Senator RIBICOFF. I would like to have your philosophy on this. I think, frankly, the philosophy behind this is much more important than the details. Once we know what your philosophy is, and Secretaery Gardner's and the President's, I think there is enough intelligence to see that that philosophy is translated into action.

But I think right now we are up in the air, I am up in the air, as to what your basic objective and your philosophy is. Why do you think you ought to have this in Interior? What do you contemplate the future of water to be and why should water pollution be part of

it?

Secretary UDALL. Senator, I think this is the key question, and I think a discussion of the philosophy of the President and of the Executive in making a proposal of this kind goes right to the nub of the question.

Now at the present time in terms of water responsibilities my own Department has a very wide range of responsibilities. Water is the one thread that runs through the entire Department, whether you take the question of public lands or my responsibilities as Chairman of the Federal Water Resources Planning Act. In terms of water conservation, or water quality, pollution is a major part. The philosophy of putting a new action focus for water, of proposing new foundation legislation, which is a separate bill the Public Works Committees will begin considering later this month. In terms of our water planning, in terms of deciding what our water standards are to be, in terms of deciding what water quality this country wants and needs, what supplies we will require, and including within that the outdoor recreation aspect, the fish and wildlife aspect, all of these should be in one home, and this precisely, in my judgment, is what the reorganization proposal would do.

Now the members may say, the chairman and members of the committee, "We think these remaining health functions should be transferred also." I think this achieves the transfer of nine-tenths of what is needed, and in my judgment the health functions should always remain in the Public Health Service, and let me tell you why, if I may.

Let's take the subject of fish and wildlife. This is one of the aspects of water pollution control that has been most controversial and is most vital. My Department, in terms of commercial fish, in terms of sport fish, has always been responsible for providing an environment in which fish can thrive and grow, et cetera.

Yet, when you reach the point where fish are going to be eaten, you suddenly enter the human health aspect of the picture, and it seems to me that the Public Health Service people, who are the experts on human health, and who have that responsibility, just as Secretary Gardner suggested a moment ago, that they should continue to have it. I personally think that the Congress made the right decision last year in leaving that small part of the responsibility, which is a wholly specialized responsibility, in Public Health.

But I think that this reorganization proposal, which I consider one of the most sweeping that any President has ever proposed, would do more to give my Department a water focus than anything that has been proposed by any President in 115 years since my Department was created.

And in terms of water conservation, in terms of water planning, in terms of water quality and the planning of the needs of our Nation for all of these purposes, industrial use, all of the human uses, fish and wildlife, the outdoor recreation aspect, you would have them all in one department under one focus.

Therefore, I consider this, Mr. Chairman, a very thoroughgoing and a very far-reaching proposal, and I think that it would give my Department what the Department needs in terms of managing the water of the country.

Senator RIBICOFF. How do you see-let's say this is all transferred to you-how do you coordinate the problems of health in all this? How does this come about? How does this work?

Secretary UDALL. I think the health problem would be handled in accordance with the traditional, long-established practice for planning water programs. In carrying out pollution control programs, the Public Health Service people serve as experts in this field. They make certain judgments, and those judgments are put into the process of decisionmaking. They are judgments by highly specialized experts, just as traditionally in any water project that is proposed today, whether it is one by the Corps of Engineers or the Bureau of Reclamation, my Department always makes the comments, and these are expert comments with regard to fish and wildlife. We have always done this, we always should do it. This is the way that the decisionmaking process is carried out within the executive.

It doesn't bother me in the slightest

Senator RIBICOFF. But when it comes to enforcement, your are going to bring the action, not the Secretary of HEW, isn't that correct? Secretary UDALL. That is correct.

Senator RIBICOFF. Now how does this work? Let's assume that we have a problem of oysters coming out of polluted water.

Mr. QUIGLEY. The Raritan Bay would be a classic example. Senator RIBICOFF. Now this becomes a problem of enforcement, so now you bring the action, is that right, Secretary Udall? Secretary UDALL. That is correct.

