Senator MUSKIE. And yet that water is being used for industrial purposes. Are you telling me that drinking water can be of a lower quality than industrial water?

Mr. QUIGLEY. No, but the water in the stream can be, Senator.
Senator MUSKIE. We are talking about treating it.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Yes, but we are talking about standards.

Senator MUSKIE. When we talk about standards of treatment we have got to take into consideration not only these other uses which are neglected by the Public Health Service as you and I agree, but health which is now going to be separated from it.

Mr. QUIGLEY. No, it really isn't, Senator. In setting the standards-if we stay in HEW-in setting the standards we obviously are going to have to consult with, on a daily basis in setting these standards, with people in Agriculture, with people in Fish and Wildlife, with people in Public Health, and if we go to Interior, the same kind of consultation without

Senator MUSKIE. If you can do this consultation so easily, then why not leave it in HEW?

Mr. QUIGLEY. You are going to have to do it wherever it is.
Senator MUSKIE. Then why move it?

Mr. QUIGLEY. Because the basic point that has been made, that this is a step, perhaps the first step, but a step in bringing together the water oriented problem.

Senator MUSKIE. But you are not bringing them together. You are leaving Health. You are not touching the sewer system program in HUD. You are not touching the sewer system program in Agriculture. The only thing you are moving is 90 percent of the program in HEW to Interior.

Secretary UDALL. Senator, may I come back to this main question, because I think that the basic question the committee has raised here is a problem that exists whether the program is left in HEW or whether it is moved to Interior. That is, should the new water pollution control administration have its own health section.

If you do this, you fragmentize the Public Health Service. That is all that you do. So you would have another water pollution control administration under one assistant secretary with a public health section, and over here you would have the regular public health people acting.

In terms of administration and in terms of the way I see this problem, and the way I see that we can bring it all for the first time into focus, leaving the Public Health Service with making certain findings, leaving them with doing certain research, respects the integrity of their organization, would not, in terms of the normal day-today work that we have in water work now, be a serious obstacle at all in terms of running a smooth working program.

Senator MUSKIE. The thing that strikes me, Mr. Secretary, is that when you are defending the reorganization plan, the departmental lines are no obstacle at all to coordination.

But when you are examining the status quo of the current organization, then departmental lines suddenly become an obstacle.

If it is so easy, once this reorganization plan is implemented, and it undoubtedly will be, if it is so easy for you to coordinate your efforts with the health efforts of the Public Health Service, then why isn't the reverse equally easy, equally possible.

Secretary UDALL. Well, as an administrator, Senator, it has been my experience that the more you have centralization, the better, and the more you can have all the threads under one secretary, the more decisions can be made.

Senator MUSKIE. Let me ask you this. What functions in the field of water pollution does Interior now have?

Secretary UDALL. In terms of water pollution?

Senator MUSKIE. Yes.

Secretary UDALL. We have functions with regard to fish, wildlife, outdoor recreation, with regard to research on water quality and water pollution, the saline water program is pollution.

Senator MUSKIE. What operational programs in the field of water quality improvements do you have? I am not talking about research. What can you do about cleaning up a stream at the present time?

Secretary UDALL. In terms of the functions of the Water Pollution Control Administration, in terms of issuing orders, in terms of the enforcement powers, my department does not have such powers. In fact it is proposed to put the pollution clean up program under a Department that is already concerned with and has major responsibilities for a whole range of water functions, from the standpoint of water planning, water quality research, fish and wildlife.

Senator MUSKIE. These are now in HEW. I am asking you what you have now.

Secretary UDALL. In terms of

Senator MUSKIE. You are concerned about water pollution, yes, because you are concerned with fish and wildlife. But what can you do, what authority do you have, what programs do you now have before this reorganization plan to clean up fish and wildlife, to clean it up for other things.

Secretary UDALL. I have very broad and wide ranging authority Senator, with regard to all of the public lands, for example. In fact, as far as the rivers in the West are concerned, already my department has the paramount responsibility even with regard to some aspects of pollution cleanup.

