The question no longer is "Shall we control pollution?" but "How best do we go about controlling pollution?" We are confident that our Nation is standing on the threshold of major breakthroughs in cleaning up these despicable conditions. We also believe the proper organization of the Federal program, under the current law, is of utmost importance.

Undoubtedly, the Congress will want to consider several points with respect to the proposed Reorganization Plan No. 2.

First, there is a major question about moving functions of water pollution control into a department that includes agencies dealing with interests which pollute. This question has been raised here many times by the committee. The Bureau of Reclamation, for example, deals with irrigation return water which sometimes is heavily polluted with pesticides and minerals. The Bureau of Mines also deals with the mining industry, a major source of pollution in many parts of the country.

The Secretary of Interior yesterday and I believe again this morning gave the committee assurances that the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration will be given support at the secretarial level to work with the States in developing a sound cooperative program, both with relation to developing water standards of the highest possible quality and to vigorous law enforcement.

I might point out that we are confident that the Congress intended to initiate a strong program in the establishment of water quality standards when it enacted the Water Quality Act of 1965. The States, of course, are being given the first opportunity to establish high standards of water quality. Personally, I am convinced that the State governments soon will be out of the water pollution control "business" unless they do adopt standards of quality high enough for water to be used and reused for all legitimate purposes, including fish, wildlife, and recreation. We are convinced that the public wants clean water and will demand that the Federal Government provide it if the States do not. If the States fail to act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration must be strong and ready to carry out these commitments.

All too often in the past, water quality standards were set with relation to economic and social factors-or pressures-rather than upon sound water quality criteria. Under such conditions, few toxicological problems were solved and standards frequently became licenses to pollute rather than instruments for cleaning up the water. This is why we hope the new Pollution Control Administration will be encouraged at the congressional and executive level to set the highest possible standards.

We hope the Congress gets assurances that the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration will give the States a "floor," or low tolerance of pollution beyond which no stream will be allowed to deteriorate. That "floor" should be a pollution load no greater than that which is occurring today. We recognize that standards for a wild river well can be different than for an industrial stream, but the States should be informed that the ultimate objective of this program is to provide a national water supply of such quality that it will be usable for all legitimate purposes, for domestic use, for industry, for agriculture, for fish and wildlife, and for recreation. Ideally, the

Water Pollution Control Administration's motto should be, "Every drop of effluent treated before being returned to the general public use. The Water Pollution Control Administration's creed should read, "No one has an inherent right to use our Nation's waterways. as a sewer, and industry should recognize that the treatment of waste is a part of the cost of doing business."

I might add here, Mr. Chairman, that there are many ways in which industry can be encouraged to participate wholeheartedly in this program. A number of incentives have already been mentioned, but whether or not it is in the form of a tax writeoff or an effluent tax, in the final analysis it is the general public who is going to foot the bill, whether it be through the increased cost of the product that is manufactured, or whether it is paid by Federal aid through the income tax that he pays, or whether it is a bond issue where he pays more on his property tax. It is the individual that is going to pay for the program, and I repeat again for emphasis that our survey showed that 96 percent of the people are ready for that. So again it is a matter of procedure and not a matter of desire on the part of the American public. The people want clean water.

Second, we are confident that the public wants a strong, vigorous, and impartial administration of the Federal program. It is our contention that this can be achieved best through status of an Administration separate from other bureaus or offices. We should not like to see this Administration consolidated with Geological Survey, the Office of Water Resources Research, or any other agency.

Third, we believe that the national problem of water pollution is of such magnitude that it merits the undivided, full-time attention of an Assistant Secretary to whom the chief administering officer, the Commissioner, is responsible. We were pleased to hear Secretary Udall give Senator Muskie assurance that the work of this Assistant Secretary would not be diluted with other assignments. In fact, we are gratified that pollution control will be a matter of major personal interest for Secretary Udall, himself.

