in our prepared testimony.

Senator MUSKIE. I have not had a chance to read your language. A hasty review of this seemed to indicate that you were opposed to lifting the dollar limit. But you say you have no position on that.

Mr. CANNON. That is right. We make no statement about that in our testimony.

Senator MUSKIE. Is your reference to that only to project the financial implications that you try to draw?

Mr. CANNON. We raise some questions based on the fact that the highest actual expenditures in any one year has only been some $800 million, and assuming, even making certain assumptions that the $12 billion would represent 40 percent of the total, you would come out with something like $334 billion a year as contrasted with $800 million, which is the highest actual experience.

It seems to raise certain questions as to the availability of resources to quadruple this type of activity and as to the allocation of resources to this as compared to other public works, let us say.

Senator MUSKIE. I think it ought to be clear that in connection with our report, "Steps Toward Clean Water," these figures are based upon need. By that measure I don't think there is any dispute of the need for this level of construction activity. Do you dispute that in terms of the need for the construction of sewage treatment plants? In other words, if they are to be built, if it is wise to have them built this is the kind of expenditure that we ought to be considering. Do you dispute that figure as representative of the need?

Mr. CANNON. Let me say this. In testimony before your subcommittee last year Mr. Paul Reed, the head of the construction grants program, testified that taking into consideration the backlog and obsolescence and so on and even taking into consideration the diminishing purchasing power of the dollar, that the level should be $865 million a year total.

Now assuming the Federal Government would pay 40 percent of that $865 million, this would still only come out at a level of $350 million a year.

Senator MUSKIE. Now we based our figures upon all of the testimony we got in our hearings around the country. Do you think the figure is still inadequate and the official difficulties, such as they are, can substantially conceal the total need?

Mayor Locher of Cleveland the other day testified that Cleveland's needs would be more than $900 million.

New York's Governor Rockefeller testified that New York's need is $1.7 billion. This is one city, one State, so, our figures which have been supported by those who are in a position to know the need who have testified I think are pretty accurate.

This morning's testimony by Dr. Ingraham was to the effect that if the $6 billion in the committee bill were reduced then the Federal effort would lag behind the New York State effort.

New York State certainly is not going to spend money it does not need to spend. So if the $6 billion figure is geared really realistically to the New York State effort, which I am sure is based upon a careful analysis of New York State need because they are planning to do the job in 6 years, if it is geared to the effort of the richest State in the Union, it can't be too much for the poorer States in the Union.

Mr. CANNON. I don't think we are disputing needs. I think the question we raise, that we think should be considered, is how much of this job can you get done in any one year?

Past experience has shown that the highest level ever was something over $800 million.

Senator MUSKIE. I don't think that is a measure of the possibility. I think that is a measure of the resources that were available. The competition for local funds is great, as you know, particularly for schools.

In Maine we initiated our State program in 1957; for 2 or 3 years the communities lagged behind the funds that were available on both the State and Federal levels, because the communities did not have money of their own to match.

As soon as they began to gear themselves up, they caught up with the level of Federal and State assistance and now are pushing ahead of it. I think the indication across the country is that the communities can do a better job than the $800 million a year of which we are speaking.

We are trying to push this effort up to what it ought to be in order to meet the needs. I think your key question ought to be, frankly, what do we need to get done?

Obviously we won't spend it faster than it can be spent because the initiative lies with the local communities. If they can't push this faster than $800 million a year then they won't and we can't do anything about it.

But if we can stimulate them to do a better job than that, then we think the Federal resources ought to be available. I think that is the difference between our views on this.

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; we certainly would not want our position to be misconstrued. We certainly are in favor of construction of municipal sewage treatment plants and we are in favor of construction of secondary treatment plants by the municipalities.

We certainly would like to see this thing go ahead at as fast a pace as possible.

However, the municipalities will still be paying somewhere between 30 percent and 70 percent of the total cost of these plants. So we feel that is one additional item to be considered in determining the annual level. I think we sort of have some feeling along with Mr. Samuel Baxter of Philadelphia, when his testimony indicated some fear that we might have construction indigestion if this level was attempted to be placed too high.

Senator MUSKIE. On the other hand, we did not get construction indigestion from the interstate highway program which was a crash. program. We got 40,000 miles of interstate road built in a very short time. We managed to gear up to it.

Mr. GALLAGHER. It is manpower in the professional phase of this that is hard to get, Senator.

Senator MUSKIE. This was a problem in the State highway program. I was Governor when we had to get that interstate system going. We did not have the engineers. We did not have the people in our State program. When the money was made available, somehow we got the people.

I think we can get the people here.

Really the thing that troubles me, in addition to the fact that we have not got the treatment plants, is the fact that it is going to cost

us more if we delay getting the treatment plants. Construction costs are going up and have historically.

So I really think we ought to push to get this job done. This is an authorization bill. If in fact what you fear materializes, and the communities can't gear up to that kind of effort, the appropriations won't be made.

We are not going to provide money that is not picked up by the States, I am sure. So, if your fears are right and if they are validated by experience, the money won't be spent.

But I think if we indicate that this is the level of effort we ought to have and we authorize $6 billion for 6 years, this will be a signal to the communities to which they will respond.

Obviously we hope they won't do it inefficiently or ineffectively or that they will build poor plants. We do have controls over that. I am sure we will continue to have them.

I don't think we have to fear that. I think these are proper cautionary notes to strike. I don't dispute it. It gives us a chance to make a case, as a matter of fact.

Thank you very much.

Mr. GALLAGHER. Thank you.

Senator MUSKIE. I am glad I came back in time to welcome a citizen of my own region, Mr. Irving Beck, director of the interstate relations of the New England Council.

STATEMENT OF IRVING BECK, DIRECTOR OF INTERSTATE RELATIONS, THE NEW ENGLAND COUNCIL

Mr. BECK. I might add that I am glad you came back, too, Senator. Senator MUSKIE. Why don't you proceed, Mr. Beck.

Mr. BECK. Mr. Chairman, my name is Irving Beck and I represent the New England Council as director of interstate relations. The statement today has been approved as policy of the New England Council, through its national resources committee, interstate relations, committee, and business and industry committee.

As you may know, the council was established in 1925 at the request of the six New England Governors. It is a private nonprofit organization with a broadly representative membership interested in the sound economic development of the region. As a consequence, it is particularly interested in legislation that would strengthen and improve efforts to abate water pollution in New England.

In the past, the council has supported Federal legislation to combat water pollution. In 1965, we supported the Water Quality Act and the Water Resources Planning Act as important measures to strengthen the partnership between Federal and State Governments and to enhance the common struggle to maintain and preserve quality water in our environment. We are glad to have a chance today to comment on the various proposals before this subcommittee and to make further recommendations as to how we think the problem of water pollution can best be solved.

As pointed out in a recent article in the New Englander:

The year 1965, according to water supply experts, will someday be known as the time Americans first became aware that clean water supplies were not endless. (Memolo, "New England Water Classification System 20 Years Ahead of