5,672 communities serving 35,800,000 persons which had no or inadequate sewage treatment facilities. While this is a slight reduction from the number of communities from the previous year, there was no decrease in the number of improperly served people. In short, we are barely holding our own on controlling municipal pollution. To the best of our knowledge, nobody knows the full extent of pollution from industrial sources but it likely is at least as great as the municipal waste problem.

Now, commenting about specifics in the bill, we are in accord with section 1 which sets out the policy of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as one of enhancing the quality of water and preventing and controlling pollution.

The National Wildlife Federation strongly urges the establishment of a new Water Pollution Control Administration. It is our conviction that the present program should be held together intact, and transferred as a whole to the new Administration, as provided for in H.R. 3988. It also is our opinion that this is necessary if the program is given the emphasis and direction it merits. We were pleased to hear that, in November, the Presidentially appointed Water Pollution Advisory Board had reiterated a previous stand favoring an Administration.

The separation of storm and sanitary sewers is highly desirable, of course, but this is a problem posing great technical difficulties and expense, Demonstration grants, as proposed in both H.R. 3988 and S. 4, are well justified.

Our organization favors increasing individual and joint project grants. The National Wildlife Federation, however, is hopeful that the Congress soon may see fit to increase the total construction grants ceiling. The backlog of construction is estimated at $1.9 billion and this figure does not consider demands from population growth or obsolescence. Therefore, it is necessary to spend $700 million annually for the next 6 years to work off the backlog and meet demands. Obviously, increased construction grants are needed, probably to a level of $200 million.

The National Wildlife Federation favors the establishment of Federal standards of water quality, as proposed in section 5. We strongly recommend that the committee stress its expectation that Federal standards will be used as a vehicle to upgrade water quality, with the ultimate goal of preventing water pollution. Standards must not become a means to legalize pollution. We do not expect a single set of standards or criteria to be applicable nationwide. We recognize a need for watershed-by-watershed evaluation, with the key objective as water quality improvement or enhancement. Standards should be upgraded continually as new techniques for water pollution control are discovered and applied.

The National Wildlife Federation supports vigorous, uniform, and impartial enforcement of strong water pollution control laws. When the States cannot, or will not, perform this function it then should become a necessary function of the Federal Government. Therefore, we favor the extension of Federal jurisdiction for enforcement into situations when the Secretary finds that substantial economic injury is resulting from an inability to market shellfish or shellfish products in interstate commerce as a result of the pollution of interstate or navigable waters.

We view the provision for furnishing subpena powers in enforcement matters particularly meaningful. It verges on the incomprehensible when the State agencies, as they have too often admitted, are unable to provide, or even obtain, data from either communities or industries in regard to their waste disposal practices. This failure to require information basically necessary for remedying existing pollution and preventing new pollution should not be tolerated. We fully believe the Federal Government will utilize this new enforcement tool in a judiciously wise and fair manner.

In closing, it may be well to mention two additional points. Two sections from the water pollution bill of the 88th Congress have been deleted. These apply to detergents and to water pollution which results from Federal installations. We recommend that the committee maintain a continuing interest in these situation, possibly holding hearings at a later time to determine the need for additional controls.

Thank you for the opportunity of making these observations.

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Gutermuth, vice president of Wildlife Management Institute.

You have a statement. Do you wish to make an oral presentation, Mr. Gutermuth? Whatever you wish.

STATEMENT OF C. R. GUTERMUTH, VICE PRESIDENT, WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

Mr. GUTERMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I have presented my statement here, and if it may be recorded as given, I would merely like to comment on a couple of portions of this prepared statement.

In the first place, I and many of the others have appeared here for a long time advocating that we get this water pollution control program up out of the seventh subbasement of HEW, and we think it is high time now that this thing actually be done.

I was pleased to see the statement by the Assistant Secretary of HEW this morning, where he says that if this legislation is enacted to establish a water pollution control program, that the Secretary plans to transfer all of the function encompassed under the Water Pollution Control Act except such limited functions as may be retained by the Secretary.

Now, this, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, is where I came in. The Congress gave the Secretary of HEW authority to upgrade this program, and it is still today, a couple of years later, still where it was.

I have listened to a lot of discussion.

Mr. BLATNIK. May I at this point, Mr. Gutermuth, say I recall on at least one or perhaps two occasions that the gentleman has gone as high as the Secretary of HEW himself.

Mr. GUTERMUTH. That is right.

Mr. BLATNIK. With long, detailed, and earnest discussions, urging, persuading, and there were times when he was halfway promised administrative actions would be taken, and no action has been taken at all.

You have repeatedly-I know we have in the House, those of our colleagues interested in this legislation-gone after the officials of the Public Health Service, with no results whatsoever. And as you state so correctly, the water pollution control program is still down in the basement, as you call it-right where it was back in 1955 and 1956 when we started.