The President identified river basins as the naturally functioning units for considering the water pollution program. We are hopeful that our large seacoast urban areas will not be forgotten in the river basin plan, and that there might be some way to coordinate the urban and city problems with the river basin concept, and I was pleased to hear Secretary Udall this morning say that he planned to consider it as in the concept. We are aware that the Interior Department has responsibility for river basin planning and there is much logic for locating the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration in that Department, although we agree with what has already been expressed by the committee that a more propitious time could have been chosen for the transfer.

One other relevant matter comes to our attention the emphasis on public health. I should like to assure the subcommittee that our organization would not sanction any lessening of interest in public health aspects of pollution control. In our opinion, public health must be the first and foremost consideration wherever the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration is located. However, we do believe that the concern for public health does not go far enough in giving consideration to other uses of water. Water can be made safe to drink

even while still possessing undesirable qualities which destroy it for recreational uses. It is our conviction that the ultimate objective should be to develop clean water for all legitimate uses.

Mr. Chairman, in concluding these remarks, the subcommittee has done an admirable job in developing a comprehensive record about clarifying the intent of the Secretary of the Interior toward assignments in water research and the development of comprehensive plans. We also wonder about changes this reorganization plan may make in responsibilities of committees of the Congress. I should take the occasion to express our confidence in competence of the respective Committees on Public Works in this field. They have been able to give us leadership and direction and to obtain the necessary funds to keep this program moving ahead and give it the momentum that it has had to date, and I am hopeful that congressional leadership will see to it that because of the transfer this does not necessarily mean a change in committee assignment.

Senator MUSKIE. We will try to see to that.

Mr. KIMBALL. I am sure you will.

Senator RIBICOFF. I would say, with Senator Muskie on this committee, I imagine that will be assured.

Mr. KIMBALL. Fine, that concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for the opportunity.

Senator RIBICOFF. Mr. Kimball, thank you very much for your excellent statement. It is most helpful. I have no questions. Senator MUSKIE. I would like to thank Mr. Kimball for his state

I know that you and other conservation organizations have had questions about this reorganization plan, so I am interested in getting you reaction to the testimony as it has unfolded in the last. 2 days. I take it that you have been reassured by what you have heard from the Secretary and other administration witnesses.

Mr. KIMBALL. We have had some of the same reservations that have been so ably expressed by you and Senator Ribicoff, as to the timing and maybe even some of the wisdom of the reorganization plan, but hearing the testimony, particularly from Secretary Udall, we are much more assured that at least as long as he directs the program, that the importance will not be minimized, and that if the reorganization does go through, we are looking forward to the continued interest on his part and a real program toward cleaning up the Nation's water supply.

Senator MUSKIE. Let me ask this question. In the event a resolution of disapproval were introduced, and I don't know whether it will be, and I don't intend to introduce it, would you support the plan or tend to support the resolution of disapproval?

Mr. KIMBALL. I would say that after hearing the testimony, we would tend to support the plan.

Senator MUSKIE. I thought it might be useful to have you on the record on this point because I don't know what is going to happen. As I say, I don't think the resolution will be introduced, but if it is, I think that your position and the position of other conservation organizations would be most pertinent.

Mr. KIMBALL. Prior to having heard the testimony these past 2 days, and in the House, we probably could not have made that statement, but having been reassured now by the committee and Secretary

74

Wa dro

use rea

as

is :

in

gr W

tr

W

f:

ti

76

RECECANIZATION PLAN NO. 2

Udall that the program's haps we would not quatre v his program to be, & ung intend it to have.

Senator RIETOR. Thank you very much Me Ind have been of great help.

Mr. Penfold, pease.

Mr. PENPOLD. Mr. Chairman, Php A. Is goe tary of the Sport Faring Institute, who had planne today, is ill and his office a-ked that I hand his statemen

Senator RIBIOOrr. Without objection it will be played zest
at this point.

STATEMENT OF PHILIP A DOUGLAS. EXECUTIVE SERETAR
SPORT FISHING INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. Chairman and members of this mean
Philip A. Douglas, executive secretary of the Sport Fishing bein
which is the only privately supported national fish conserit
nization. We are staffed by professional aquatic biologists d
and fully cognizant of the importance of recreating a pe
aquatic environment.