Senator RIBICOFF. How do you coordinate with the Surgeon General? How do you work this together?

Secretary UDALL. I think Mr. Quigley can perhaps answer that more precisely than either of us.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, let's take the Raritan Bay as a classic example, one that occurred when you were Secretary of the Department. If we had an unfortunate repeat of a Raritan Bay-type situation, whether the Water Pollution Administration was in HEW or in Interior, it would be the responsibility of the Administrator to recommend to the appropriate Secretary that an enforcement action be brought. This would be done by the Water Pollution Control Administration.

Senator RIBICOFF. Mr. Quigley, in other words, as I understand it, you make the decision. So then the Secretary of HEW may bring this instead of the Secretary of the Interior?

Mr. QUIGLEY. No, only if we were in HEW would it be the Secretary of HEW.

Senator RIBICOFF. That is right. Now, let's assume this took place after the reorganization, let's say you had an occurrence like that, how would you handle it?

Mr. QUIGLEY. The recommendation would be to the Secretary of the Interior that an enforcement conference be called. Thereafter, in connection with the preparation of the confernece and the expert witnesses we called, unquestionably we would bring in Public Health officials as our key witnesses. We would not try to prove this on the basis of sanitary engineers or marine biologists or hydrologists. We would have to get expert testimony, if we were going to prevail, and I think clearly we would find those people.

Some of them would be with our agency. They would transfer, but many of them would be with the Public Health Service, and these would be the people that we would count upon, whether we were in HEW or in Interior.

Senator RIBICOFF. That would be later. How do you get it before hand? What you are talking about is what happens when you know that an outbreak has taken place, when you have an epidemic of hepatitis in New Jersey.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Right.

Senator RIBICOFF. Now at that stage who takes the initiative, before you know what it is all about?

Mr. QUIGLEY. We would take the initiative.

Senator RIBICOFF. The Interior Department would?

Mr. QUIGLEY. The Water Pollution Control Administration, which we are assuming for purposes of this discussion is in Interior. Senator RIBICOFF. Yes.

Mr. QUIGLEY. We are not going to be without knowledge. We are not going to be without experience in all aspects of pollution, including the Public Health.

Senator RIBICOFF. So then basically what you will be doing, whether you contemplate it or not, you will be building up a corps of Public Health people, of health experts or chemists or biologists in your Department.

Mr. QUIGLEY. I think insofar as human health is likely to be a possible problem in pollution, which I think it is going to be, the answer is "Yes," in the same way we may be duplicating some of the expertise in the Fish and Wildlife in the Department of the Interior. Senator RIBICOFF. That is correct.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Because we are going to have to be concerned about fish.

Senator RIBICOFF. So, therefore, before you know it, this starts burgeoning. You start off with 2 men, and then you finally have 5 and then 20, and now you have 100 or 150 in HEW. So, before you know it, you are in the health field, if you are going to do the preliminary work. This is what I am trying to get at.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I don't think there was any doubt as I read 2(k) of the Water Quality Act of last year, that it was intended that the Water Pollution Control Administration in HEW would be in the health field, and I think this is true if it were in Interior.

I think the Congress directed that we consult with the Surgeon General on this, and I think we should. But I think the basic responsibility under the reorganization plan or under the Water Quality Act, the basic responsibility is with the Water Pollution Control Administration for all aspects, health, fish kills, industrial waste, esthetic values being destroyed, the basic responsibility to control pollution will be with the administration wherever it is.

Senator RIBICOFF. At that stage then you have two groups doing the same job. In other words, you run into something at Raritan Bay, and your people start trying to find out what it is all about. Then you do your research and then you call in the Surgeon General's office. Then he does his research too.

I am assuming if you are going to hire people over there, you are going to hire competent people. So now you have two groups. So it is a question of time elapsing while the two groups work together. It is two separate research efforts. It is duplication of cost, it is duplication of time. Now this is the thing that is bothering me.

Secretary GARDNER. May I comment and try to put in perspective what we will continue to be doing, because I think it will eliminate, to some degree, what you are talking about, and also show you how deeply rooted the health aspects are in other things that we are doing.

