sive studies are designed to bring together, in one place, all of the knowledge and all of the information on the makeup and characteristics, the present and potential use of a particular river basin, with the thought in mind that, on the basis of this information, more intelligent planning and more intelligent use of the rivers could be made in the future. The inevitable byproduct of which we would hope for would be more effective pollution control.

Senator MUSKIE. In your prepared statement, you say that you commenced two major river basin studies. Are these the first two? Mr. QUIGLEY. No. Seven studies have been undertaken since the act has been on the books. We have, for all practical purposes, completed one. The others are in various stages of completion. Senator MUSKIE. Have you prepared, or could you prepare, a summary of those which we might include in the record, at this point?

Mr. QUIGLEY. We could, and we will, Mr. Chairman.

(Subsequently, the following summary and chart were submitted:)

SUMMARY OF COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAMs for Water POLLUTION CONTROL The present concept of comprehensive water pollution control program development began with passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956. Its purpose is to provide both short- and long-range planned, logical, systematic means of preventing degradation or improving polluted waterways for the guidance of local, State, and Federal interests having responsibility for water pollution control. Such programs show the way for additional research, construction grants, enforcement, and a host of other related implementing

means.

Water pollution control program development is considered to consist of three parts: (1) Planning; (2) implementation; and (3) operations, some or all of which may run concurrently.

Planning provides the blueprints: Implementation-the physical works, plants, dams, process changes, etc.; and operations-the everyday procedures to produce the highest quality of water in the system shown by the blueprint.

Water pollution results from a man's use of a stream to carry away his wastes in the cheapest (to the polluter) possible manner and from natural events; such as, erosion of soil or solution of natural minerals. This leads us to the conclusion that most events leading to pollution of a river are interrelated and that the logical approach to the control or prevention is on the river basin or watershed unit. As a result, the United States has been divided into 20 basic units or basins, some of which contain more than 1 river watershed. Seven such area units are being examined now and one has been completed.

The Arkansas-Red River Basins comprehensive project was initiated July 1, 1957, and the report was completed in August 1964. The pollution, of primary concern in these basins, is related to salt concentrations from natural and manmade sources.

The Columbia River Basin comprehensive project, the Great Lakes-Illinois River Basins comprehensive project, and the Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna River Basins comprehensive project were begun in 1960. The Columbia and the Great Lakes projects are scheduled for completion in 1967. The Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna project is to be completed in 1968. The Delaware estuary project was begun in 1961 and is scheduled for completion in 1967. The Ohio River Basin comprehensive project was begun in 1962 and is scheduled for completion in 1970. The Southeast River Basins comprehensive project was begun in 1963 and scheduled for completion in 1969. The Hudson-Champlain and metropolitan coastal comprehensive project was begun in 1964 and is scheduled for completion in 1971. Each project requires from 5 to 7 years for completion, depending on the complexity of the area. Two additional projects are scheduled to begin in late 1965. These are the Central Pacific project and the Missouri Basin project. The remaining 10 areas will begin as shortly thereafter as possible. The date for finishing the planning phase of all the projects is now tentatively set for 1972.

The preparation of the plan for each area encompasses very careful observations of present physical, chemical, and biological phenomena and demographic and resource changes. The plan documents will include:

(1) A statement of the goals in water quality which the plan is designed to achieve.

(2) A statement of actions, their priority, and estimated costs required to meet the goals. The action required is stated in terms of waste removal or treatment, flow regulation in the stream system, or other means of control; such as, storm-water-holding reservoirs, diversions, etc.

(3) A statement on the expected growth characteristics of the watershed in terms of population, industry, and agriculture.

(4) A statement on countermeasures required to cope with such growth in the future. This part gives consideration to means of governing these areas so that the implementation and operations are coordinated and are in harmony. (5) The development of a simulating model of each river basin so that a thorough examination of each development in the basin can be tested prior to its installation to determine the effects of the installation's waste products on the water quality. The simulating model is essential to the initial plan and for subsequent upgrading of the plan. It provides a continuing and dynamic planning device to bring new technology into the picture as it develops.

(6) A statement on the benefits incurred as the result of damages prevented or from improved water quality in the area. Benefits may or may not be stated in monetary terms because of the extremely complex relationship of water quality to its influence on use.

(7) A statement on, and the provision for, a residual water quality intelligencegathering system which will enable the administrators to operate the system on a day-to-day basis as needed. The intelligence system will monitor the water quality at key points and make such intelligence available to the persons responsible for operating municipal and industrial plants, to the Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation, who may be responsible for releasing or storing water on a stream, and to the regulatory agencies for using in formulating enforcement procedures as necessary.

(8) Statements on scientific data accumulated during the field investigation stages of each project.

(9) Maps and graphs depicting the plan and its significant parts.

Senator MUSKIE. How much time is involved in making one of these studies? I notice that you suggest 7 years for the two to which you referred in your prepared statement. That seems a long time. Is there any way of expediting that?

Mr. QUIGLEY. That is a long time, Mr. Chairman, but if you note where it is, it is the Hudson River and the New York Harbor area. That is one of the most congested, complex industrial and urban areas in the world. In contrast, one of the rivers we are studying is the Susquehanna which flows down from New York into the Chesapeake. That study has gotten underway about a year or a year and a half ago and we would assume that, in a river like this, we could complete our study in considerably less time and for considerably less money. But, in any event, you just don't swing into one of these things and wrap them up in 3 or 4 months. At best, they are a 3- or 4-year effort, if you are really going to do the job properly.

