tion and enforcement authority as necessary to maintain water quality standards." We are hopeful that state enforcement of its own pollution control laws can be made a requirement for federal aid. The League has no basis for judging whether it would be better to enlarge the grant program to aid states in controlling and preventing water pollution (P.L. 660 Section 7a) by $5 million a year to 1972 as proposed in S. 2947 or to extend the program to 1972 at its present level and add a new authority of $5 million a year to aid state and interstate agencies in formulating and enforcing state water quality standards set under the Water Quality Act of 1965. It seems that the end will be the same. We do think that it is suitable and proper to offer additional federal aid to help the states carry on a function into which they are drawn in response to federal legislation. Setting quality standards for interstate streams needs to be done well, and the task was not of state choosing. Adding to information ENFORCEMENT League members have been astonished to find that the federal agency entrusted with pollution abatement has no way to find out what is going into the water from industrial waste-water outlets unless it samples and analyzes the stream. League members long involved in the water item were surprised to find that information on industrial waste discharge into U.S. waters was sparse and difficult to obtain because most companies have chosen to keep it confidential, and that state agencies in some states were prohibited by law from revealing their data to the federal agency. As industrial wastes become an ever bigger part of the U.S. pollution problem we believe that it will be necessary for the Secretary to have subpoena power to get information on polluting substances. Reducing delay League members favor doing as much as can be done by persuasion to abate pollution before going to court. However, the requirement of two six-months waiting periods between the time the Secretary recommends remedial action to the state water pollution control agency and the time he may act to abate pollution may be unnecessarily long. The League has been watching the enforcement conference procedure since 1960, and we see no reason to suspect that the federal requirements have been unreasonable. We think, therefore, that a determination of a reasonable time for agency action against pollutors could be left to the Secretary. To the same end of avoiding useless delay, the League supports the proposal in S. 2687, Title III, that the court shall receive the hearing board's transcript and findings in evidence. The present requirement that the court re-hear all the evidence seems wasteful of money and time and an unnecessary delay in the effort to abate pollution. IOWA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: Enclosed are copies of Resolutions adopted by the Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary Engineers in annual meeting, April 14-15, 1966. This Board was organized 37 years ago with the objective of developing uniform policies and procedures for improving environmental sanitation for protection of the public health with due regard for the economies of the states, particularly for controlling water pollution, with full recognition of its many facets. Members of the Board at the present time are: C. W. Klassen, Illinois; B. A. Poole, Indiana; J. E. Vogt, Michigan; F. L. Woodward, Minnesota ; L. F. Garber, Missouri; M. H. Thompson, New York; G. H. Eagle, Ohio; W. A. Lyon (Acting) Pennsylvania; O. J. Muegge, Wisconsin; and I. We regret the delay in transmitting these Resolutions to you, but we hope that they are not too late for your consideration. Additional copies are enclosed for distribution to the other members of your Subcommittee if you so desire. Very truly yours, P. J. HOUSER, Secretary. RESOLUTION OF GREAT LAKES-UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BOARD OF STATE SANITARY ENGINEERS ON S. 2947 Whereas present Federal legislation provides for the setting of priorities for the recipients of Federal sewage treatment plant grants by the states; and Whereas this is a proper function in the field of Federal-state relationships; and Whereas Senate Bill 2947 would eliminate this provision of Federal legislation and place into the hands of the Federal Government the power to set priorities for sewage treatment plant grants; and Whereas in many states it is not possible within the time allotted by Senate Bill 2947 to pass legislation that would provide for increased borrowing capacity and matching grants: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary Engineers is opposed to that section of Senate Bill 2947 which would deprive the states of the responsibility and authority of setting priorities for the granting of Federal funds for the construction of sewage treatment plants unless it provides for adequate time for the States to pass needed constitutional provisions and legislation to provide for matching grant program. Adopted April 15, 1966. RESOLUTION OF GREAT LAKES-UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BOARD OF STATE SANITARY ENGINEERS ON S. 2987 Whereas the people of the United States and their elected representatives have clearly indicated the need to greatly enhance the nation's water pollution control effort, and Whereas the response to this need has been the Water Quality Act of 1965 which has strengthened the Federal role in the field of water pollution control, and Whereas this Board recognizes the value of basin-wide approach to the solution of water problems, and Whereas Senate Bill 2987 contains provisions which would take from the states: 1. The power to set priorities for recipients of Federal grants for the construction of sewage treatment plants. 2. The power to make the decision on what constitutes adequate representation of Federal, State, Interstate and local interests in the designated planning agency. 