that are before me. But I think that under sound administrative responsibility, ultimately the Cabinet officer who has the responsibility must make the decision, however specialized it is, and if he has to get expert knowledge inside and outside the Department, why he does So, if he is wise. Senator GRUENING. Well, the Secretary of the Interior doesn't have any medical background or training. How is he going to be able to make these decisions? Secretary UDALL. Senator, I am talking about ultimately making the decision when the alternatives are laid out before you. I am not a hydrologist. I am not a wildlife expert. I mean the decisions I make every day are decisions that are essentially specialized. They involve specialized judgments. And if I find that there are any conflicts of opinion among my own experts, I see to it that they develop those conflicts and lay them before me. This is the regular order of business for us in administering a department. Senator GRUENING. How will the relations with the Department of Agriculture work out if there is a conflict between two schools of thought on a question of pesticides? There are those who are concerned with fisheries and wildlife that have great concern about the use of pesticides, and then there are those in the Department of Agriculture who feel these are very essential to insect control. Now isn't this likely to weight the argument on the side of those who are in the Department now? I am not saying they should not be, but I am just raising that question. Secretary UDALL. This is a very very good subject to discuss, because the question of pesticides control is one of these subtle questions, and it involves findings of research. It involves judgments with regard to health. It involves very seriously the fish and wildlife values. We have established, within the Federal Government-my own Department, Agriculture, and HEW being the primary three organizations-a pesticide review control board. Although 3 or 4 years ago, at the time of Rachel Carson's book, there were rather sharp disagreements, we quickly put action more on the scientific level to determine what the status of knowledge was, and I think that I would say in the main today that the disagreements between my own Department and Agriculture are few. There still is an area of disagreement. We would tend to be more conservative in terms of our responsibilities with water. They would tend to be a little more on the liberal side in terms of seeing the farmer's point of view. But I think that the area of disagreement is a relatively narrow one, because we have established this joint approach to the problem. Senator GRUENING. You mean because your relations with the Secretary of Agriculture are very cordial and pleasant at the present time. Secretary UDALL. The Secretary of Agriculture and I, I think, without boasting, have established a whole new relationship between our two Departments on everything from outdoor recreation to management of timber. We both manage timber resources, as the Senator knows, and I think we have really a much better relationship than has ever existed between the two Departments for many, many years. Senator GRUENING. You will probably recall the basic conflict that took place between the two Secretaries under the previous administra tion over control of the forests, and so forth. That situation is not likely to obtain now though. Secretary UDALL. Again, I am not saying that we don't have arguments, but Secretary Freeman and I have established a modus operandi for resolving issues, rather than allowing them to become inflamed and getting involved personally. I don't think we have had one public personal squabble of the type that used to be rather common between the Interior Secretary and the Secretary of Agriculture. Senator GRUENING. Can you tell the committee what State or local agencies were contacted in preparation for this legislation to see how they could cooperate in their large task of controlling pollution, disposal of wastes in rivers, and so forth? How are you going to meet that situation? Secretary UDALL. I asked the other day, after the House hearings last week, for some statistics to be gathered, I was rather fascinated to find that the very thing that Congress did last year; namely, taking the responsibility away from Public Health and putting it in a water pollution and water management focus, more and more of the States are doing this. This is a trend. Of course, whatever State agency has the responsibility under the laws of that State for water pollution control, we work very closely with that agency, whatever agency it happens to be. I think again there are a whole new series of relationships that are developing, and I think our task is going to be to make these as fruitful as possible, so that we can get the maximum involvement of the state and local people. I am personally one of those who would like to see more of the States do what the State of Maine, for example, did in a pioneering way when Senator Muskie was Governor, and is still doing today. I think we need a stronger State leadership and State involvement. Senator GRUENING. The Public Health Service has historically established contacts with the health organizations in various States. Won't this mean that you will have to start from scratch and establish a lot of contacts which you do not have now but which they have? Secretary UDALL. Senator, the answer, I think, to that question is that all of the Water Pollution Control Administration people, who have been traditionally over the years dealing on a day-by-day basis with State officials, will move over into the Department and, if we work this right, we shouldn't even break stride. We just continue the same relationships that we have had in the past. Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, if I could comment on that, I would point out that we operate presently through regional offices. Most of the personnel in these regional offices will stay with the water pollution program regardless of whether it is in HEW or in Interior, and they are the people who have and will continue to carry out the dayto-day contact with the State agencies and with the local officials regardless of what department we would be in. Senator MUSKIE. You would establish regional offices, then, to take over these personnel at the regional level. Mr. QUIGLEY. We already have regional offices, Senator Muskie. Senator MUSKIE. When you say "we," are you speaking for Interior or for HEW? that are before me. But I think that under sound administrative responsibility, ultimately the Cabinet officer who has the responsibility must make the decision, however specialized it is, and if he has to get expert knowledge inside and outside the Department, why he does so, if he is wise. Senator GRUENING. Well, the Secretary of the Interior doesn't have any medical background or training. How is he going to be able to make these decisions? Secretary UDALL. Senator, I am talking about ultimately making the decision when the alternatives are laid out before you. I am not a hydrologist. I am not a wildlife expert. I mean the decisions I make every day are decisions that are essentially specialized. They involve specialized judgments. And if I find that there are any conflicts of opinion among my own experts, I see to it that they develop those conflicts and lay them before me. This is the regular order of business for us in administering a