and I think even in terms of the drought situation, because there are many States I know of in the West that would be delighted to change places in terms of present rainfall patterns with the parts of the East that are now under drought.

But the question is one of management, of conservation, and of planning, and I think that there were some people in the drought region and this is humanly understandable; I do not want to set myself up as a critic, as a severe critic of everyone there are many who operated on the assumption that, "Well, the drought persisted for a second year, there will not be a third because this is unprecedented," and when a third occurred, "there will not be a fourth."

I think everyone is pretty well agreed now that the only prudent assumption to operate on is that there will be a fifth year of drought and that we should plan for it, and I think if we do plan for it now, perhaps next July or next August the region will not have the crisis that we had this year.

But this is one of the new elements that we are trying to contribute. The CHAIRMAN. What this crisis has revealed, I think, is that a closer look is needed into the sources of available water. For example, there is plenty of water in the Hudson River, but is there not a pollution problem?

Secretary UDALL. I think Secretary Quigley might want to ccmment on that aspect.

The CHAIRMAN. Secretary Quigley.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, you are absolutely right. There is plenty of water in the Hudson. One of the ironies of the present crisis in the New York area is that with all this water in the Hudson they are not using it. The primary reason why they have not turned to the Hudson as a source of water is because of the pollution problem. In that connection, Mr. Chairman, I might point out that at the request of Governor Rockefeller and Governor Hughes, Secretary Gardner has scheduled a water pollution control conference on the Hudson, and that conference will be held in New York City on September 28. I think this is a direct result of the crisis, the awareness that has developed that in the past here in the East, where there has been plenty of water most of the time, we have used it and abused it and developed very sloppy conservation practices, and we can no longer afford to continue doing it this way.

The CHAIRMAN. But the drought has opened the door to a real close look for the first time at some of these problems that do exist within the jurisdiction of the States and the various communities, has it not?

Mr. QUIGLEY. Clearly it has.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, you did not perhaps read it directly into the record, but on item No. 4, page 5, the top of the page, you mention installation of metering devices and related charges for water as soon as feasible, if not already done, to provide incentive for water conservation. Do you think that pricing water differently would possibly contribute to the more efficient use of the available supply? Secretary UDALL. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that came through very convincingly on our 2-day field trip was the contrast between Philadelphia and New York. Philadelphia had an antiquated, outmoded system when your present colleague, Senator Clark, and others put in a reform charter in the early 1950's. The whole

water department was reorganized in what we consider a very modern, highly efficient fashion. The city of Philadelphia, for example, takes its water out of the Delaware, the Schuylkill River, it purifies it—and this water incidentally, in terms of quality, is about the same as the Hudson up near Poughkeepsie where New York proposes to take it out-they purify the water, they put it into the system, they take the sewage effluent and treat it and put the water back in the Delaware River. The whole thing is operated under one department.

They have a water fee, a sewage fee. They plan for the future. They bond whatever works are needed, and their system, after 1958 or 1959, is thoroughly metered. The result is that Philadelphia, we found, uses 50 million gallons a day less today than they did in 1955. The CHAIRMAN. Despite the great growth that has taken place in the area?

Secretary UDALL. That is right, the effect of conservation. And I notice one of the major conclusions of the panel of our advisers that Mayor Wagner convened a week ago was that even in a city like New York City, which has big buildings and most people live in apartments, that without metering you cannot really account for your water. You do not know where it goes. You have no way really of knowing whether your system is operating efficiently or whether your costs are sound.

And so I think metering obviously is a primary conservation device, and I think most of the American cities are increasingly turning to metering. Most of the best systems do have metering already. The CHAIRMAN. And possibly more realistic prices too, to encourage conservation?

Secretary UDALL. Well, again the contrast between Philadelphia and New York, because the Philadelphia system is completely selffinancing, both as to water and sewage treatment. You know too often our cities have made no charge for handling sewage, and in fact handled it in what has been the traditionally cheapest way, dump it in the river and let the man downstream worry about it. This is not only poor conservation, it is poor citizenship, and I am sure Secretary Quigley could give a lecture on that.

But the problem is, it seems to us, that if a water system operates and if the price charged for water is geared to what it costs to produce that water, and the same would apply for taking care of the sewage effluent, then you have a system that finances itself, and I think we can foresee already that as far as cities are concerned, the best way to lick the water pollution problem in the long-run is to have cities organize the way Philadelphia is organized. If you do it that way, I do not think the Federal Government is going to have to come in and pay the full cost of rescuing our rivers from pollution.

