An even more severe problem could be presented with respect to the reliability of the information reported. The owner or operator of every pollution source making a report would be aware that information furnished by him might be used in an enforcement investigation or proceeding. Consequently, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, or any other Government agency attempting to use the reports, could be led to gross misunderstandings and misconceptions, unless meaningful resources were made available on a large scale to check the contents of the reports by field investigation of them. Unfortunately, in the field of pollution control, there is no substitute for a sufficient inspectorial staff and, if such a staff is available, the multiplication of reports of the order that would be produced by this section of the bill is both useless and harmful. It would substitute the shuffling of papers for solid abatement action. The entire section and the idea which it represents should be abandoned. Accordingly, we have made no effort to devise drafting suggestions for this section.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. You made no comment on the elimination of the 6-month periods that are now provided in the enforcement procedure. Did you want to comment on that? Mr. WENDELL. Senator Muskie, we made no comment on it because we don't really think that it makes very much difference as a practical matter. Any Federal enforcement proceeding even under the present bill would, at each of the two places where the 6-month period is now provided, undoubtedly have an intermission to see whether the State and local folks were going to do anything or not, or whether the polluter was going to do anything. The very nature of the pollution abatement problem which generally involves the construction of works, 6 months is a relatively short time anyway. So, as a matter of practice we do not think that it really makes much difference.

Senator MUSKIE. I assumed that would be your position, but I wanted to make it clear.

One other question. Do you support inclusion of navigable waters under the water quality standards section?

Mr. WENDELL. We have no view one way or the other on the inclusion of navigable waters. So far as we can determine, as far as the Federal authorities in the Water Pollution Control Administration have interpreted the present statute, they seem to be interpreting interstate waters broadly enough so that we are not at all sure that navigable waters makes much of a change in practice from what is now being done.

Senator MUSKIE. Well, it would make a change.

Mr. THOMPSON. Senator, you remember we went up and down this road a couple of years ago. But the interpretation by the Federal agencies now, and the practice they make of it is that they already have it. If you give them this authority now by intent or by implication, or otherwise, what difference will it make? They are already exercizing it, so we would have to take away from them, that which we don't think we have given them. I don't think we can, so why raise the question here, since they have already taken it?

Senator MUSKIE. Of course, I can best apply what we have done to my own State, because I know those streams. But we do have streams that are major streams that are navigable streams but that are intra

state as to which the Federal agency has not undertaken to assert any jurisdiction and as to which, as a matter of fact, the Federal agencies very clearly have said they do not have jurisdiction. It does make a difference in my State.

Mr. WENDELL. Senator, I would suggest to you that it may make a difference in some States, but there have also been theories advanced by both the Department of Justice and HEW, which they press sometimes and at other times not, that any water that empties into coastal waters is an interstate water. If you go that far, as on occasion I have heard some of the Federal folks do, I don't think that there is much of a river that does not wind up being interstate waters. Senator MUSKIE. I would agree with that. I think it is an area where there is a little doubt and question. I assume the purpose of the bill is to crystallize a finding in that direction. I thought it would not be inappropriate to ask your reaction to it.

I appreciate your statement. As usual, it is well done technically, and very instructive. We appreciate it.

Mr. THOMPSON. I might say this, Senator. This statement was developed in consultation with the people that will have to administer it, so that we would be sure that the amendments that we offer would have no ill effects on the bill and that they would be helpful.

Senator MUSKIE. The Secretary of the Interior has told us that this bill needs some carpentry, so it is good to have you bring your hammer and nails along.

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. We will be in recess until May 5 at 10 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Monday, May 5, 1966.)

WATER POLLUTION CONTROL-1966

THURSDAY, MAY 5, 1966

UNITED STATES SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AIR AND WATER POLLUTION
OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,
Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 4200, Senate Office Building, Senator Edmund S. Muskie (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Muskie, Bayh, and Boggs.

Also present: Senator Jordon.

Senator MUSKIE. The committee will be in order. It is a pleasure to begin this morning's testimony again with another distinguished member of the Senate. As I have said so many times in the course of the hearings, it is reassuring to see the support of the Senate for this legislation.

We have with us this morning another co-sponsor of S. 2947, the distinguished Senator from Colorado.

Senator Allott, we are delighted to welcome you this morning.

STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON ALLOTT, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

Senator ALLOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As one of the cosponsors of S. 2947, I appreciate having this opportunity to make this statement before the committee. As you know, S. 2947 is designed to broaden and increase the authorization of the basic act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Public Law 84-660, and the Water Quality Act of 1965, Public Law 89-234. The 1965 act, among other things, set up the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. As is the case with most new agencies, this one has had its difficulties.

One of the less serious problems has been with switchboard operators. Recently, these young ladies were called together by their supervisor who said: "Please, ladies, when you answer the phone you are to say 'Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.' A bad impression is created when you answer the phone and say 'Dirty water'." This humorous little story does point out one thing, however, "dirty water" has created a nationwide bad impression-and rightly so. There is a public awareness of the problem of dirty water, and the fine work of this Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution has assisted immeasurably in developing it. The water shortage in New York City vividly exemplified the unfortunate situation of a city on the banks

on one of the Nation's mightiest rivers and yet not able to put that great resource to use because of pollution. The time when we could afford to be careless with our great water resources has passed, and the time for judicious water management is here.

