We are hopeful that answers to current pollution problems may be found in the near future. Some of these answers will no doubt be supplied by research to be conducted at the new Pacific Northwest Water Laboratory, presently under construction at Corvallis, Oreg. We are honored that this facility is being estab lished in our State, and believe it a tribute to Oregon's pollution control program, as well as to his individual qualifications, that Curtiss M. Everts, Jr., former director of the Oregon State Sanitary Authority, has been chosen to head up this important Federal effort.

In the State of Oregon, we are extremely fortunate in having many waters that have not been adversely affected by industrial, agricultural, or domestic development. Consequently, such waters are of the highest possible quality. We wish to safeguard these priceless assets, and are confident that if we can continue to receive in the future the same kind of cooperation that we have received in the past from the public, industry, and the Federal Government, we shall be able to do so.

TABLE I.--Summary of sewage treatment plant construction in Oregon, 1946–63

TABLE II.—Scwerage works contracts awarded per year in Oregon, 1946–63

TABLE III.—Summary of progress made during 1963 in planning and constructing needed sewerage works projects in Oregon

TABLE IV.-Summary of dissolved oxygen data for the Willamette River, 1953–63

Based on daily monitoring surveys conducted by the Oregon State Sanitary Authority.
Dissolved oxygen.

Senator EDMUND S. MUSKIE,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

LANSING, MICH., January 15, 1965.

Since reports reaching us indicate very early hearings on S. 4 and that provisions of section 5 of S. 649, 88th Congress, are contained therein, we take this means to acquaint you with our deep concern with that section. Those provisions for setting and enforcing water quality standards by the Federal agency ousts the States from their established jurisdiction and conflicts with policy declarations in section I of the present act. Primary responsibility for adoption and enforcement of standards should remain with State agencies. Standards, if necessary, to achieve pollution control in interstate waters can be developed and administered more effectively as a joint Federal-State endeavor under the comprehensive planning procedure authorized by section 2 of the present act than by the proposed amendment.

LORING F. OEMING, Executive Secretary, Michigan Water Resources Committee,

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND
CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS,
Washington, D.C., January 21, 1965.

Hon. PAT MCNAMARA,

Chairman, Senate Committee on Public Works,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MCNAMARA: On behalf of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations I wish to set forth our support of S. 4, the Water Quality Act of 1965.

I request that this letter be made a part of the record of the recently concluded hearings before your committee on this legislation.

S. 4 is basically identical to S. 649 of the 88th Congress which was approved by the Senate but did not receive House action. However, two sections which appeared in S. 649 but are not in S. 4 are (1) to secure control of pollution from Federal installations, and (2) establishing a technical committee to evaluate progress in abating pollution from commercial detergents, together with a report and recommendation as to how best this source of pollution can be abated.

It is our understanding that special legislation will be introduced to deal with each of the two situations listed above.

The AFL-CIO endorses the proposals of S. 4 as constituting another vitally needed step that should be taken toward the goal of assuring the American people adequate supplies of clean water for all human uses in the years to come.

The record will show that organized labor has, over a period of many years, continually supported Federal legislation which would accelerate the cleaning up of this Nation's rivers, streams, lakes, and estuaries.

We were in strong support of S. 649 during the 88th Congress, both in the House and in the Senate.

While the 1956 and 1961 amendments to the Water Pollution Control Act have provided needed stimulus to localities, to build sewage treatment works, the Federal program is still inadequate, both as to the amount of Federal grants-inaid and in the lack of the establishment of Federal standards of water quality as applicable to interestate waters and portions of interstate waters.

Another problem of water pollution which the present act does not cover is found in more than 1,900 communities, with a total population of nearly 40 million people, which are served by combined sewer systems, carrying not only sewage but storm runoff waters. The inability of such systems to handle both burdens results in enormous amounts of raw sewage dumped into streams and rivers and carried downstream to the people below. We are happy that S. 4 will provide authorization for research and development grants to demonstrate new and improved methods for communities to employ in eradicating this problem. This part of the total program would call for $20 million a year for the remainder of this fiscal year and for the next 3 fiscal years.

We also endorse that provision of S. 4 which would assist larger communities to deal with their waste treatment problems by increasing the ceiling on Federal grants-in-aid from $600,000 to $1 million for individual projects and from $2,400,000 to $4 million for projects which may be undertaken jointly by several communities.