I think your point about the Public Health Service and I say this with complete respect for the splendid work they are doing in the field of public health, but they have remained public health oriented. With the rapid increase in technology, new chemical compounds, synthetic products, plastics, textiles, synthetic fibers, there has simply been a fabulous advance in chemistry, in the petrochemical field, in all aspects of chemistry for the last 15 years. I cannot help but point to the fact that since 1912, when the Public Health Service was first directed to be concerned with health, between then and 1956, our national water problems have been getting worse and worse and worse. If we had been permitted to continue, in 1955, 1956, and on, we would have been in even worse shape than we are today. The effort and foresight of public spirited leaders, such as you men here, the League of Women Voters and other organizations, that have given us the support, made it possible for the Federal Government to participate for the first time in history on a larger and broader scale in its joint efforts with States and municipalities to tackle this problem, today a major national problem. I am in complete agreement with you on the failure of the Public

Health Service to adequately cope with this national problem which is now ours.

Mr. GUTERMUTH. As you stated, Mr. Chairman, a group of us called on the former Secretary of HEW, Senator Ribicoff. While we got a very favorable reception, and while he had authority to upgrade this program, it was done partially, but the basic job is still ahead. And now I notice, when the distinguished former Secretary is over in the Senate now, he is all for what we wanted to get done and he has been a strong advocate of it. But unfortunately, when he sat in the saddle over here, why did it not happen.

Now, we believe, and I was pleased to see in the statement of the Assistant Secretary this morning, that they are talking about finding ways and means of taking care of these present employees, these people who have done a splendid job down in this seventh subbasement with the equipment that they had to do the job with. But unfortunately, the trouble does not lie there; the trouble lies up above.

The Public Health Service, as we have brought out in statements time and time again, is public-health oriented. There is where the responsibility and its interests lie. And I could go on at great length with things like the Taft Center in Cincinnati, which we helped get for the uplifting of this whole water pollution control program, and the medicos, as I call them, have taken over there again. The water pollution control, instead of being down in the seventh subbasement, is on the top story of it, where you have to even carry water on up there in order to carry on the experimentation they want.

So much for that.

I am pleased, however, that they are giving thought to keeping these people, because they have experience; they have knowledge; they have done an excellent job with the limitations that were imposed upon them. So, so much for that.

Now, I would like to comment on one other thing here, on this matter of money.

Section 4 in H.R. 3988, as Mr. Quigley brought out, increases the grants ceiling for individual and combined waste-treatment projects more than in the Senate bill. But he called attention to the fact, and I am sure the committee is aware, that this is only going to take care of the job up to a point.

If we are going to get this job moving ahead as it should be, then the appropriation ceiling should be increased to $200 million, as is provided, or has been called for in many places.

In conclusion, from my standpoint, Mr. Chairman, I have here a single-page, double-spaced release by the distinguished Governor, I guess you pronounce it Rolvaag, of Minnesota, where he calls attention to water conservation as the State's critical need. "Water conservation," he says, "is the State's most critical natural resource problem." He goes ahead and says:

We need, more than anything else, a reevaluation of the objectives and methods of water conservation as they are related to other fields of government activity.

This is an excellent statement emphasizing the importance of water resources, and I would like to see it entered in the record, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BLATNIK. Without objection, so ordered.

(Statement and letter of Governor Rolvaag and statement of C. R. Gutermuth follow:)

GOVERNOR ROLVAAG TELLS CHISHOLM SPORTSMEN WATER CONSERVATION IS STATE'S CRITICAL NEED

Gov. Karl F. Rolvaag, speaking tonight at the 47th annual banquet of the Chisholm Sportsmen's Club, said water conservation is the State's most critical natural resource problem.

"It is not only a conservation problem, but an economic problem of far greater importance than many others which are receiving widespread public attention at this time," he said.

"We must inaugurate a water conservation program, statewide in scope--a program that will embrace every farm, every community, and metropolitan area. We can no longer condone water waste in the air conditioning of our office buildings, nor water pollution in our lakes, rivers, and streams," he said. Rolvaag said that a blueprint to implement such a program already exists in the form of the Hydrologic Atlas, a plan prepared by the State department of conservation.

"It shows the broad outline and facets of the program needed, the direction it must take, and the scope of the undertaking. The Atlas represents a comprehensive battle plan to conserve our precious waters," he said, "and we had better get the operation underway."

Rolvaag said that a combination of general apathy, lack of coordination, and money have served as the prime deterrents to launching the program.

"We need consolidation of some, and closer coordination among all of the more than 40-odd water conservation agencies at work in our State," he said. "We need, more than anything else, a reevaluation of the objectives and methods of water conservation as they are related to other fields of government activity.

"I am pleased at the sacrifices our people are prepared to make to develop programs in education, highways, and public welfare, but it is disappointing to know that we spend only 4 cents of our tax dollar for critical programs in conservation, while we spend 39 cents for education, 27 cents for highways, 18 cents for welfare, and 12 cents for the other services of State government. "I certainly do not wish to detract from the importance of the latter programs," Rolvaag said, "we need them all badly. But we must act now to properly endow a program to protect our most precious natural resource, the waters of our State." STATE OF MINNESOTA EXECUTIVE OFFICE, St. Paul, Minn., March 1, 1965.

Congressman GEORGE H. FALLON,

Chairman, House Committee on Public Works,
House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN FALLON: I strongly support H.R. 3988 relating to the strengthening of the Federal water pollution control program. Minnesota is moving forward rapidly in water pollution control and the Federal Government has a vital role to play as well.

I hope that your committee will give prompt and favorable consideration to this important legislation.

Very truly yours,

KARL F. ROLVAAG, Governor.

STATEMENT OF C. R. GUTERMUTH

Mr. Chairman, I am C. R. Gutermuth, vice president of the Wildlife Management Institute, with headquarters in Washington, D.C. The institute is one of the older national conservation organizations-its program has been devoted to the restoration and improved management of natural resources in the public interest for more than 50 years.

Conservationists wholeheartedly support the objectives of H.R. 3988, H.R. 4627, S. 4, and similar bills. These proposals would amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act so as to give the program authorized by the act a truer direction and an enlarged role in serving the public interest. It is unfortunate that some of these strengthening and desirable changes were not made years

go. Most of them have been suggested before, and they are being considered again because operating experience shows them to be necessary.

Water is one of the most important of our natural resources, and the entire fabric of our society is dependent on it. Protection of the quality of this fixed-supply resource is a responsibility that none of us, individually or together, can long ignore without harmful consequences.

National demand for a more effective and efficient pollution abatement program to discharge this responsibility is well founded, Mr. Chairman. The record shows that we are not making sufficient progress in treating the wastes that we know how to handle, in vigorously applying enforcement powers, and in developing techniques to counteract the huge volume of organic and inorganic waste materials that get into water courses.

The magnitude and the severity of water pollution and its present and probable future influence on our American way of life are well documented. The records of this committee, and of other House and Senate committees, contain comprehensive analyses of national water needs for all purposes. They also show opportunities for making a relatively fixed supply of water meet the projected demands of future generations. On one important point there is a unanimous conclusion; that is, future municipal, industrial, agricultural, and associated demands for water will require a recycling of available supplies in most watersheds. The acute need for clean water needs little further illustration. Action and accomplishment, not more conversation, are needed now.

The municipality, the industry, the agricultural complex, and the Government installation no longer can be permitted to discharge or to cause to be discharged untreated or casually treated wastes and other pollutants into our Nation's waters. We do not have the water to squander and society lacks the financial resources to offset the greatly multiplied costs that such continued negligence would entail. "Let the water user beware" is fully as harmful and indefensible a philosophy today as was the outrageous and indifferent "Let the buyer beware" attitude that Congress rejected years ago when it first moved to protect

consumers.

All these things have been said before and in greater detail, Mr. Chairman. What really confronts us today is the remedy that should be prescribed-the kind of a program that is broad enough, realistic enough, and prompt enough to stimulate appropriate action on all levels.

Conservationists support and endorse the recommendations of both the House and Senate bills that the proposed act should spell out a national policy for water pollution control. The policy must leave no doubt that cleansing polluted waters and preventing wastes from reaching streams and other waters is a goal of the highest priority. National acceptance and adherence to that policy is imperative. Too often streams and lakes have been and are being regarded merely as convenient brooms that sweep pollution from the door of the industry, the municipality, the installation, or individual responsible for it.

The suggested policy has not been accepted by the U.S. Public Health Service, the current administrator of the Federal water pollution control program in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, or by most of the national trade, industrial, municipal, and similar organizations. It is not a policy view, in fact, that has been even remotely accepted by agencies of Government. Many Federal installations and agencies are guilty of contributing to the gross contamination of our Nation's waters. Others apparently fail to understand the magnitude and the true nature of the water pollution problem.

The Corps of Engineers plan for the Potomac River Basin, for example, recommends a high dam near Washington to impound water so that sewage can be flushed away from the Nation's Capital. This is not a positive plan to eliminate pollution, it is a mechanical action that transfers the problem to some other section of the river. It is time for Congress to approve a new national policy that will guide the Nation in taking a positive position toward pollution abatement.

If the Federal program is to be anywhere near as productive and beneficial as it should be, conservationists believe that upgrading and strengthening the program is of paramount importance. The program must have improved administrative stature as is contemplated by the creation of a Water Pollution Control Administration in the Health, Education, and Welfare Department.

Conservationists do not believe that the Federal water pollution control program has been pressed vigorously enough under the administration of the Public Health Service, which is primarily interested in medical matters. In statements and resolutions extending over the past several years, conservationists have