Of necessity, we of the arid and semiarid Western States have been conscious of the necessity for water management. We were not blessed with the abundant rainfall that fill the many great streams of the Eastern States. But our efforts have been in the direction of diverting and storing water for future use. Some attention has been given to pollution abatement, but not enough. Westerners know, however, that the future of their country depends upon an adequate supply of uncontaminated water. For the last 100 years, water has been king in the West. Now, because the requirement for water in the Eastern States has expanded to such an extent, this precious resource has become monarch in the East also.

The problem is the same both in the East and in the West: How do we make our water resources effectively yield maximum benefits? Obviously, pollution control and abatement is an essential element of judicious water management. Patience has run out, people are no longer going to put up with having to drink the sewerage of their upstream neighbors. There is a moral obligation to treat waste waters. No civilized person throws trash in his neighbor's yard. Why would a community discharge its wastes into a neighboring community's water source?

Can a community afford to build sewers and a treatment plant? Sewage treatment is one of the cheapest services a local government provides for its citizens. In one State, sewage treatment costs about 5 cents per day per family. A community of 50,000 may pay $102 per person for hospitals and $303 for schools, but invests only $36 per person for secondary sewage treatment. The cost is lowered to about $12 per person in an area with 1 million people. The larger the community, the lower the per-person cost of sewage treatment; and, conversely, the smaller the community, the higher the per-person cost. From this, it would appear that the smaller communities will require the greater proportionate financial and technical assistance-and I particularly underscore "proportionate.'

The backbone of any water pollution prevention and abatement success story rests with the local government. The national water pollution crisis is really many local problems put together. The national crisis will disappear when all local governments solve their separate local pollution problems. In the final analysis, it is essentially the municipality, the special district, or the county which must plan. finance, build, and operate the treatment facilities. The State and Federal Governments can provide assistance of various kinds, but the responsibility for the initiative and the day-to-day operation will fall upon the shoulders of the local community. It will take informed and dedicated local officials to adequately mobilize effective pollution abatement programs, because waste waters must be discharged around the clock, and only the removal of pollutants and contaminants by a correctly built, maintained, and operated treatment facility will reduce pollution.

Some may point to the State and local governments and say, "But they have had all this time and the problem still exists." Well, first,

nearly everything, inadequate as it may be, that has been done to date to abate pollution has been done by the State and local governments. It is estimated that in Colorado alone communities have invested over $47 million in the construction of 102 sewage treatment plants. In addition, just two of Colorado's major industries have spent upward of $10 million in reducing or eliminating pollutants.

And, second, the Federal Government cannot point to its own record with pride. S. 560, a bill designed to take positive steps to stop pollution by Federal installations, sponsored by Senator Muskie, the able chairman of this subcommittee; Senator Boggs, who first suggested such legislation; and several others, has yet to be enacted into law. The bill passed the Senate on March 25, 1965, but has languished in committee in the House of Representatives ever since. Until Congress removes the mote from the "Federal eye", it is not seemly for us to complain too loudly about the State and local governments.

But the purpose of these hearings is to find answers to come up with an effective mechanism with which to combat pollution, not to engage in recriminations. To do this, the problem must first be analyzed.

The first question is: What is pollution? Pollution is different things to different people. What may be pollution to one person may not be pollution to another. The public health officer, the fisherman, the farmer, the industrialist, and the outdoor recreationist all have differing concepts of pollution. To most of us, however, pollution is that which we dislike seeing, smelling, tasting, or even thinking exists in a stream, lake, or other body of water. In short, it is "dirty water." It would be unrealistic to simply ban all forms of pollution, for in order to enforce such a ban we would all have to discontinue the use of water. Obviously, enforcement agencies must have a more precise definition with which to work than just "dirty water." Realistic and enforcible standards must be established. The Water Quality Act of 1965, which was signed into law just 7 months ago, has helped to put the necessary machinery into action to develop such standards. States are "gearing up" now. The 1965 act is an "or else” mandate to the States: "Establish water quality standards and enforcement procedures acceptable to the Secretary by June 30, 1967, 'or else' the Secretary will establish them for you.'

My own State of Colorado has created a State water pollution commission which is responsible for:

1. General supervision over administration and enforcement.

2. Adopting stream water quality standards in accordance with criteria established in the act and satisfactory to Federal requirements where interstate streams are involved.

3. Accepting and allocating loans and grants.

4. Adopting, modifying, and enforcing rules and orders pertaining to water pollution control.

5. Employing technical personnel and hearing officers, and other general responsibilities.

Senator MUSKIE. Senator, may I ask a question?

Senator ALLOTT. Yes.

Senator MUSKIE. On the second point you have listed, "Adopting stream water quality standards in accordance with criteria established in the act and satisfactory to Federal requirements where interstate