Page images
PDF
EPUB

Sixth, the fact that the Department of Interior is basically a western nonurban-oriented institution while the problem of water pollution is most prevalent in our highly urbanized and industrialized North and East. The problem in the East is not an insufficiency of water but an insufficiency of usable water due to the polluted nature of existing supplies.

Seventh, the possibility that pollution control will take a back seat to the other large programs in the Department of Interior, whose mission is to promote certain activities while the pollution-control mission may be in conflict with such activities. Should we combine the promoter and the regulator? An analogy would be to put FDA's food responsibilities in Agriculture on the basis that the latter's primary interest is food.

Eighth, the future relationship with the States, not one of which, to my knowledge, has placed water pollution in a conservation agency but rather tended toward independent agencies or health departments. Whole new relationships will have to be worked up and established, again with the possible loss of time.

Ninth, the possibility that the basic approach which Interior advocates will actually retard pollution control activities in States and localities which want to move ahead of others in the basin.

Tenth, that this transfer will delay the establishment of needed water quality standards required now under law.

Eleventh, the lack of any regional organization in Interior, which might hamper efforts.

Now, basically, these are the questions that have been raised, I believe, by all of us, and I have taken the liberty of summarizing them, Senator Muskie, to get the general overall comment of whichever witness would like to begin.

Senator MUSKIE. May I say, Mr. Chairman, I think it is an excellent summary of all the discussion that we share. (See pp. 58–62.)

Senator RIBICOFF. Before we hear from the scheduled witnesses we will hear from Senator Moss, who has a short statement he would like to present.

a

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK E. MOSS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF UTAH

Senator Moss. Mr. Chairman, when President Johnson submitted to the Congress Reorganization Plan No. 2 to transfer the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration and certain other water pollution control functions from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to the Department of the Interior, no one was more cheered than I. I have long been advocating such a move, and it is an important part of the bill I introduced last session to establish a Department of Natural Resources which would absorb all water activities of the Department of the Interior and pull together all other important water activities from elsewhere in the Federal Government so they could be managed on a coordinated basis. I consider Reorganization Plan No. 2 as the first step toward putting my proposal into operation.

This reorganization plan is plan commonsense. It would place in the hands of one department-one administrator—the responsibility

[ocr errors]

for both pollution abatement and water use and conservation. One is tied inextricably to the other.

Last session we passed legislation to provide for water resource development planning on a river basin basis.

This program is being administered by the Department of the Interior. President Johnson has now asked us “to clean and preserve entire river basins from their sources to their mouths.” Certainly we can plan better both for the comprehensive development of the water resources of any river basin and for control of pollution in them if both activities are centered in the same department. In fact, pollution control is one of the most important aspects of water management-in some river basins of the country it is the greatest part of the problem.

I do not hold with the argument that transfer of pollution-control activities from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare gives conservation greater emphasis than health. The proposal before the subcommittee firmly recognizes the continuing 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 the Health, Education, and Welfare Department on health matters. There must be interdepartmental agreement on procedures, and this agreement must be submitted to the President 90 days after this reorganization plan goes into effect.

Under the plan, HEW would continue to develop new knowledge about the health effects of water pollution, to conduct research on water standards, and to keep health conditions under surveillance. We all recognize that only the Public Health Service is equipped to do this.

But as was emphasized last session in Public Works Committee hearings on S. the bill which set up the Federal Water Pollution Control Agency-full public responsibility has not been discharged when a sign is posted advising that a water supply is unsafe, or a public beach has been closed to swimming because of pollution. What we must have is an integrated attack on the problems of water pollution, one which involved overall planning for the development of the water in all of our river basins and in the general management and use of our water resources, as well as consideration of the health aspects of pollution of those waters.

I believe that the President's Reorganization Plan No. 2 will give us the administrative machinery to reach more quickly and more directly our goal of clean waters for the Nation. It is a move in the right direction. I am convinced it must be followed up with further reorganization of our water activities—that we will not get total national benefits from our water resources until we end once and for all the divided Federal responsibility for their development which now exists.

I urge the subcommittee to recommend that Reorganization Plan No.2 be put into effect.

Senator RIBICOFF. Thank you, Senator Moss. Secretary Udall, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. STEWART L. UDALL, JAMES M. QUIGLEY,

AND HAROLD SEIDMAN–Resumed

Secretary UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address myself to the issues, and I think this is a very terse and pointed summary, as I would expect to receive from the chairman of this committee, of all of the objections that have been raised, both in these hearings and on the House side and by other interested parties.

