York. This survey will cost $750,000 I am advised today, for the first 6 months, and these funds will come out of the State treasury.

The Water Resources Planning Act provides only $5 million a year in Federal money for the whole country. My bill would seek to double these funds. Therefore I would appreciate having the views of the Department of the Interior on when additional funds are needed, in the light of the present crisis, if it will cost us in one State $750,000 for 6 months work along the very same lines that these Federal funds are going to be available.

3. Title II of the Water Resources Planning Act provides that the Water Resources Council can create river basin commissions to consider water shortage needs. My questions are as follows: Will this be done with regard to any of the areas affected by the present Northeast drought? If so, when? And how many such commissions will be created?

4. I have noted with the greatest interest the testimony of Dr. Hornig on desalination. The State of New York has filed an application for funds from the Federal Government-$500,000 from the Office of Saline Water and $500,000 from the Atomic Energy Commission for the construction of a nuclear powered desalination plant at Riverhead, Long Island. It has been rumored, and the press has reported, that these applications are going to be turned down as "not contributing sufficiently to the state of the art."

While it is true that the plant will be small-processing only a million gallons a day-it would be the first in the world to combine desalination with the production of electricity through the use of nuclear power and could therefore serve as a prototype for the construction of a larger plant in the vicinity of New York City.

Again I point out, as Dr. Hornig has himself said, let us not get irrevocably committed to hundred-million-gallon-a-day plants until we know what we are doing. Therefore a pilot plant like this, especially in view of the cost reduction possible from the combined production of power and the desalination of water, it seems to me, deserves high priority consideration.

I express the hope that the committee-knowing its chairman and members as I do, it is a confident hope that there will be no political considerations in the decision which is made that if New York's application is denied, according to a front page rumor in one of our leading journals, I would hope that it will be very carefully looked into to be sure that it really deserved to be denied on the merits.

5. The public works authorization bill, S. 2300, which has just been reported in the House of Representatives, contains language added by the House Public Works Committee giving the Army Corps of Engineers extensive power in planning and constructing water resources facilities with the work being billed to the States concerned. New York is primarily affected. We have often advanced money even on Federal account in order to get things off the ground.

I would like to know whether the administration favors this amendment made in the House, and whether the Water Resources Council was consulted about this change, which clearly affects its jurisdiction, as contrasted with that of the Army Engineers.

6. Finally, what steps have the administration taken to expedite action by the House-Senate conference on the Water Quality Act of 1965, which has been tied up in conference since last April? I

realize people have strong convictions. I have them myself, and I am making no moral judgments.

All I can say is that it is a pretty difficult time, a pretty unfortunate time, for a measure of this character to be tied up in conference so long as this one has been, in the face of our efforts, everybody's efforts, to wrestle with such a massive problem as this one. And so I ask the question, has the administration, with its vaunted and in many cases well-earned ability to twist arms and knock heads together, been trying to do that in respect of this conference to which I have referred.

Mr. Chairman, again my deepest thanks to you and to the committee and in the greatest respect to this committee I have put these matters in the form of questions, and I hope very much, Mr. Chairman, that we may get the answers.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Javits, I will not attempt to respond to all of the questions. Some are directed to the Chair and others are directed to the administration. I do want to assure you that the committee is deeply interested in this problem.

The best evidence is of course the fact that this year we passed the Water Resources Planning Act. Legislative consideration of this proposal began before the shortage developed in the Northeast. The committee has been active on this since 1961. I think we all feel that water is indeed a national problem, and I want to assure you that we shall do our best in the committee to support those programs that will help to deal with this problem-North, East, South, and West. This is what we are trying to do.

Senator JAVITS. May I make only one other observation, again with the greatest love and affection for the Chair, which he knows I hold for him. That is, I hope that those States which can move like New York, or, as I say, we have often advanced funds against an expected Federal program, and will be encouraged to move, we had one bad experience with the New York State Thruway, where we lost an enormous amount, at least up to date, of highway funds because we were enterprising enough to build the highways first, and I only lay before the Chair the desirability of not discouraging, but encouraging, States which have the enterprise to want to move ahead.

The CHAIRMAN. I certainly agree with the Senator, and I also want to assure him that we shall do our best to be nonpartisan about these matters. Water is not marked "R" or "D"-some of it is marked "D," I will admit, some of it is pretty dirty-but I do want to assure him that we shall do our very best, as I have indicated, having started on this several years ago, to find some answers to this problem nationally.

I think my colleagues will agree with me that it is regrettable if we are not able to make the moves until we are confronted with a shortage and a crisis as I indicated before the Senator arrived. One thing that has happened as a result of the present crisis in the Northeast is that we have had a chance to look at some of the bad practices that are indulged in locally. I think we can educate the public, as Dr. Hornig has mentioned in his statement, that there are areas within the local communities where improvements on the part of municipal and State governments can result in the conservation of a lot of water that is being wasted now.

