On the first point, we have lost much of the time that I was worried about when I raised my questions in January. I am sorry we have lost as much time as we have, and we do, I fear, stand to lose more on the water quality standards provisions. I am really worried about that. I think the States are beginning to build up pressure to delay that deadline, and I am hopeful, Mr. Quigley, that you can begin working on your guidelines so that the States will have a minimal excuse to ask for further extensions of time.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Senator, I would comment that we have, I think, the guidelines in what I now consider reasonably good form. There are still some rough spots. There are still some areas of disagreement, but I think this is always going to be the case. I think just as soon as we are squared away on what the reorganization setup is going to be, I think then we can put them out, and I think it is important that we put them out as reflecting the thinking of the Secretary, if it is the Secretary of the Interior it ough to reflect his thinking. If it is the Secretary of HEW it ought to reflect his thinking. Because in the final analysis it is going to be the Secretary that has to review and approve these State standards. So I would hope that as soon as our deadline of April 30 comes

Secretary UDALL. I want to make it plain for the record that I consider this the first order of business, and I think we should move on it very aggressively, and I don't resent at all the Senator applying the lash a little bit here this morning. I think it is justified.

Senator MUSKIE. It is not a whiplash

Mr. QUIGLEY. Senator, when they see some of our guidelines I think there may be some cries of anguish.

Senator MUSKIE. You are going to have it, of course, you are, that is if the guidelines are to have any meaning in terms of the waterquality program. They are going to stir up some controversy. I am all for that.

Senator GRUENING. We have a couple of other witnesses. I think we will probably have time to hear one of them. We will have to adjourn in about 5 minutes.

Senator MUSKIE. Will we need the Secretary tomorrow, Mr. Chairman?

Senator GRUENING. I think that Senator Ribicoff will probably want him.

Secretary UDALL. I will be very happy to return and keep my pledge.

Mr. SEIDMAN. I assume you want us all back tomorrow morning. Senator MUSKIE. Why don't you check with Senator Ribicoff. Senator GRUENING. IS Mr. Louis Clapper here?

Mr. CLAPPER. I am here, Senator, but Mr. Kimball, who is my executive director, will testify in my behalf.

Mr. KIMBALL. My name is Thomas L. Kimball, executive director of the National Wildlife Federation.

Senator GRUENING. Would you be able to come back tomorrow? Mr. KIMBALL. Surely.

Senator MUSKIE. We hate to rush through your testimony.

Senator GRUENING. It will be better if you come back tomorrow. We will adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow.

(Whereupon at 11:50 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, April 7, 1966.)

REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 2 OF 1966

(Water Pollution Control)

THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 1966

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EXECUTIVE REORGANIZATION,
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:05 a.m., in room 1318, New Senate Office Building, Senator Abraham Ribicoff (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Ribicoff and Muskie.

Also present: Jerome Sonosky, staff director, and Esther Newberg, chief clerk, Subcommittee on Executive Reorganization.

Senator RIBICOFF. The committee will be in order. I understand that Secretary Gardner is testifying before the Gruening subcommittee and will be here later.

Before we begin, I have a statement, and the statement includes several questions raised yesterday. If you will listen rather carefully, all three of you there, you might have some answers for us.

Before beginning this morning, let me summarize some of the points which are bothering me, and I believe Senator Muskie, about this reorganization plan. Hopefully, out of this discussion some of these doubts can be dispelled.

First, the lack of any real effort to tackle the real organization problem in water resources; namely, the bringing together of a number of water programs now located throughout the Government.

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 Corp of Engineers.

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 resources development role of Interior.

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.

Fifth, the fact that within the Department of 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.

55

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.

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

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. 4 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.