Let me say that the bill of particulars does not dismay me. I think that some of the arguments have been overstated. I think when others are seen in proper focus the argument for this reorganization plan is still basically sound.

I would like permission, if possible, for all of us here at the table, working together, to submit in writing very quickly replies on all these points rather than for me to attempt here in a few minutes to address myself to all of them.

Senator RIBICOFF. I think that would be a good idea, because, whatever our decision may be, these are the questions that have been raised. Those that have doubts who aren't here would probably raise some, and I think that in the report that we submit it would be very helpful if we would have a complete reply to these 11 points submitted by the Secretary of Interior, the Secretary of HEW, and the Bureau of the Budget. (The information requested follows:)

а.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,

Washington, D.C., April 18, 1966. Hon. ABRAHAM RIBICOFF, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR RIBICOFF: During your recent subcommittee hearings on the President's Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1966, we promised to comment on 11 points which you and Senator Muskie had raised regarding that plan. The comments, here offered on behalf of Secretary Gardner, Director Schultze of the Bureau of the Budget, and myself, are in response to those points.

Our overall comment is that the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration is a "new" agency only in name and in some of its purely administrative aspects. Its predecessor agency—preserved virtually intact in the new Administration—had administered the broad nationwide programs authorized by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act since 1956; many of its senior staff have been in Federal water pollution control work since 1948.

The Water Pollution Control Administration is a functioning, growing organization of more than 1,500 persons—many recognized as outstanding experts in their fields. It has impressive experience in planning, in research, in enforcement, in technical assistance, and in the administration of a wide variety of grants and contracts. It has developed long-standing and effective relationships with State and interstate agencies. It has been an active participant in Federal interagency water planning activities for many years—both in Washington and in the field. All of this experience and expertise and facilities, plus its appropriated funds would be transferred whole to the Department of the Interior. We turn now to specific points that have been raised.

First, the lack of any real effort to tackle the real organization problem in water resourcesnamely, the bringing together of a number of water

problems now located throughout the Government. The administration does not claim that the proposed transfer of the Water Pollution Control Administration will remove all complex organizational problems related to water resources. The proposal is regarded as a substantial move toward improvement of organizational structure. We think the proposed transfer is a logical, as well as a sensible, move.

Other possible shifts are, undoubtedly, worthy of consideration and will be given careful study. But we think the merits of this proposed transfer are not

contingent on other transfer possibilities. With regard to plan No. 2, here under discussion, the President has said:

"The Department of the Interior, for many years, has been concerned with the comprehensive management and development of the Nation's water resources.

"It plans, constructs, and operates multiple-purpose water and related land resources projects.

"It carries on research and development on the removal of minerals from water.

"It administers the Water Resources Research Act.

"The Secretary of the Interior also serves as Chairman of the Water Resources Council responsible for coordinating river basin planning. Under the Clean Rivers Restoration Act of 1966 and other legislation which I have recently proposed, the Secretary will become the focal point for Federal efforts in this

area.

"It is wise management to place under his control the related resources and authority now in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.”

Clear designation of one Cabinet officer as the official primarily responsible for programs dealing with water quality is a major objective of the President's proposal.

"Second, the seeming splitup of what is now a unified program in water pollution control between HEW and Interior without, again, any effort to bring in various pollution control oriented programs now located in HUD,

Agriculture, and the Corps of Engineers." In the Water Quality Act of 1965, Congress transferred all aspects of water pollution control to the new Administration authorized by that act. The Public Health, Education, and Welfare would submit to the President an interdepartor diminish because of transfer of the whole water pollution control function out of the Service.

Consultative relationships between the Administration and the Public Health Service on health aspects of the water pollution control program-were retained. The President's reorganization plan requires, that within 90 days after the plan became operational, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare would submit to the President an interdepartmental agreement to assure continuation of that existing consultative relationship.

With transfer of the Water Pollution Control Administration intact to the Department of the Interior where it would continue to funcion as one of the major units of that Department, and with health responsibilities essentially as they now are, it does not appear that the proposed move to Interior would involve a splitup of the existing unification of Federal water pollution control functions.