Senator JAVITS. May I say to the Chair that I am tremendously impressed with what I have heard, and that I will lend myself with the

greatest devotion to seeing that the things which are recommended of that character are implemented.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Javits.

Following Senator Javits' statement will be the statement of Senator Robert F. Kennedy on this subject. He regrets that he was unavoidably detained and was not able to appear personally before the committee today.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF Hon. Robert F. Kennedy, A U.S. Senator From THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your action in calling this hearing to discuss the water crisis that is plaguing the Northeast.

New York State, perhaps more than any other State in the Northeast, is suffering from the intense drought that has lasted for more than 4 years.

New York City, with its 7 million citizens, has been declared a national disaster area. Many smaller communities in the rest of New York State have been rationing water for the past several years. Agriculture in New York State is suffering severely from the affects of this unprecedented drought.

The shortage of water in the metropolitan centers of the East is the unique aspect of this drought. The cities of the Southwest and the southern Pacific coast have always faced a shortage and have acted to meet their needs. Federal and State Governments have developed emergency procedures to cope with agricultural drought. But we have never faced a crisis in which the water supplies of cities with millions of citizens have been seriously depleted and may actually

run out.

So we have had to improvise. The actions of Secretary Udall as Chairman of the President's Special Task Force on Water have been highly helpful in determining what must be done to conserve existing supplies of water.

The forthcoming water pollution enforcement conference for the Hudson that I requested is important for both the immediate and long-term cleanup of this valuable water resource.

We may need to take additional emergency measures if we have a dry fall and winter and a cold winter. Several emergency pumping stations on the Hudson may be required to meet the continuing crisis.

An equally important problem, however, is that of insuring that we have ample supplies of water in the future. What must we do to guarantee that our future water needs are filled?

One of the keys to this problem is prompt and effective cooperative action by the many levels of government involved in developing_water systems. The representatives of villages, towns, cities, States, and the Federal Government must all pull their weight in furthering the development of our water resources or our cooperative system of water development breaks sown. If one of these governments does not play its part, every citizen suffers.

For example, many of the smaller communities in the New York Metropolitan area with their own water systems are now short of water and have no readily accessible water storage areas available to them. Unlike, many of our Western States, New York State has not created a Metropolitan Water District that would logically meet the water needs of these smaller communities. As a result, these communities are leading a hand-to-mouth existence while less than 5 percent of New York State's watersheds are developed. Without effective State leadership in water resources development the system has broken down. We need a New York City Metropolitan Area Water District covering communities in New Jersey and New York.

We need a Hudson River Basin Commission to clean up and develop its immense water resources.

We need river basin commissions for other major rivers in the Northeast. The study of Northeast water needs and required water supplies that has just been initiated under the auspices of the Federal Water Resources Council will hopefully provide a comprehensive plan pointing out what must be done.

I suggest that this plan contain a time schedule setting out what new Governmental bodies must be established, what reservoirs and distribution systems must

be built, what antipollution measures must be taken and water use practices must be developed and what desalinization plants must be built if we are to meet our growing needs for this community. We must know when these should be

built.

With this schedule we can determine whether or not a cooperative local, State, and Federal development of water resources will work. If we find that we are not meeting our scheduled dates, other approaches can be tried. If it is necessary to follow the practice of the West and have a Federal agency develop our water resources, I am sure that the citizens of the East would strongly support this action if required.

For we are faced with a crisis in planning and action in which our previous techniques have been found wanting. We must now act to meet our water needs. If our local and State Governments do not take the necessary action, additional Federal action will be required.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Scott was unable to be here, and his statement has been submitted and will be included in the record at the conclusion of the remarks by Senator Kennedy.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. HUGH SCOTT, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to present a statement to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs in connection with its hearing on drought conditions in the Northeast. I commend the committee for its interest in the water problems of the eastern part of the United States, since the committee has traditionally been oriented toward western water problems.

Five years ago, as a member of the Senate Select Committee on National Water Resources, I attempted to stir up interest in the water problems of the East. There was considerable interest in pollution abatement, one of the principal water problems in the east, but it has taken the water shortage resulting from the unprecedented 4 years of drought over most of the Northeastern States to bring easterners to the same recognition of the importance of their water resources that westerners have had since the West was first settled.

While the East has water problems, they are not problems of absolute shortage of water, such as the West faces, but rather problems involving the best and most economical ways to develop these water supplies. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has many water problems, and I take pride in the fact that we are doing a great deal toward solving them without undue reliance on the Federal Government. It is only when interstate waters are involved, or other problems where a Federal responsibility is involved, that we look to the Federal Government for assistance.