This comes through very clearly.

By the same token, if the price charged for water is commensurate with the total cost of the economics of producing and distributing and using that water, then you have a system that functions, and it makes sense for everyone concerned, and people also realize that water is not free, that they are going to have to pay whatever the cost is of producing that water.

The CHAIRMAN. There would be a lot less wastage when they realize they have to pay a price for what they are wasting. To the extent they waste it, they pay that much more.

Secretary UDALL. That is true.

The CHAIRMAN. To what extent are the ideas and proposed suggestions that you have made in connection with the Northeast applicable to other areas of the country? This problem is now in the Northeast, but we have had indications, with the decline in the water table, that some of the other big cities throughout the country may be confronted with this same problem. Have you come to any conclusions in that regard?

Secretary UDALL. Well, I think, certainly, the general conclusions, with regard to water management, water conservation, water planning as I tried to indicate in my original statement, Mr. Chairman-apply nationwide, and I think we have a very varied pattern in the country in terms of water management and water planning and water conservation.

But I think the lessons that the Northeastern region has learned through battling drought and through meeting necessity are certainly applicable everywhere in the country.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Kuchel.

Senator KUCHEL. I think this is a splendid meeting, and surely the members of the Interior Committee recognize the national interests in the problems of water shortage. Those problems, as you and I know, Mr. Secretary, since both of us come from the west, have been met in great part by Federal assistance to the States in the western part of this country. I was a member of the Select Committee on Water Resources, and we held hearings in various parts of the country, not only in the reclamation States but in some others, and here is a graphic example of the fact that the problem of adequate water supply to be placed in beneficial use is indeed a national one.

Is the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior in this problem, Mr. Secretary, based on your participation as a member of this Council which has been set up?

Secretary UDALL. Senator, I am appearing here today as Chairman of the Water Resources Council and not representing my Department as I indicated at the beginning. I think what the Congress had in mind in passing the Water Resources Planning Act was that there are at least five Federal agencies-the Federal Power Commission is not represented here this morning but should be; I apologize for thatthat all of us have different responsibilities, and that what is needed for purposes of coordination and planning and better management is for the Federal Government to have a Water Resources Council. The President designated me to serve as Chairman. The other agencies serve very well, and we are trying to establish new patterns of cooperation, and I think we have been very successful in this Northeast as a sort of shakedown cruise. We have moved right into it, and we work side by side, and I think in the main we feel it has already proved the wisdom of establishing the Council as a Federal coordinating agency.

Senator KUCHEL. I do not think there is any question about that. Do you, as Chairman of the Council, contemplate making any specific recommendations to the Congress to assist either in the solution of the short-range problem or in the solution of the longer range aspects of water shortage in this area?

Secretary UDALL. Well, of course the short-term measures that the President approved, Disaster Act measures, will require appropriations, and these have already-I think you will find some of them in the last supplemental appropriation.

With regard to the long term, we are not here today with any recommendations, but I am sure we are going to have some in the future, and I am sure that our studies are going to show that additional legislation and additional appropriations will be needed not only for all of the individual programs that are represented in the departments in the Council, but perhaps for new programs as well. Senator KUCHEL. In that connection, Mr. Chairman, I ask consent that the letter I have received from the senior Senator from New York, Mr. Javits, and a statement he made in introducing legislation to amend the Water Resources Planning Act, a bill which has been referred to this committee, be incorporated in the record at this point.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection it will be included at this point. (The letter and statement referred to follow:)

Hon. THOMAS H. KUCHEL,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR TOM: Yesterday I introduced bill, S. 2445, to amend the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 so as to double the planning grants to States and make such funds available immediately. As you know, title III of the act provides that grants totaling $5 million a year will be made beginning in fiscal 1967. The acute water shortage in the Northeast, however, makes it imperative that these funds be made available as soon as possible.

I have enclosed a marked copy of my statement on the subject for your information, and would very much appreciate whatever you could do to expediate committee consideration of the bill.

Best personal regards,

Sincerely,

JACOB K. JAVITS.