“Third, the fact that Interior has had no real experience in the enforcement field. Interior is motivated toward development and use in the conservation field. Water pollution control involves regulatory enforcement and, interestingly, the statements before us hardly mention this fact while emphasizing more the water resource development role of Interior.” Since the President's plan would transfer the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration intact, we cannot see how Interior's experience, or lack of experience in that particular kind of enforcement, would, in any way affect the Water Pollution Control Administration's enforcement capabilities. These are capabilities which have been demonstrated, which are now operational, and which would remain operational to the full extent authorized by law.

In several fields other than water pollution control (which has resided in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare) Interior has long and varied experience. For example, Interior has responsibility for

enforcement of the Federal Coal Mine Safety Act ;
enforcement of the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act;

maintenance of law and order within areas administered by the National Park Service; and

initiation and carry-through of procedures to determine validity of claims to public lands or mineral rights associated therewith. Quasi-legal proceedings-similar in nature to those associated with Federal water pollution control enforcement actions are a well-established feature of Interior's operations.

"Fourth, the unwillingness of some of the Nation's top pollution control experts to transfer from HEW to Interior thus breaking up an existing team and forcing the development of a new one at considerable cost and loss of

valuable time." Congress, in passing the Water Quality Act of 1965, gave the commissioned officers of the Public Health Service who perform functions relating to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act the option to transfer to Civil Service classified positions within 6 months after the new Administration was formally established—until June 30, 1966. Out of approximately 300 commissioned officers assigned to the program when it was within the Public Health Service, as of April 15, 1966, a total of 91 had elected to transfer and 102 had elected to remain in the Public Health Service.

The pattern of these decisions has not changed to any appreciable extent since the President sent Reorganization Plan No. 2 to the Congress in late February. We have no indications that the proposed transfer to Interior is having a discouraging effect on PHS officers transferring to the Water Pollution Control Administration.

We believe many of those who have elected not to transfer did so not because of the reorganization plan, but because they have retirement and other benefits which they prefer not to exchange for the corresponding benefits offered by the classified Civil Service. For those who have decided it is advantageous to leave the corps, the fact that the new Administration may be in the Department of the Interior should not make any real difference.

Until this transition of personnel status is completed and we emphasize that commissioned officers still have until June 30 of this year to make their decisionsome delay and uncertainty cannot be avoided.

"Fifth, the fact that within the Department of the Interior are constituent agencies whose own constituencies are comprised of some of the Nation's

most flagrant polluters—mines, pulp and paper, oil and gas, to name a few.” This fact, we think, lends some strong justifications favorable to the proposed transfer. The Secretary of the Interior has numerous conservation responsibilities—in the national parks in the wildlife refuges, in fisheries, on the public lands, and elsewhere. Conflicts between protection of values in those areas and comriercial utilization of natural resources are matters the Secretary of the Interior is required to deal with constantly.

These conflicts exist now; the alinement of interests will not be changed by the President's proposed transfer. In fact, the interests most concerned about water pollution control should find some new and additional associates and supporters—even within industries most blamed for pollution.

"Sixth, the fact that the Department of the Interior is basically a western, nonurban oriented institution while the problem of water pollution is most prevalent in our highly urbanized and industrialized North and East. The problem in the East is not an insufficiency of water but an insufficiency of

usable water due to the polluted nature of existing supplies." Historically, Interior has had a western orientation but that orientation has been in process of change for a long time. Its preoccupation with western programs is shrinking, relatively, and also in the absolute sense.

It is the urban resident who is the principal constituent of many of the Department's Bureaus—National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. The research and service functions of the Geological Survey are, and for many years have been, nationwide. The Survey is involved with geological investigations in many urban areas. These have to do with stability of sites for large buildings, delineation of areas subject to flooding, and various other geological and geophysical matters.

The Secretary of the Interior, as you know, is a member of the Delaware River Basin Commission-sitting with the Governors of New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania. He is also Ch an of the Water Resources Council charged with coordination of Federal water policies under the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration and its predecessor organization have operated broad programs on a nationwide basis for many years. This experience in the long-standing relationships with the States and cities would be continued and strengthened after the transfer.

"Seventh, the possibility that pollution control will take a back seat to the other large programs in the Department of the Interior whose mission is to promote certain activities while the pollution control mission may be in conflict with such activities. Should we combine the promoter and the regulator? An analogy would be to put FDA's food responsibility in Agriculture on the basis that the latter's prime interest is food.”

« PreviousContinue »