3. The power to regulate pollution in basins or regions approved by the Act. 4. The power to participate on an equal basis with the Federal Government in the approval of basin comprehensive water plans. 5. The power to regulate pollution on intrastate streams without Federal assistance unless it is requested. Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That this Board recognizes the important role which the Federal Government must play in the field of pollution control but that if the nation's effort in water pollution control is to be successful, the rights and privileges of the states in this field must be preserved until it is shown that a given state has not assumed its responsibility. That this Board opposes the passage of Senate Bill 2987 unless it is amended to preserve the present legal role of the states in the composition, operation and approval of plans of interstate and other basin agencies, and in the management of the quality of its waters; and be it further Resolved, That the success of the nation's water pollution control efforts depends on a balanced federal, interstate partnership without unnecessary federalization of the program. Adopted April 15, 1966. Kalamazoo, Mich., May 3, 1966. Subject: Water pollution hearings, S. 2987. Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: With reference to bill S. 2987, the writer is definitely opposed to this amendment and asks that you use your influence to make certain that this amendment is opposed and rejected. If it is found necessary to have additional legislation concerning the problem of water pollution control, I feel that very definitely it can be handled in a much better way than by means of the proposed amendment. Very truly yours, GEO. R. LAURE, President. CHICAGO, ILL., April 7, 1966. Senator EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Washington, D.C.: Knowing of the hearings going on before your committee, the Hunting and Conservation Committee of the NRA submitted the following resolution to the Board of Directors of the NRA. It was adopted unanimously. I am sending it to you posthaste that it might be included in the record. For your information the following outstanding people are members of the hunting and conservation committee, and they are in full support of your efforts. A. H. Garcelon, chairman, Advisory Council, Department of Inland Fisheries and Game, Maine. Harry D. Linn, vice chairman, former secretary of agriculture, Iowa. Former Gov. George N. Craig, Indiana. Merton Golden, former commissioner of fish and game, Pennsylvania. Seth Gordon, former commissioner of fish and game. Pennsylvania and California. C. R. Gutermuth, executive director, Wildlife Management Institute. Raymond Hoem, rancher of Montana. Thomas Kimball, executive director. National Wildlife Federation. Robert C. Reeve, owner, Alaskan Airlines, and famous conservationist of Alaska. Congressman Robert L. F. Sikes, Florida. RESOLUTION-WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION Whereas the President of the United States has notified the Congress of his intention to transfer the recently created Water Pollution Control Administration from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to the Department of the Interior; and Whereas, the National Rifle Association of America has long advocated a strong and adequately financed water pollution abatement program designed to clean up the Nation's waterways so that water will be usable for all legitimate municipal, industrial, agricultural, recreational, and other purposes: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Board of the National Rifle Association of America, in annual meeting assembled in Chicago, Ill., recommends the following procedures and policies in the development of the President's reorganization plan: 1. That the Water Pollution Control Administration be continued in its up graded and independent status with no other added responsibilities or assignments for its key personnel. 2. That the Secretary of the Interior, under the terms of the Water Quality Act of 1965, immediately cooperate with State water pollution control agencies by developing water quality standard guidelines designed to clean up the Nation's water supply. 3. That the most capable, professional, and experienced men be recruited for the enormous tasks ahead in water pollution abatement. 4. That the authority to develop and establish water pollution abatement policies as assigned by the Congress to the Water Pollution Control Adminis tration, not be delegated to or be unduly influenced by any of the resources-user agencies within the Department of the Interior, or any other Federal agency. Adopted April 6, 1966. Dr. ALONZO H. GARCELON. Senator EDMUND S. MUSKIE, CHARLOTTE, N.C., May 9, 1966. Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, In the past we have successfully been able to meet the city and State pollution requirements in two of our mills by meeting with the above officials and in a cooperative conference-type approach. Based on these experiences we are against the proposed amendments toward title III of S. 2987 to the Federal Pollution Control Act which would change enforcement procedures "from conciliatory, cooperative, conference-type approach to an antagonistic, punitive, adversary-type approach." CAROLINA PAPER BOARD CORP., Ross PUETTE, Chairman of the Board. SCHOOL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: As a sanitary engineer who has been engaged in the water pollution control aspects of sanitary engineering education, research and practice for the past twenty years, I wish to express my strong support for S. 2947. I am however concerned that despite an apparent widespread recognition of the growing demand for specialized manpower, the level of funding proposed in the FY 1967 budget for training these individuals will fall far short of the level required to meet the personnel requirements generated by the greatly increased appropriations proposed for enforcement, construction and research. A doubling of total expenditures for water