[Enclosure]

THE RESPONSIBILITY OF CONGRESS IN THE NORTHEAST DROUGHT

The recent mobilization of Federal forces, money, and technology in an effort to rescue the Northeast from drought disaster is welcome. It is, of course, clear that the lack of farsighted planning on the part of local officials is an important contributing factor to this massive and expensive effort, brought on by the natural disaster of drought. But, it is encouraging that these municipal officials have, at last, been shaken out of their lethargy and indifference by the enormity of the disaster which impends. It is incredible that only a few months ago citizens of New York City were assured by their commissioner of water supply that there was no danger of a water crisis. Last week, they were told that the city may be completely out of water by February 1966. The New York metropolitan area is, as Secretary Udall grimly described it last week, “walking on the edge of disaster.' While it is reassuring that emergency measures announced by the President will probably see us through until the spring runoffs, weather experts predict a fifth year of drought in the Northeast which short-range solutions will not ease. We must begin to think not only of next year, but of the next 10 years. Indeed, we must take steps to protect ourselves against future droughts unprecedented in severity. For failure to do so may leave our children and their children—who will crowd the cities in increasing numbers—in the same predicament we face today.

I was

On July 14, I spoke in this body urging the consideration of the construction of a large atomic powered desalination plant in the New York City area. gratified when Mayor Wagner, a few days later, requested a Federal study of the

proposal, and I understand that officials have already begun to explore sites for such a plant.

Other long-term suggestions include the reconstruction of the Chelsea pumping station on the Hudson which was dismantled by city officials in an economy drive in the early 1950's. It certainly seems both reasonable and prudent to use purified Hudson River water as extensively as possible without causing salt water incursion to the detriment of smaller communities in the Hudson River Valley. Public health experts estimate that this can be done, and have suggested that an even larger plant be constructed north of the Chelsea station. A plant processing 100 million gallons a day, for example, could be constructed for about $13 million. The newly enacted Housing Act of 1965 provides $275 million a year in grants for the construction of water facilities such as treatment plants, and New York City officials should expedite applications under this program with a view toward building a Hudson River plant.

As legislators, we have a resonsibility in this crisis which is different from that of the scientists and engineers. One power which Congress cherishes can be put to good use in this emergency-and that is the power of the purse. Otherwise, we can prod and suggest, we can mediate and offer constructive criticism, but we must leave the technology and the detailed planning to the water experts. When so much is at stake for so many, our prime responsibility is to see to it that the scientists and planners have enough money to do not only the necessary, but the optimum. This is not the time for postponing the commitment of resourcesin terms of money and persornel. This is not a time for partisan_haggling or bureaucratic delay. This Northeast drought is a disaster of national importance in which each branch of the Government-indeed, each citizen-has pressing responsibilities. Before we exhort others to act, however, let us look to our own responsibilities and whether we have discharged them.

Here is what I believe to be the immediate responsibility of Congress:

(1) To complete action now on the Water Quality Act of 1965. This measure, passed by the Senate last January and by the House in April, has been deadlocked in conference through the long months of this crisis. The annual $20 million in Federal assistance which would provide for water pollution control programs is desperately needed, particularly in New York State, which has plans on the drawing boards for a $1.7 billion antipollution program. As soon as a bond issue is approved in November, years of careful planning will be over and action on the New York program can begin. But no work can be done without Federal help-financial help. If the waters of the Hudson are to be used for human consumption, if rampaging pollution of Lake Erie is to be halted, and if the other streams and tributaries of the Empire State are to be made potable, water purification work must begin without delay. Sources of pollution have been identified-63 of them were listed by the Commissioner of Health of New York last week and now they must be eliminated. New York sorely needs its share of the Federal money which will become available once the conferees agree, and the President signs the Water Quality Act of 1965.

It is my understanding that substantial agreements have been reached by the House and Senate conferees on the measure, and I implore my colleagues, with all the urgency at my command, to give us a conference report this very week. (2) The Water Resources Planning Act of 1965, which was signed by the President on July 22, provides grants totaling $5 million a year to the States for water resources planning. This will be a great help when the grants program goes into effect in the 1967 fiscal year-but we may not have that time to spare. Extensive and complete planning must begin now, and that money must be made available now.

Accordingly, I am today introducing legislation to make the grants program effective immediately and to double the amount of funds authorized. It is, I know, highly unusual to try to amend a bill in this manner so shortly after enactment, but we are faced with a highly unusual situation. The Water Resources Council created by the act, which will administer the program, has already been constituted, has held meetings and issued a report. It is not impossible, therefore, to ask that they take on these new duties immediately. New York State is ready to use these planning funds, and could submit an application right away-so, I am sure, are other States. I urge congressional action before we adjourn on my amendment and would hope that the necessary funds could be provided in a supplemental appropriation during this session.

(3) Congress recently extended the life and increased the budget of the saline water program in the Department of the Interior. Our intent was clear: to encourage experiments and improve the technology of turning salt water into