Senator MUSKIE. For doing what?

Secretary UDALL. I have problems on my desk right now with regard to heat pollution, with regard to acid mine drainage problems, so that we are not without responsibilities, but we do not have the enforcement powers that Congress put under the Water Pollution Control Act.

Senator MUSKIE. What authority do you have with respect to acid mine drainage.

Secretary UDALL. We have the main responsibility under the Appalachia program for the acid mine drainage part of the program, because of the thought that this is primarily concerned with fish and wildlife and outdoor recreation.

Senator MUSKIE. Do you have authority to clean it up?

Secretary UDALL. We have the only programs there are with regard to cleanup.

Senator MUSKIE. How effective are they?

Secretary UDALL. We are just in the early stages of deciding what demonstration projects and other programs should be carried out.

Senator MUSKIE. What authority do you have to clean up or abate or prohibit acid mine drainage?

Secretary UDALL. We have authority to carry out programs to the extent that we have money to carry them out anywhere in the Appalachian region.

Senator MUSKIE. Do you have enforcement powers?

Secretary UDALL. It isn't really an enforcement problem.

Senator MUSKIE. It is a demonstration.

Secretary UDALL. It is a problem of cleaning up a mess that has been made in the past.

Senator MUSKIE. What authority do you have to clean it up?

Secretary UDALL. Well, we have authority to take a particular area and to try to abate acid mine drainage.

Senator MUSKIE. What powers do you have to do that?

Secretary UDALL. We have the power to select areas, to carry out programs.

Senator MUSKIE. Assuming you have established a program, what can that program do?

Secretary UDALL. That program can abate and eliminate the acid mine drainage from particular areas that are treated.

Sentor MUSKIE. Can you force a mine owner to take certain steps to clean it up?

Secretary UDALL. No; because the authority to force someone to do something is under the Water Pollution Control Administration.

Senator MUSKIE. Exactly, and you have, in other words, a lot of interests as other departments do in cleaner water. Of course you do. But when you are talking about combining in one department all of the programs that have to do with water pollution control and abatement, you are not consolidating the program at all with this reorganization plan?

Secretary UDALL. I think we are, Senator.

Senator MUSKIE. You are consolidating your interests in water, but with respect to water pollution control and abatement, you have no enforcement powers now. You have no general authority with respect to that subject and that responsibility as I understand it.

Secretary UDALL. No; I think that

Senator MUSKIE. What you are talking about under this reorganization plan is bringing your other interests in water together with this interest in water, but you are not consolidating, under this reorganization plan, you are not consolidating programs dealing with water pollution control and abatement.

Secretary UDALL. I think that this reorganization would put in one department for the first time in the history of the country most of the water conservation, the water quality, water pollution control activities in the Federal Government, all of them in one department.

Senator MUSKIE. That is another question. My question is, "You are not consolidating or bringing together the water pollution control programs?"

Secretary UDALL. I think that the reorganization plan has that precise result.

Senator MUSKIE. You are not bringing in the HUD program, you are not bringing in the agriculture program, you are not bringing in all of HEW's proram, and you have none of your own to add to those

you are bringing over from HEW on water pollution control and abatement. You have other water interests, granted. The staff of the committee has given us a very comprehensive view of what you do and what HEW does in the field of water. This is all I am trying to focus on. Your argument isn't that you are consolidating the water pollution control activities of the Government, but that you are bringing into your water interests and your water programs this additional program which you have never had, and you are saying that this is a good thing and that is the case you are going to make. But I don't think you have got the argument and I don't think you ought to try to pretend to have the argument that this effectuates a consolidation of the water pollution control programs, because I don't see that it does one iota.

Secretary UDALL. Senator, I think that water is now so complex a subject that Agriculture must always have certain responsibilities in this field, I think HUD should have some responsibilities, I think Public Health Service should have some responsibilities.

Senator MUSKIE. Now you are making my argument.