As an indication of what is being done, in recent years the Delaware River Basin Commission has been established, the Corps of Engineers project for comprehensive development of the Delaware River Basin has been authorized, and a number of flood control reservoirs have been constructed to hold back floodwaters from release during periods of low flow. I believe that the water problems of eastern Pennsylvania would have practically been solved if it were not for the occurrence of the longest and most severe drought since records have been kept and had not the problems in the Delaware River Basin been complicated by the fact that the city of New York proceeded some years back to secure part of its water supply from the upper tributaries of the Delaware. The water situation in the Delaware River Basin would be nowhere near as critical as it is were it not for the fact that New York City is taking part of its water supply out of the headwaters. New York City has the advantage of geographic proximity to the headwaters of the Delaware River and has chosen to extend its water supply system to this source rather than use other sources which are nearer to the city.

The experience with the city of New York demonstrates why it is necessary for the Federal Government to have an interest in water problems. New York laid its first designs on the waters of the upper Delaware in the midtwenties. New York's demands made it necessary for Pennsylvania to enter into litigation to protect its interests in the Delaware. This protection was afforded by the decree entered by the Supreme Court in 1931 which permitted New York to construct reservoirs for water supply in the headwaters of the Delaware provided certain releases were made into the Delaware and certain other facilities were

provided. This put the camel's nose under the tent, and we have been fighting a losing battle ever since.

New York decided in the 1950's that it needed more water from the Delaware, and in 1954 the U.S. Supreme Court authorized it to take 490 million gallons a day. The Court stipulated, however, that New York must release 200 million gallons a day from the New York City reservoirs into the Delaware to supplement the low flows in the river. Early in June this year, New York City stopped making the necessary releases but was soon ordered by the Delaware River Basin Commission to resume the releases during the summer in order to prevent salt water encroachment in the Delaware from advancing upstream to the Philadelphia water supply intake. Agreement has now been reached to put this 200 million gallons a day into a water bank where it can be drawn on when actually needed, since recent rainfall in the upper Delaware Basin has somewhat alleviated the immediate crisis.

The water supply crisis has not yet reached the point where consumers are actually being deprived of water for their household needs. It is true restrictions have been placed on car washing, watering of lawns, air conditioning, and other uses, including serving water in restaurants in New York. The latter control, of course, is more for the purpose of dramatizing the shortage rather than actually saving water. However, New York City has a long history of doing the wrong things in connection with its water supply. I am told that as far back as the early years of the 20th century New York City was advised to install water meters to reduce waste, to increase its efforts to control leakage in the system, and to get its next water supply from the Hudson River and other nearby sources rather than extend its lines to the far reaches of the Delaware River Basin. Many of the same recommendations, by eminent consulting engineers, were reiterated in 1951, when the city again faced a water crisis. The city again rejected this good advice and just last week received similar advice with respect to metering and leak detection from a new panel of water experts.

The folly of the position taken by New York City in connection with its water supply development would not be any of my concern except for the effect it has on the water supplies in the Delaware River which are needed by Philadelphia and other municipal and industrial users in Pennsylvania. Because New York has insistently refused to take the advice of its highly competent engineering consultants, we are now forced to the position of asking the Federal Government to step in and help solve the water problems. I hope some way can be found to require New York to improve the engineering of its water system before the Federal Government takes steps to help out the city along the lines now being discussed by Secretary Udall's Water Resources Council. Among other steps that have been recommended time after time are metering of water services, detection and control of leakage, and development of water supply from the Hudson River. New York should put its house in order with respect to these matters before its overconsumption of water deprives the Delaware Basin water users of the water they need.

On the positive side, now, I want to point to what the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is doing to deal with the stringent water situation brought about by the drought.

In addition to its long-term support of the Delaware River Basin Commission and the Corps of Engineers, my Commonwealth has proposed other actions toward alleviating the water shortage. At the recent White House Conference of Governors, Governor Scranton made two suggestions: (1) pumping water now impounded in abandoned strip mine areas into the headwaters of the Schuylkill River to augment the water supply of the city of Philadelphia; and (2) early construction of a plant capable of producing pure water from acid mine drainage water as a source of future public water supply in the Delaware River Basin.

Governor Scranton pointed out that there are at least two large reservoirs of impounded mine water, each containing several billion gallons that could be used as an immediate source of public water supply. Chemical analysis has shown that this water would be suitable for drinking and could be released into the Schuylkill River simply by installing pumps and a short pipeline. Installation of these facilities would not only insure Philadelphia of a continuing supply of water in the Schuylkill River but even more important would help keep the advancing salt line from moving up the Delaware to Philadelphia's Torresdale intake.

The proposal for purification of acid mine drainage has an even more farreaching effect. It stems from a contract awarded by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to the Westinghouse Electric Corp. some time ago. The process

developed by Westinghouse is based on a refinement of the desalting process now