Page images


Secretary UDALL. Yes. This is a construction program, and I think this should be divorced by all means from water pollution.

Senator MUSKIE. The Bureau of Mines, who has that?

Secretary UDALL. The Bureau of Mines is another Assistant Secretary, and it has water functions such as the mine drainage problem.

Senator MUSKIE. Who is going to be the new Assistant Secretary?

Secretary UDALL. Senator, I have not even heard that problem discussed. In fact I don't think I am the one who could even presume to discuss the question until the reorganization plan is decided, and I am sure none of us here at the table has discussed it.

Senator MUSKIE. This reorganization program is based in part upon the river-basin approach to our water problems including pollution. The river basin approach of course underlay the water quality standards legislation of last year, and it is also a part of the President's clean river legislation on which we will have hearings later this month. Would you say that the river basin approach is a key to your case for transferring this program out of HEW to Interior?

Secretary UDALL. Senator, in my judgment this goes right to the heart of the matter, because I think the Congress and the legislation witten last year has been moving toward the river-basin approach of cleaning up rivers, indeed of taking water as a resource, and dealing with it on a watershed basis. People who share it as a common resource should have a common approach to it, and have common standards and common enforcement practices on a river. Therefore since my own Department, not alone in the West, because under the legislation last year I am now Chairman of the Federal Water Resources Council, my Department does have very significant contact with urban areas today on this problem. head the Potomac study at the President's order, which has been a very good field exercise in terms of planning the whole range of water. I also sit on the Delaware River Commission.

I was sent into the cities of the Northeast as Chairman of the Federal Water Resources Council last August in the drought situation. I am working with the metropolitan water district in southern California, which is the largest water wholesaler in the world, on a large saline waterplant, and many of the water supply programs of the Bureau of Reclamation in the West are concerned in relationships with cities.

I did want to make the point that particularly in a quickening way in the last 2 or 3 years, through the Potomac, the Delaware, the Federal Water Resources Council, my Department has had increasingly broad responsibilities, and I think this is one of the reasons the President noticed this and said “Well why shouldn't we put it all there.

Senator MUSKIE. I think we have got to be very careful about how we use and implement the river-basin concept. I think it makes senise, and this of course is in the legislation of last year,

that when you consider water quality standards you have got to cover the river basin

per fare supply and as a whole because you have got to consider your water supply the rate at which it Åows and the demands made on id in other sections of the river basin before you can decide what can be done åbout water quality in any particular part of it. But at the same time there are communities with water pollution problems which are not on the 'river basins. I can think of two in New England, Boston, and Portland



in my own State and there are communities that have very difficult water problems that are not on a river basin.

They have to be dealt with and they have to be helped. I was interested, Mr. Secretary, in the organization of the water resource programs in the Ruhr Valley of Germany. There they have separated the two functions of water supply and water quality which you are combining. As you will recall, they established one association to deal with water supply, building reservoirs to control the flow and so on, which is very much a part, of course, of their capability for dealing with water quality. The water quality association is separate.

I think we have to bear in mind that, although we have to think in terms of the river basin in order to establish water quality standards, that when we come to actually implementing those standards and cleaning up the stream, we have got to deal with political institutions, which fragment the river basin along State lines, county lines, and municipal lines. This frankly is one place where I have reservations about Interior. You don't deal with urban metropolitan America in this sense, or you haven't in the past. You have got to create an organization for this purpose, have you not?

Secretary UDALL. Yes; and, of course, to the extent the transfer takes place, the very people in HEW, in the water pollution field, who already have these contracts, hopefully the great bulk of them, will come over. But Senator, I think that we have a groting edge in this whole new program. I think there is a whole new pattern of relationships that are being developed, and I think we are faced later this month with some very acute questions that we will want to discuss with your committee with regard to how the new legislation should be written.

Senator GRUENING. Secretary Gardner has a commitment and has to leave shortly. He has a two-page statement. I wonder whether we could hear Secretary Gardner now and then, of course, we will conclude tomorrow. I don't want to foreclose you.

Secretary GARDNER. I would be perfectly willing just to have this read in the record.

Senator GRUENING. I think it is desirable that you make it.
Secretary GARDNER. If you would like me to read it, fine.
Senator GRUENING. I think your testimony is very important.

Senator MUSKIE. Have we covered much of it already, Mr. Secretary?

Secretary GARDNER. A good bit of it; ves, sir.
Senator GRUENING. I think we should hear it.

Secretary GARDNER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity to testify in support of the President's Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1966, which provides for the reorganization of certain water pollution control functions.

First, let me summarize the plan briefly and then tell you why I believe it is needed.

The plan provides for the transfer of authority under the Water Polution Control Act from the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to the Secretary of Interior. Also transferred to the Secretary of Interior are certain functions under the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, and the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration becomes an agency of the Department of the Interior, and the Water Pollution Control Advisory Board and hearing boards are also transferred to Interior. The plan establishes an additional office of Assistant Secretary in the Department of the Interior and abolishes the office of one Assistant Secretary in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

This plan will serve to unify the efforts now underway to clean and restore the water resources of this Nation. These efforts can be much more effective if they are combined with the related tasks of managing, developing, and conserving the Nation's water resources. Reorganization Plan No. 2 provides for such unified administration.

At the same time, Mr. Chairman, the plan recognizes the responsibility of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare for the health aspects of water. In administering the Federal water pollution control program, the Secretary of the Interior is required to consult with the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare on health matters. The plan calls for an interdepartmental agreement on these matters, to be submitted to the President within 90 days after the plan takes effect.

We have already begun the staff work to develop areas of mutual responsibility and to delineate the role of HEW. I anticipate, for example, that the Public Health Service of our Department will continue to develop new knowledge about the health effects of water pollution, and to maintain a comprehensive health surveillance system. We will also conduct research to contribute to the development of realistic water quality standards.

In addition, the Public Health Service has certain traditional responsibilities, under the terms of the interstate quarantine regulations, for the supply of drinking water, and I expect these activities to continue. Our Department will also provide consultative services to the Corps of Engineers in connection with the health aspects of the regulation of impoundments. And we will continue to advise other Federal agencies on the need for and value of storage for regulation of streamflow for water quality control in reservoirs surveyed

or planned by a Federal agency.

Finally, the plan provides that the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare will be a member of the Water Pollution Control Advisory Board and that he will be given the opportunity to designate a member of each hearing board appointed under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

Mr. Chairman, let me point out one other important feature of the reorganization. It will in no way impair the rights and benefits of Public Health Service commissioned officers who transfer to the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration under the provisions of the Water Quality Act of 1965.

I support Reorganization Plan No. 2 because it makes sense. It responds to the current dimensions of this country's water problems and reflects the evolution and growth of Federal water pollution control activities.

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.

This part of the water problem is an urban metropolitan one. Interior 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


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 à 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.

[ocr errors]


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. It was related to getting this new program off the ground and started. I am awfully fearful of further delays.

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


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.

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »