authorization for annual appropriations for grants to States and interstate agencies to assist in meeting costs of establishing and maintaining adequate measures for prevention and control of water pollution under section 5(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act from $5 million to $15 million. Passed. RESOLUTION No. 8-FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL Whereas the 88th Congress considered major amendments to the existing Federal Water Pollution Control Act, said amendments generally referred to as S. 649; and Whereas the 1964 meeting of the State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators has taken cognizance of this proposed legislation: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators reaffirm its basic position that 1. There is no need in Federal law for additional provisions relating to standards for water quality. 2. Discharges of sewage and other wastes from Federal installations should be required to meet the same standards and requirements as similar discharges from municipal or private sources. 3. The existing program should be held together and elevated in stature within the U.S. Public Health Service administration. Passed. Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Cramer. Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Dorn, do I understand-I read from section 5(a) (4), resolutions passed 1963 and 1964, the group is in opposition to this section of the bill pertaining to the setting of stream standards by the Federal Government. Is that your understanding? Mr. DORN. That is my understanding. Mr. BLATNIK. The next witness, Mr. William E. Towell, a member of the President's Water Pollution Control Advisory Board. Mr. Towell, we welcome you. We appreciate your patience in standing by all day long. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. TOWELL, A MEMBER OF THE PRESIDENT'S WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADVISORY BOARD Mr. TOWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I am William E. Towell, director of conservation for the State of Missouri. I do today, however, represent the President's Water Pollution Control Advisory Board. I consider it an honor to be invited to testify before this distinguished committee on a conservation issue as vital to the Nation as water pollution control. As I have said on many previous occasions, including testimony to this very committee only a year ago, water pollution is the greatest conservation problem in America today. As a conservation administrator, as a member of the Federal Water Pollution Control Advisory Board, as an officer of the International Association of Fish, Game, and Conservation Commissioners and as a citizen, I urge you to take action to strengthen our Federal water pollution control effort by favorably reporting H.R. 3988, S. 4, or a compromise version of the two bills without delay. It was a considerable disappointment to conservationists throughout the Nation that 44-265-65-11 the Federal Water Pollution Control Act was not amended by the 88th Congress. We now join with our great President in assigning this task highest priority for enactment in 1965. The most important provisions in both the Senate and House bills. are those which create a Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. This elevated administrative status is badly needed and long overdue. Water pollution control seemingly cannot attain the position of importance it deserves in the Public Health Service. It represents much more than just another environmental health problem. Clean water is vital to industry, to agriculture, for recreation, for fish and wildlife, as well as for municipal water supply and sanitation. It has not received in the Public Health Service the attention it must have to accomplish satisfactory abatement of interstate pollution. The designation of an Assistant Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare with primary responsibility for water pollution control programs, together with a Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, will establish this governmental activity at a level commensurate with its importance in the resource management field. The Federal Water Pollution Control Advisory Board is charged by law with responsibility to— advise, consult with, and make recommendations to the Secretary on matters of policy relating to his activities and functions under this Act. On three separate occasions-meeting at St. Louis in September 1962; Honolulu in June 1963; and Chicago in November 1964-this Board has recommended creation of this Administration. The Board over the years has been composed of many prominent individuals, from business and Government, including the legal profession, doctors, scientists and administrators. With the responsibility for recommending policy changes to intensify and improve the operation of the Federal water pollution control program and on several different occasions and with different membership, the Board has favored a new Water Pollution Control Administration. Any differences that have existed between the Board members has not been whether this new Administration is needed but how it should be created. Apparently, it is not going to be done by administrative order of the Secretary; therefore, I urge it be done by legislative action. One provision of H.R. 3988, in my opinion, is far superior to that of S. 4 as passed by the Senate. Section (2) of the House bill would transfer all activities of the Pollution Control Act to the new Administration while the Senate version would