POLLUTION

THURSDAY MORNING, February 6, 1936.

Chairman: SENATOR AUGUSTINE LONERGAN. Committee: S. B. LOCKE, Izaak Walton League of America, Chicago, Ill.; M. M. ELLIS, Columbia, Mo.; GROVER C. LADNER, Assistant Attorney General, Philadelphia, Pa.; CLEM SHAVER, Reconstruction Finance Corporation, Washington, D. C.

SOME PROBLEMS OF STREAM-POLLUTION CONTROL

(By ABEL WOLMAN, chairman, Water Resources Committee of the National Resources Committee)

It is axiomatic in the development of any country that problems of water pollution become more acute as the country becomes more urbanized and industrialized. When Alexander Hamilton made his report on manufacturers in 1791 the water-pollution problem, as we know it today, had not aroused much interest, and when he obtained from the State of New Jersey the first industrial charter at Passaic Falls, almost a century and a half ago, no regulation in this charter referred in any fashion to the control or elimination of industrial wastes. Even at that time, however, an English observer traveling in this country referred to the highly objectionable character of the harbor of Philadelphia, then a city of only 60,000.

As in so many other directions rapid development of this country brought in its wake a series of difficulties most of which might have been anticipated by a more far-sighted citizenry. Today we are beginning to pay the penalty of this expansion in more dramatic form than might have been apparent a century ago.

It should not be forgotten, however, in assaying the cost of this penalty that great development of cities and of industries has accompanied the creation of these difficulties. The problem confronting all of us interested in the control of water pollution is not only that of correction, but of balancing the cost of that correction against the benefits to be derived therefrom.

Without attempting to discover the basis for the renewed interest in this problem, there is no escaping the fact that today more than ever in our history, individuals in every field of public and private activity have focused their attention on the problem of stream-pollution control. The sportsman, the industrialist, the sanitariań, are all concerned with correcting a situation which has become so complex in its technical and administrative features as almost to baffle any effort at control.

As a result of this great interest, the National Resources Committee in 1935 appointed a Special Advisory Committee on Water Pollution. This committee consisted of representatives of virtually all the major Federal agencies concerned with the problem and of State and local agencies whose administrative knowledge thereof was of long standing. The report of that committee has been referred to

from time to time in public discussions. It might be of value therefore to summarize briefly at this point its major findings, in order to predicate thereon some of the comments and conclusions here to be presented.

As was to be expected, the special advisory committee found a variety of State laws dealing with the control of water pollution. Some were good, some were bad, but accomplishment in the field of correction had little or no relationship to the existence of good or bad State laws. Those States which had had effective legislation on the books for over 20 years showed no better accomplishment than adjacent States with adequate legislation. The evidence appeared to indicate, as some of us had suspected for years, that law alone is not a corrective for water pollution.

It was found further that lack of administrative budget and personnel in State agencies likewise did not account for unsuccessful accomplishment.

Progress in the treatment of sewage was found to be unsatisfactorily slow. By and large, seven industrial States today account for more than half of the water-pollution problem of the entire United States. Of 68,000,000 people in urban centers of the United States directely connected with sewers, the sewage of over 40,000,000 obtains no treatment. The seven industrial States account for 25,000,000 of these people. In other words, concentrated effort within or upon seven industrial States of the entire country would eliminate more than half of the water-pollution problem.

The blanketing of the 48 States of the Union under a Federal law might appear to be unnecessary upon the basis of this fact alone.

In the field of industrial waste the situation may be assumed to be even worse, although the accumulation of accurate data in this field is almost impossible. Information as to the extent of industrialwaste treatment in the United States is almost wholly lacking.

That the problem of industrial waste is tremendous, however, is obvious to anyone even remotely familiar with this field. When it is remembered that on the Potomac River watershed two industrial plants discharge a total of industrial waste greater than the sewage How from the entire city of Washington, some impression may be gained as to the character and volume of the difficulties involved.

Aside from the amount of industrial waste to be treated in the country at large, it should be remembered that for many of these materials no treatment process is available. In this respect the problem of industrial waste is even more acute and difficult of solution than in the domestic-sewage fields. In this latter field, at least, processes of treatment of every gradation are available for use, even though their costs are greater than most laymen suspect. Efforts to determine the total first cost of correcting the water-pollution difficulties of the country are fraught with danger. Some estimates have been issued from time to time by various agencies. one of them, so far quoted in public discussions, appear to fall within the realm of probable accuracy. The statement may be ventured that to correct the domestic sewage treatment problem alone would cost in the neighborhood of $1,000,000,000 for installation of plants. To estimate the cost of industrial-waste treatment at the moment involves even a greater hazard, but there is little doubt that it would

A, Buffalo near watering place on National Bison Range, Mont. (Biological Survey photo.)

B43766

B, Otter asleep on ice in Salmon River, Salmon National Forest, Idaho. (Forest Service photo.)

require anywhere from two to ten times the figure for domestic sewage. Neither of these figures, no matter how inaccurate, include any annual operating costs, by no means an insignificant portion of the total financial load on the public.

These figures are presented here only to illustrate the size and character of the problem confronting the country. It may properly be asked, however, now that the facts have been made available, what shall be done about it? Proposals for correction fall automatically into two classes. The one may be summarized in the general motto "Pass a Federal law prohibiting the discharge of sewage or wastes into any stream." The other proposes the establishment of adequate river-conservancy agencies to cope with the problem. Precedent for either of these efforts is lacking in the United States. The probability of the first procedure bringing success is slight. In no country in which the history of stream-pollution legislation is available has blanket law been successful. Statutory formula has never produced satisfactory results in a field in which continuing administrative interpretation and regulation are prime necessities. The problem of water-pollution correction is a moving and variable one, differing in time and in place.

Many laymen frequently point to the experience of England as an example of success in water-pollution control. The facts, however, point to the contrary. Prohibition of discharge of sewage was the earliest expedient tried in England. It was a complete failure. This was later followed by the effort to impose a universal form of treatment on all discharges. For obvious technical reasons this likewise failed. The third step in England's effort to relieve the problem was to place river drainage areas under the control of continuing administrative bodies. The experience has been favorable, but none too rapid. The problem plagues them today.

Even in England, where State rights did not add an additional problem as in this country, the correction of water pollution has not proceeded with any too striking advantage. What little evidence may be gathered from the English experience points in the direction of avoidance of statutory blanket regulation. It retarded rather than hastened the elimination of domestic and industrial wastes.

When comparing the opportunity for the application of English practice to this country it must be remembered that two differences between the two countries and their problems are important. In this country we have the barriers of State political boundaries, and, secondly, the mere difference in size of problem. The Thames River Basin, for example, has an area of 7,200 square miles. It is one of the largest in England. The Ohio River Basin, the seat of one of the major water-pollution problems of the entire United States, has a drainage basin area of 204,000 square miles, approximately 30 times the size of the Thames Basin. The Ohio River Basin is larger than the combined territory of Italy, Austria, Hungary, and Belgium. When we talk blithely of operating the Ohio River drainage basin as a unit, we should bear this fact in mind before approaching the problem too hastily and with too much faith in simple legislative or statutory devices.

To maintain a stream in such condition as to provide suitable water for drinking, for the preservation of fish and wildlife, for

57282-36-35