pollution control will require an approximate doubling of the funds available to universities for training grant and fellowship support. For example, the FY 1967 Federal Water Pollution Control Administration budget proposes a 10 percent increase in combined Training Grant and Fellowship funds over FY 1966 funds, compared with a 30 percent increase for all grants (exclusive of construction grants) and direct operations combined. At the same time, a several-fold increase in sewage treatment plant construction grant funds is proposed in S. 2947. President Johnson's message to Congress on conservation (Feb. 23, 1966, House Doc. No. 387) states (Human Resources for Pollution Control): "New projects and new technology are of little value without skilled people dedicated to putting them to effective use. "I propose to enlist the services of those in industry and the universities. "I propose to attract skilled administrators and scientists to the challenges of full-time occupations in pollution control. "Critical skills are in short supply in all public pollution control operations. We need to train scientists and social scientists in these activities, and to demonstrate the advantages of government service as a life time occupation. I propose to establish traineeships, fellowships, and an internship program in Federal pollution control activities. The participants will be in residence in Federal pollution control programs throughout the country." S. 2947 does not provide the funds needed to support the graduate-level training of the very large number of engineers and scientists without whose services the objectives of the legislation cannot be achieved. Universities, with their broad range of disciplines and capabilities, have recognized and assumed their responsibility for contributing to the development of the educational and research programs that provide the manpower and the new knowledge requisite to the conduct of water pollution control programs. I believe that it is vital to the success of these programs that federal financial support for graduate training continue to expand in proportion to the total funds for water pollution control activities. Very truly yours, CHARLES D. GATES. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP., Neenah, Wis., March 23, 1966. Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE, DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: In his testimony submitted to your Committee on July 15, 1965, Mr. Quintin Narum, engineer in charge of the effluent treatment facilities at the Kimberly-Clark Corporation mill situated near Anderson, California, presented a brief review of that project. In conclusion he stated that a complete and detailed report would be made early in 1966. The report has been prepared and I am very happy to forward you a copy. The report gives a brief background of the project, goes into considerable detail as to the facilities which are incorporated (including various tables). describes a few of the most pertinent happenings of the first fifteen months of operation (it would have required volumes to detail all of the experiences). outlines the direction of future investigations, and points out those things that were successful and those which we would do differently next time. We have tried to be very frank in our appraisal. We hope that others can apply some of our findings to their own specific problems. We also hope that this report will be of assistance to you and your Committee in their deliberations. Very sincerely, R. M. BILLINGS, Assistant to the Vice President, Research and Engineering. A RIVER, A MILL AND A NEED KIMBERLY-CLARK ON THE SACRAMENTO R. M. Billings, assistant to the vice president, Research and Engineering, Kimberly-Clark Corp., Neenah, Wis. Q. A. Narum, air and effluent engineer, Kimberly-Clark Corp., Anderson, Calif. "When a thing needs doing, And it must be done, It can be done, And it will be done, When a thing needs doing * * This old maxim can go on forever but while it may have no ending. I consider it quite significant that it always has a "need" for a beginning. In this respect, it is similar to the problems of pollution abatement and stream improvement. The Shasta operations of Kimberly-Clark at Anderson, California, started with a "need" also-or, I should say with a number of them. First, of course, was Kimberly-Clark's need for pulp and coated paper producing capacity on the West Coast. Then there was Northern California's need of economic development and the bolstering of the sagging economy of the area's lumber industry. The vast amounts of wood slabs and trim being wasted by the sawmills needed to be utilized. There was a grave need for the stable, continuing employment that the pulp and paper industry would bring. But, desirable as all of these needs might be, their fulfillment was conditional upon the satisfaction of one need of primary importance to this location: The preservation from damage of the natural resources, the scenic beauty and the recreational potential of this favored area. The Central Valley Regional Water Pollution Control Board carried the responsibility of specifying the conditions under which a pulp and paper plant at the Anderson location would fulfill this controlling need. In doing this, they supplemented their own specific knowledge with the counsel of many of the foremost state, federal and private authorities in the country. The final conditions as laid down were tough but they had to be, since the discharge from the operation was to enter the river less than a mile above one of the largest spawning grounds for salmon and steelhead trout on the entire Sacramento. These conditions contained the normal prohibition aginst health hazard, pH extremes, nuisance and aesthetic deterioration; but in addition, a number of provisions came as a result of this specific location. For example: No discernible bottom deposits resulting from the operation would be allowed since these might smother fish eggs in the "redds." |