transfer only law enforcement, comprehensive programs, interstate cooperation, water quality standards, control of pollution from Federal installations, and such other provisions of the act as the Secretary might prescribe. This could result in serious fragmentation of the total water pollution control effort and result in lack of program coordination. I feel that the entire program should go to the new Administration by legislative action rather than leaving the Secretary in the impossible position of deciding between agencies within the Department and perhaps allowing the whole pollution program to suffer through division. At our Chicago Board meeting last fall we were told how construction grants had stimulated local activity in construction of sewage treatment facilities. In the 8-year history of the grants program local expenditures for sewage treatment have exceeded Federal dollars by 4 to 1. Lacking in present authorizations is sufficient incentive for the larger treatment installations or joint projects in multimunicipal complexes. Both the House and Senate bills increase Federal grants for larger single municipal as well as joint projects, although the House figures are considerably higher. Either is a step in the right direction, but the House bill provisions appear more favorable. Mr. Chairman, at this point may I add to my remarks that the Water Pollution Board, at its last meeting in Chicago, adopted two resolutions, one which would increase the individual and multiple grants, recommending the increase of individual and multiple grants, recommending increase of recommendations from $100 million to $200 million. Other sections of both bills should strengthen the Federal Water Pollution Act even further. There is definite need for research into the problem of combined storm and sanitary sewers. Flash floods frequently carry heavy pollution loads into streams and coastal areas without treatment. Research into costs and methods of separating sewage and storm sewers is overdue. It should be authorized. Being from Missouri, I am not personally familiar with coastal pollution problems, but I am concerned about the reported concentrations of pesticides and organic pollutants that are making our marine food resources unsafe for human consumption. I agree with the thinking in both bills that such contamination does constitute interstate pollution and should be dealt with accordingly. The most controversial provision of this legislation, both Senate and House versions, is that dealing with standards of quality for interstate waters. No one can deny the necessity of having some standards of measurement for water quality. We cannot make progress in interstate pollution abatement unless we have some criteria to measure this progress. This legislation would authorize the Secretary to encourage the development of quality standards and to set such standards in the absence of satisfactory standards set by State or interstate agencies. If the States alone cannot or will not assume this responsibility, then there certainly is justification for Federal action. I would hope that the Federal Water Pollution Control Act could be amended to include these provisions, but if they stand in the way of successful passage of other needed amendments, perhaps some compromise could be made here. Actually, existing enforcement authority which the Secretary now has for dealing with interstate pollution already provides for some measure of Federal water quality standards. As is clearly evident, Mr. Chairman, I am an ardent proponent of this legislation. Conservationists across the Nation join me in urging your committee to report this bill out favorably. It is a privilege also to present the views here of the Federal Water Pollution Control Advisory Board, and I shall be happy to answer any questions that members of the committee might have. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Trowell, this is not only a concise, but a very pertinent and most helpful statement that you made on behalf of this legislation. The Chair particularly is indebted and grateful to you and to the members of your Board. Mr. TOWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. I thank you for your contribution. Mr. DORN. No, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you very much. We have a panel of conservation leaders, many, if not perhaps all of them, very well known to most of the members of the committee. Mr. Clapper, are you appearing each individually or as a panel? Mr. CLAPPER. We have the whole group here, sir. If you would like to have us come individually or as a group on different portions of the proposal, this would be suitable, too, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. Whatever your wishes are. Mr. CLAPPER. We can all six sit up here then if it is all right. Mr. BLATNIK. Do you want to move your chairs up closer to the microphone? Mr. Louis Clapper, National Wildlife Federation; Mr. C. R. Gutermuth, vice president, Wildlife Management Institute; Mr. Robert Dennis, Izaak Walton League of America; Dr. Spencer M. Smith, secretary, Citizens Committee on Natural Resources; Mr. Richard Stroud, executive vice president, Sport Fishing Institute; and our old friend, Mr. Charles Callison, assistant to the president of the National Audubon Society. Gentlemen, we welcome you. The Chair want to say we appreciate your patience for waiting to be with us so late in the afternoon and the special efforts some of you made to be with us here to testify on behalf of legislation of particular concern to your respective