We particularly support the enforcement provision of S. 4 which directs the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to establish standards of water quality applicable to various navigable waters and to relate them to effluents discharged directly into such waters, with the power of abatement.

The proposal to place the Federal water pollution control program under a new Federal Water Pollution Control Administration in the Office of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, reflects the general consensus developed over the past several years that water pollution problems should be considered not merely in terms of the creation of health hazards, but in the broader aspect of achieving the optimum amounts of clean water for the people of this Nation in the future.

We hope that enactment of this administrative change will not mean merely the establishment of another bureau, but instead will signalize the acceleration of a vigorous, coordinated, and broad-gaged Federal program to attack the pollution of our waters wherever it may be found.

Sincerely yours,

ANDREW J. BIEMILLER,

Director, Department of Legislation.

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo., January 14, 1965.

Senator EDMUND S. MUSKIE,

Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.:

Missouri State Chamber of Commerce membership strongly opposes S. 4 re Federal water pollution control for the following reasons:

(1) Federal control costly and time consuming.

(2) Regulation of stream use more effective at the State level.

(3) Standards established at the Federal level could result in greater contamination than presently permitted in Missouri.

(4) Pollution control in Missouri presently adequate and satisfactory. Sincerely,

LAWRENCE A. SCHNEIDER,

Executive Vice President, Missouri State Chamber of Commerce.

ALABAMA WATER IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION,
Montgomery, Ala., January 12, 1965.

Senator EDMUND S. MUSKIE,

Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.:

Understand you and others have introduced a water pollution control bill (S. 4) this Congress and this bill will be heard about January 18. We further understand S. 4 is essentially the same as S. 649 introduced in the last Congress

except for provisions relating to detergents and permits for Federal installations. Position of the Alabama Water Improvement Commission is the same as expressed in a statement presented to the House Committee on Public Works December 10, 1963, on S. 649. A copy of this statement is being sent to you.

IRA L. MYERS, Chairman.

STATEMENT OF CLAUDE D. KELLEY, VICE CHAIRMAN, ALABAMA WATER

IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION

(Presented to the House Committee on Public Works on S. 649 and related bills, December 10, 1963)

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee on Public Works, I am Claude D. Kelley, director of conservation for Alabama and vice chairman of the Alabama Water Improvement Commission, the agency of our State having statutory authority for the control of water pollution. Thank you for the privilege of appearing before you in my capacity as vice chairman of the Alabama Water Improvement Commission and stating the position of the commission with respect to amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as contained in act S. 649 and related bills.

The commission opposes amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act contained in S. 649 which would

1. Establish a Federal Water Pollution Control Administration within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare having specific administrative responsibilities delegated to it.

2. Authorize the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to establish standards of water quality for interstate waters and to secure abatement of violations of these standards under enforcement procedures provided in the act.

3. Authorize and direct the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to utilize the enforcement powers of the Federal Government to abate pollution of interstate or navigable waters which prevents shellfish from being marketed in interstate commerce.

Our commission recognizes that the status of the Federal water pollution control program should be upgraded and that strong administrative leadership for the Federal Government's activities in this area is necessary. This leadership must be supported by knowledge gained through experience and training in the complex and specialized fields of water pollution control and water quality require ments for all useful purposes. This knowledge is available at the national level within the Public Health Service. Throughout the years, the Federal Government has relied upon the Public Health Service for the administration of national programs for water quality improvement through pollution control. These responsibilities have resulted in the development of a professional staff within the Public Health Service whose qualifications in the field of water quality protection are without equal in other branches of the Federal Government. These special qualifications are not limited solely to the protection of health as they cover all aspects of water quality and water pollution related to the public welfare.

The success of Federal-State programs depends upon a close relationship between the parties involved and a mutual understanding of the problems and responsibilities of each. This relationship and understanding between the Public Health Service and our commission has contributed materially to the success of joint efforts in water pollution control within Alabama.

We, along with many other agencies and organizations, unsuccessfully opposed the 1961 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act which transferred responsibility for administering the act from the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. Our opposition was based on the possibility of the Public Health Service being completely removed from participation in the water pollution control efforts of the Federal Government. It should be noted that neither Mr. Ribicoff nor Mr. Celebrezze, who presently holds this office, has seen fit to remove the major responsibilities for water pollution control from the Public Health Service.

We recommend that the Congress upgrade the status of the Federal water pollution control program within the framework of the Public Health Service rather than pass legislation which could result in the removal of this agency from the water pollution control efforts of the Nation.