Senator MUSKIE. I appreciate that point of view and I would agree with you, that this kind of work is not susceptible to a crash program approach, but could you expedite it with more personnel and more money spent effectively?

Mr. QUIGLEY. Theoretically I think that answer to that has to be "Yes." However, in the practical application of that theory, I am not so sure that it would always stand up because, as I indicated when I was referring to our acquisition of technical personnel, they are not always available where you want them, and when you want them, and with the skills and the experience you need.

Money is definitely a factor but I don't think it is the only factor. I think that we could do more and do it quicker with money but I don't know where the point of diminishing returns might set in.

Senator MUSKIE. Would you state that getting this work done is an important key to more effective and more rapid progress to pollution control?

Mr. QUIGLEY. Clearly, I think it is, Mr. Chairman, because I think that this gives you an overall view of a river basin and you make decisions as to what you do or what you should not do in the way of pollution control.

Senator MUSKIE. One of the fighting fronts here, really, is researching and field studies including these river basin studies. We have to push back the frontiers of knowledge before we can really do the job.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Let me add this additional point: You made reference to the St. Croix in discussing the standards section; how such standards might operate very effectively and very beneficially. I would think that it might be 25 or 50 years or maybe never before we would get to the St. Croix under the comprehensive river study approach and, by the time we did, the river might be in such bad shape that we would have an academic case study of the sad fate of a oncebeautiful river.

Senator MUSKIE. I am glad you brought up that point so that we can focus on it. The President, in the language from his message which you quote, said that we must give first priority to the cleanup of our most contaminated rivers.

No one would quarrel with the importance of that kind of emphasis but, at the same time, it seems to me that we have to give immediate and continuing interest to preserving water quality where it now exists.

I would hope that we don't concentrate on our presently contaminated rivers to the exclusion of attention to those rivers which are still relatively clean but which will not be for long unless we develop programs to protect their quality.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I agree with you but, at the same time, I think that, in the interest of accuracy, I should add that, up to now, this is pretty much what we have done. This is what we have been directed and authorized to do under the basic Federal act. Putting first things first, I think we have tended to concentrate on the worst pollution situations. But as we move forward, this committee, its chairman, and others who are interested, have recognized that while we are striving mightily and expending a lot of time, effort, and money to clean up our presently polluted waters, it would be prudent and make a lot of sense and, in the long run, it would be far more economical if we could practice a little preventive medicine. I would hope that the standards section, that is the pending legislation, would give us the lead and the opening we need to take up in this direction. Senator MUSKIE. That is what I hope. Insofar as our most contaminated rivers are concerned, the standards section cannot do much more than to establish goals for cleanup; isn't that right?

Mr. QUIGLEY. Yes, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. În Maine we have been operating, since just after World War II, under a water classification law. The first thing that was done was to classifiy the clean waters, or the cleaner waters, in order to lock them up and to protect their quality.

The last thing that is being done, and it isn't finished yet, is to classify the contaminated waters. The result of course has been to postpone dealing as effectively as we might have with the existing problem, and to neglect some of our pressing problems but, at the same time, we approached the objective of protecting the rivers whose quality was of a higher order.

I would hope, and I am sure that the Department and that you personally are aware of the importance of these two objectives-dealing with the contaminated waters now but, at the same time, taking effective action to prevent contamination of other waters whenever we can. I would hope, if S. 4 becomes law and the standards section becomes law, that we will find the means to implement it effectively enough to move toward both objectives.

Mr. QUIGLEY. I share your hope, Mr. Chairman, because I clearly recognize that the standards section presents a challenge to us, to the States, and to industry but, frankly, I think it is nothing compared to the challenge it is going to present to our Department. We will have to find the talent, the tact, and everything else we need to design meaningful standards. This is no easy job.

Senator MUSKIE. I hope you won't be afraid to come up here and ask us for what you think are the necessary means. The ultimate responsibility is ours. We may not give it to you-and when I say "we," I mean the Congress as a whole but I think that, if the standards section is to mean anything at all, we must have the practical means to implement it. It isn't going to be the easiest piece of legislation to administer from all points of view. That I am quite aware of.

Mr. QUIGLEY. I would like to get my full and complete agreement with the chairman on that point, on the record, at this point. Senator MUSKIE. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Senator Boggs, do you have any questions?
Senator BOGGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, I appreciate your statement and the questions and answers with the chairman here, all of which were very helpful, and some of them covered points that I had in mind.

I do want to ask you, though, have you been making any progress with the Federal installations?

Mr. QUIGLEY. Yes, Senator; we have. I will be honest with you, however, and say, not as much as I would like or I think as much as we should.

This is not a particularly difficult problem in most instances as far as pollution control is concerned. As to the basic problem with Federal installations, I really hope, as the chairman indicated, that when the committee gets around to considering this question, not only in connection with water but with air, that we are clever enough and ingenious enough to devise an effective workable system. The problem is easy to understand.

You have a military installation, or you have a Federal prison, and they are both polluting the air and/or the water. Year after year after year, the warden or the commanding officer includes in his budget a request for funds to abate the pollution. And year after year after year there is a budgetary process which must be followed. As the budget request its way up through the chain of command, in the Pentagon or the Department of Justice, or even in