Secretary UDALL. The subject is just too complex. But in terms of cleaning up the rivers of this country, I don't think we can ever really tackle the problem head on until we give one Cabinet officer the main big responsibility, and this is precisely about that simple. This is what the President has in mind. If the Congress doesn't want to do it, I might—we will just hobble along pulling and hauling as we go down the road.

Senator MUSKIE. My argument is that this is the wrong time, that we now, last year, achieved the consolidation of the water pollution control programs in one place. We have written into law certain new concepts, new policies that have not yet been implemented, that have not been spelled out in regulations, in guidelines for the assistance of the States and so on.

Inte

This part of the water problem is an urban metropolitan one. rior has never been involved to any great degree in urban metropolitan problems. So my belief was, and it still is, that we should let that aspect of the program generate the momentum necessary to achieve results.

Then you can see what further changes might be necessary. It might have been this very one in the organization of our overall water programs. I don't have any fixed opinion that this should not be in your jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, your leadership of the Department is a very strong one for supporting the reorganization plan. And I mean no disrespect to Secretary Gardner who is involved with so many other programs. But I just felt now was the time to concentrate on what we started last year, in order to put together a really effective water pollution and abatement program based on the policies, the new policies and concepts within last year's law.

Now I think we have had considerable delay because of the reorganization plan and its consideration by the President. We have got a deadline. The States have until July 1, 1967, to develop water quality standards of their own on interstate streams.

They have had no guidance as yet from the new Water Pollution Control Administration, because of this reorganization. Because they have had no guidance as yet, we are beginning to hear the argument from them that that deadline should be extended.

Now such as extension, if they are able to bring up enough pressure here on the Hill to get it, will mean a delay in getting effective water quality standards on our interstate streams. We should have been using every minute of the time between the signing of the bill by the President and July 1, 1967, to give the States every chance, and no excuse for not acting within the time that they had available. Now they have got a little more than a year. I don't know how long it is going to take for the Department to develop the guidelines necessary for the States to act, and I would be willing to bet a dollar to a penny that they will be in here asking for an extension of that deadline next year, because they will say, "You didn't give us the tools with which to do this job." And if they get an extension, then we are going to have a further delay. That is why I was bothered.

Now my arguments to the White House failed, but my principal purpose was to try to persuade the President not to send up the plan. Now he has sent it, and having been a former Governor myself, it is my inclination to give the Chief Executive the right to reorganize his work in the ways that seem to make sense to him. If my reservations aren't shared by others, I will accept the verdict. But I wanted to make it a matter of record here that my concern was a real one. was related to getting this new program off the ground and started. I am awfully fearful of further delays.

It

You know, Mr. Secretary, I know you know that once you have deposited this stuff in the streams, to get it out is a difficult chore.

We were in Germany together. I will never forget the use of the Emscher River in the Ruhr Valley. It once rose out of pure springs in the ground. I asked the Germans what was now the source of the stream. They said the sewers. It is a complete sewer today because somebody delayed too long in the past, and I don't like delay, and I think we are getting some. Some delays are already behind us and we can't do anything about it.

Secretary UDALL. That is right. Senator, I want to give you some assurances on this because I know your strong feelings on it. As a matter of fact, I think what the executive needs in this field is the same crusading approach to this problem that you and a few others in the Congress have taken in the past.

I want to assure you that if this reorganization is carried out, Commissioner Quigley and I have already had many discussions about this. We are already working on it, Secretary Gardner is working on it, but if the reorganization occurs every step will be taken to see that no case can be made for delay.

I think we have delayed too long, and I want to make my own position clear on that. I think you are certainly right in terms of feeling that a quicker pace, a quicker tempo is needed in this whole program, one that will not enable those who are hanging back and who are dragging their heels to say "Well, we need to take further time and we are not ready to go ahead."

I think that the administration should do everything possible to see to it that these excuses are not present.

Senator MUSKIE. This is the one reassuring thing about this reorganization plan, your own dedication to it and the fact that you have more time than Secretary Gardner would have to devote to this program. I noted in your House testimony that you promised 25 percent of your time.