First, let me speak about the mode of coordination, the mechanisms of coordination. I will be a member of the Water Pollution Control Advisory Board, and I will be a member of the Water Resources

Senator RIBICOFF. John, let me ask you this. You are a member today of how many coordinating agencies?

Secretary GARDNER. May I continue?

Senator RIBICOFF. I say this out of knowledge. You must have many more now. You are a member of how many coordinating boards? As you say, you will be a member, but how many others have you got?

Secretary GARDNER. I think it runs to about 25.

Senator RIBICOFF. I think you are being very conservative, and basically you have got a lot of work to do, and it is going to be very hard for you to attend every meeting when the time comes to have a meeting. When it is Agriculture or Interior you will find you will probably be sending one of your assistants.

Senator MUSKIE. Mr. Chairman, the point you have made is very pertinent. What we are really involved in here and this was what we were involved in in the reorganization fight over the Water Quality Act of 1965 was to get some coordination, effective coordination below the Secretary. He can't give the time necessary. Now you are talking about the enforcement procedures. But I am interested also in the establishment of water quality standards.

The act of last year reads as follows:

In establishing such standards, the Secretary, the hearing board or the appropriate State authorities shall take into consideration the use and value for public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational purposes, and agricultural, industrial, and other legitimate use.

Now to develop standards of this kind it seems to me requires the close cooperative effort of the experts in each of these fields that have been described at the working level and not on the consulting level of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Secretary of Interior.

Establishing water quality standards is a highly technical problem, and now you are going to take one member of that team, and it is going to involve a team of industrial people, of agricultural people, of wildlife people, of health people, of recreational people, in order to bring together and focus on a water quality problem of a particular stream.

You have got to bring them all together. Now one of these people is going to be in Health, Education, and Welfare and the other is going to be operating in the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration in the Interior.

How do you resolve that problem?

Secretary UDALL. Senator, may I address myself to this very problem, because one of the most serious difficulties with the present fragmentation with regard to water, in the judgment of my people, and I think in the judgment of most conservation organizations in this country who are interested in fish and wildlife and outdoor recreation, is that as long as you have it fragmented, that they are out around the fringes, and if it is just treated as a public health problem, that you set your standards too low, and that you don't have every one at the table.

So this is the real fragmentation we are concerned about.

Now if we did this in a thorough going way that some of the members are suggesting here

Senator MUSKIE. Are you saying that the standards for public drinking water are lower than standards for industrial, agricultural, and recreational use?

Mr. QUIGLEY. Senator, if I can comment the answer is yes be

cause

Senator MUSKIE. I disagree, Mr. Secretary.

Mr. QUIGLEY. No, you can take not the water that you drink, but you can take water that is being stored for drinking purposes and treat it, and it will be absolutely safe for your consumption and mine, but it might not be of a quality that would be sufficiently high for some industrial purposes, and it might not be of a quality that certain fish life would be sustained in.

Senator MUSKIE. What you are talking about is the quality of water after it is treated compared to the quality of water before it is treated. Of course they are different.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Yes, but you can't

Senator MUSKIE. You can take water out of the Potomac and treat it for drinking purposes and of course it is a higher quality than it is in the Potomac drawn on directly by industry.

Mr. QUIGLEY. And this has been the basic criticism that through the years as you know so well has been levied against the public health service.

Senator MUSKIE. The criticism has not been that people can drink dirtier water than paper mills use.

Mr. QUIGLEY. No.

Senator MUSKIE. The criticism has been that the Public Health Service did not take into consideration these other requirements. Mr. QUIGLEY. Right, but in the stream to meet these other requirement, the standards are going to have to be higher in many instances. Senator MUSKIE. They will have to be higher for drinking water. You and I were just over in Germany. We took a look at the Rhine. We were told by the Ambassador that a youngster taking a drink of water out of the Rhine a month before almost died because of it. Mr. QUIGLEY. Right.