By means of Reorganization Plan No. 2, the President has ve
his rightful authority to organize the executive as he believes
crease administrative efficiency. Whether it will, remains to be see
It is now up to us all, citizenry and politicians alike, to see to it t
the Water Pollution Control Administration starts moving in a dar
cut, identifiable pattern toward the ultimate objective-clean waters
Water pollution control has only recently been accorded adequat
administrative status on paper. Previously, conservationists forgo
hard over many years to help raise the administrative stature of wite
pollution control to that of a major program activity where it co
function in HEW undiluted by the major traditional emphasis in that
Department on matters of human health. This troublesome aspect
would obviously disappear if the program goes to Interior.
obvious benefits to human health that will result from a pollution con-
trol program which improves the quality of the aquatic environment
will by no means be lost by such transfer.
Yet the

The institute's executive vice president, Richard H. Stroud, in this regard has provided a useful distinction between water pollution— not necessarily a health hazard-and water contamination-unhealthy-in a talk before the American Society of Civil Engineers Water Resources Engineering Conference in Mobile, Ala., March 1965, entitled "What Is Pollution-To a Conservationist?" He said:

Water pollution is the specific impairment of water quality by domestic, industrial, or agricultural wastes [including thermal and atomic wastes] to a degree which has an adverse effect on beneficial use of water, yet which does not necessarily create an actual hazard to the public health.

He stated, further:

Water contamination is merely an aggravated impairment of water quality by those wastes to a degree which creates an actual hazard to the public health through poisoning or the spread of disease.

are somewhat concerned whether, in the Department of the or, there may be an administrative tendency to overburden the pollution control function with other more or less related water ties and thus dilute the long-sought needed emphasis on the primission to clean up the national water resource. Unfortunately, we would undoubtedly lose this singleness of purpose in water tion control for which many conservationists have fought so hard o long to achieve. We believe that water pollution control must single-minded goal within this new administration unit in Inr—as it would have been in HEW. In addition, intradepartment icts of interest should not be allowed to stall the program. ThereMr. Chairman, my organization believes that the new Assistant etary of the Interior for Water Pollution Control, when apted, must not be shackled with other diverse duties that would act from or divert the mission of this vital Water Pollution ConAdministration.

he Water Supply and Water Pollution Control Division, currently in HEW, is commencing to organize expanded water quality eria research programs designed to protect the most sensitive ies of aquatic life from continuous exposure to various forms of ution. A fine cadre of professionals in hydrobiology, ecology, and er such specialized fields now comprises the skeleton of the WPCA fessional staff needed to delineate water quality criteria essential for protection and maintenance of aquatic life. They must be induced continue with Interior under the President's Reorganization Plan

. 2.

The Sport Fishing Institute is, therefore, much concerned whether re will be ample financial incentive to retain these people and to ract new outstanding scientists upon whom America must rely to ve the problems of advanced waste treatment and to determine ter quality criteria for various uses in order to achieve full water llution abatement and control. Research budgets must be adequate, ofessional ratings liberal, and budgetary unity preserved. In this nnection, we have not been favorably impressed by past performance the part of the Department of the Interior in requesting adequate unds for vitally needed research programs, especially true where quatic biological problems have been involved. Therefore, we are uch concerned about the possible implications of what we view as poor history of administrative and policy support, at top departental levels, for research programs in aquatic biology, vis-a-vis such eeds in the water pollution control program. We hope that the Conress will watch this aspect closely, as it could "make" or "break" the rogram, as we see it. Reorganization Plan No. 2 provides a starting point-but it must be properly implemented.

The main question, as we see it, is not so much whether the WPCA should be in HEW or in Interior. The important questions are whether, how soon, and how aggressively water pollution control will get underway. Water pollution control has been in a hiatus for several months, due to the uncertainty of its administrative affiliation. The President has made his move on that problem. The main task, now, is to get on with the job. Time and the pollution tide wait for nobody.