organizations. STATEMENT OF LOUIS CLAPPER, NATIONAL WILDLIFE Mr. CLAPPER. I have a few brief opening remarks, Mr. Blatnik, then the other gentlemen would like to comment about their specific interests. Mr. BLATNIK, Mr. Louis Clapper, will you please proceed. Those of us who represent many of the leading conservation organizations in the Nation welcome the opportunity of appearing here today for the purpose of endorsing the objectives of H.R. 3988 and other proposals establishing the Water Quality Act of 1965. First, however, we want to express our gratitude to Mr. Blatnik, Mr. Fallon, Mr. Dingell and the other authors of the Water Quality Act on developing language which we are certain will improve-and strengthen the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Our organizations hailed the establishment of this act in 1956 as a conservation landmark. It became an even more effective tool when strengthened by amendments in 1961, and we are sure the Water Quality Act will make contributions equally as important. Great credit certainly is. due this committee for exerting leadership and foresight in the water pollution control field. Second, our organizations have fought long and hard for many years and it is tremendously heartening and encouraging for us to see water pollution abatement given important support by the President and his executive agencies, as well as by the Congress. We believe this is a true reflection of an increased awareness and determination by a majority of the members of the American public that they want this disgraceful situation cleaned up. Mr. Chairman, our organizations are in accord with respect to specifics in this bill and I might add here that another important organization, the Wilderness Society, asks permission to be associated with our remarks. We are in agreement with section 1, which sets out policy of the act. We concur with the section of H.R. 3988 which transfers the whole Federal water pollution control program to a new administration. We believe the demonstration grants for the separation of storm and sanitary sewers are justified. We favor increasing the individual and joint project grants and raising the construction grants ceiling. We recommend establishment of Federal standards of water quality and extension of Federal jurisdiction into situations when pollution adversely affects the marketing of shellfish in inter state commerce. We have filed individual statements for the purpose of completing the record. Others of our group wish to comment in some detail about specific portions of the bill. Mr. Gutermuth has a particular interest in upgrading status of the program. Mr. BLATNIK. Your statement will appear in its entirety, as well as succeeding statements of all of the witnesses here. (The prepared statements follow:) STATEMENT OF LOUIS S. CLAPPER ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION I am Louis S. Clapper, chief of conservation education for the National Wildlife Federation. The National Wildlife Federation is a private conservation organization which seeks to attain conservation goals through educational means. Our organization has affiliates in 49 States and these groups, in turn, are made up of individuals who, when combined with associate members and other supporters of the National Wildlife Federation, number an estimated 2 million persons. Mr. Chairman, I welcome the invitation and opportunity to appear before the committee today for the purpose of expressing our support of the principles expressed in H.R. 3988, Senate-passed S. 4, and other similar proposals designed to strengthen the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. We are of the firm opinion that these amendments will make a real contribution toward attacking the problem of contamination of our valuable waters by wastes of various sorts. Ever since its inception 29 years ago, the National Wildlife Federation has made the prevention and abatement of water pollution a major objective. This year, for the second time, water pollution control is the theme of National Wildlife Week-to be observed during the period of March 14-20. The honorary national chairman, Mr. Walt Disney, has produced a film short which we are sending to all U.S. television stations. Thousands of kits are being distributed to schoolchildren and others who are participating in the observance. Last year, the readers of our magazine, National Wildlife, which now goes to 165.000 associate members, overwhelmingly listed water pollution as the principal natural resources problem in the country. These facts are mentioned for the purpose of highlighting the gravity with which our organization views water pollution. Many other groups similarly are contributing major efforts toward attacking the problem. We know that polluted water holds little attraction for hunters or fishermen or swimmers or waterskiers or boaters, or even hikers or picknickers. And, these factors do not take into account the problem of health or of damages to property values and facilities which are involved in water pollution control. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, we have been tremendously encouraged and heartened by the strong references to water pollution control in the state of the Union and natural beauty messages of the President. Needless to say, we hope this committee, the House, and the Congress see fit to cooperate by enacting a strong bill. Evidence of this need is detailed in a survey of the Conference of State Sanitary Engineers. This group reported that, as of January 1, 1964, there were |