department. Senator GRUENING. How will the relations with the Department of Agriculture work out if there is a conflict between two schools of thought on a question of pesticides? There are those who are concerned with fisheries and wildlife that have great concern about the use of pesticides, and then there are those in the Department of Agriculture who feel these are very essential to insect control. Now isn't this likely to weight the argument on the side of those who are in the Department now? I am not saying they should not be, but I am just raising that question. Secretary UDALL. This is a very very good subject to discuss, because the question of pesticides control is one of these subtle questions, and it involves findings of research. It involves judgments with regard to health. It involves very seriously the fish and wildlife values. We have established, within the Federal Government-my own Department, Agriculture, and HEW being the primary three organizations-a pesticide review control board. Although 3 or 4 years ago, at the time of Rachel Carson's book, there were rather sharp disagreements, we quickly put action more on the scientific level to determine what the status of knowledge was, and I think that I would say in the main today that the disagreements between my own Department and Agriculture are few. There still is an area of disagreement. We would tend to be more conservative in terms of our responsibilities with water. They would tend to be a little more on the liberal side in terms of seeing the farmer's point of view. But I think that the area of disagreement is a relatively narrow one, because we have established this joint approach to the problem. Senator GRUENING. You mean because your relations with the Secretary of Agriculture are very cordial and pleasant at the present time. Secretary UDALL. The Secretary of Agriculture and I, I think, without boasting, have established a whole new relationship between our two Departments on everything from outdoor recreation to management of timber. We both manage timber resources, as the Senator knows, and I think we have really a much better relationship than has ever existed between the two Departments for many, many years. Senator GRUENING. You will probably recall the basic conflict that took place between the two Secretaries under the previous administra tion over control of the forests, and so forth. That situation is not likely to obtain now though. Secretary UDALL. Again, I am not saying that we don't have arguments, but Secretary Freeman and I have established a modus operandi for resolving issues, rather than allowing them to become inflamed and getting involved personally. I don't think we have had one public personal squabble of the type that used to be rather common between the Interior Secretary and the Secretary of Agriculture. Senator GRUENING. Can you tell the committee what State or local agencies were contacted in preparation for this legislation to see how they could cooperate in their large task of controlling pollution, disposal of wastes in rivers, and so forth? How are you going to meet that situation? Secretary UDALL. I asked the other day, after the House hearings last week, for some statistics to be gathered, I was rather fascinated to find that the very thing that Congress did last year; namely, taking the responsibility away from Public Health and putting it in a water pollution and water management focus, more and more of the States are doing this. This is a trend. Of course, whatever State agency has the responsibility under the laws of that State for water pollution control, we work very closely with that agency, whatever agency it happens to be. I think again there are a whole new series of relationships that are developing, and I think our task is going to be to make these as fruitful as possible so that we can get the maximum involvement of the state and la people. I am personally one of those who would like to see more of the Sta do what the State of Maine, for example, did in a pioneer v when Senator Muskie was Governor, and is still doing today. Hi we need a stronger State leadership and State involvement. Senator GRUENING. The Public Health Service has erk established contacts with the health organizations in various Sore Won't this mean that you will have to start from scratch a lot of contacts which you do not have now bhith the Ι ་་ have been traditionally over the years dearcad 1g. ex ctor w? >rrow. to re Mr. QUIGLEY. I am speaking from the point of view of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. We already have people in the field. Now they are presently attached to HEW regional offices. They will be unattached if the reorganization plan goes through, and the structure, the regional structure might be changed to reflect the trend and the thinking toward a regional river basin approach rather than a region of States. But we do have people out in the field and they are there now as part of the HEW setup, and they would still be there as part of Interior's setup. Senator GRUENING. Mr. Secretary, in controlling river pollution you really won't have anything but the power to persuade, will you, with the States? Can you go up and down the Mississippi and persuade these industries that have been sending their waste into the river and into other rivers and stop them from doing it? It is desirable that they do stop doing it, but what power will you have to enforce such action? Secretary UDALL. There are some very broad powers. Conferred additional enforcement powers last year. New ones are proposed by the President in the new legislation and I am a believer that there should be strong enforcement powers, and that used judiciously that you can get results. I think that the experience of the Water Pollution Control people in HEW, and the real crusading approach taken by Murray Stein, for example, in this field over the years, that they have developed techniques that are basically sound in terms of what is an equitable approach to the problem and what a reasonable time is to expect people, cities, or industries to take action. But I am also a believer that we need additional enforcement powers, and I think the Senator from Maine agrees on that point. Senator GRUENING. Would Mr. Stein be transferred under this program. Secretary UDALL. Oh, yes. Senator GRUENING. He would come over. Secretary UDALL. This is a vital part of the water pollution control program. Senator GRUENING. Have you any questions? Senator MUSKIE. I have a lot of questions. Senator GRUENING. Go ahead. Senator MUSKIE. In connection with this reorganization plan. This reorganization plan is inevitably involved, of course, with the legislation. It might be useful now to begin to talk about that legislation but I think we can do it more thoroughly when the hearings begin on April 19. So I think I will postpone those questions. Those questions are relevant here only in terms of assuring the committee, the Congress, and the public of the objectives of the Department of Interior with respect to water quality enhancement, and I have no reservations at all about the Secretary's commitment to these objectives or of Mr. Quigley's commitment to these objectives. My questions were two, really. One, whether this was the time to continue the reorganization fight, with the risk of further delay on program advancement, and two, whether or not Interior is indeed the place where the organization ought to end up. |