Page images
PDF
EPUB

Biologists are not interested in levels at which aquatic life can merely survive. They cannot deal with average conditions because average conditions are very poor measures of the suitability of an environment and they can be very misleading. In any form of life, Tarzwell notes, it is the extremes of the environmental conditions which are determining. Even though temperatures in a stream may be lethal for trout for only 2 hours on only 1 day of the year, that stream ceases to be a trout stream. Biologists must, therefore, protect against the extremes and insure that environmental conditions are favorable for the most sensitive organisms in the biota we seek to protect.

Unfortunately, all information essential for attaining these objectives is not now at hand. Although there is a large amount of knowledge regarding the environmental requirements of certain aquatic forms, a great deal more such knowledge is needed. This will require long-term research. Since new wastes are continually appearing, since there is a great backlog of work to be done, and since there are many thousands of species of organisms to be considered, work of this nature will never be completed.

Dr. Tarzwell emphasizes, however, that we cannot wait until we have all the answers before we establish tentative water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life. If we use the knowledge and experience that we now have, he maintains that we can protect and save much of our aquatic life which would otherwise be lost. He urges that criteria should be set up now with the idea that they are tentative and that they will be modified, strengthened, or confirmed by findings of future research. We must have water-quality criteria to establish the objectives of advanced waste treatment.

Pollution abatement, Tarzwell points out, is largely a problem in applied ecology. The successful solution to pollution problems, therefore, demands an environmental approach to, and an ecological concept of the problem. While physicochemical methods of water renovation are of great importance, living organisms have a great and important role to play in this process. Research much be carried on in order to devise methods whereby organisms can be utilized in the transformation of waste organics into useful projects.

Dr. Tarzwell states that this latter field is practically in its infancy and is wide open for well-trained, competent research men having vision and drive. Take, for example, the algae problems in water supplies and in waste treatment. If methods are developed for the harvesting and use of algae, large percentages of dissolved materials can be removed from waste water before they are discharged into our water courses. Many materials which are now wasted and which require considerable expenditures for treatment can be converted into useful products.

Problems also exist in the disposal of materials removed in the renovation process. Some of these can be solved through biological research. Some materials can be used as fertilizers, or soil conditioners; some may be used to produce organisms, either plant or animal, which are directly used to serve in the food chain of other animals for which there is a demand.

Research in aquatic biology, Tarzwell concludes, holds much promise for the future development of water renovation technology. For too long, he says, the field of water pollution has been dominated by the thinking of one discipline. The abatement and control of water pollution is a large, complex, and extremely difficult problem. The solution is beyond the capability of any one discipline or group; it will require teamwork between the different disciplines as determined by research needs.

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Dennis.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT DENNIS, IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF

AMERICA

Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman, I am Robert Dennis, of the Izaak Walton League of America.

I appreciate that the written statement will be incorporated in the record. It is a short statement.

We had a more detailed presentation just about a year ago before this same committee and did not see any need to take up all that space again.

This afternoon, I would just like to make a few general comments about the standards section. The league has been somewhat nervous in the past that the Federal water quality standards might become, in effect, a license to pollute up to the full levels of whatever those standards might be. We have had this experience in the past with some of these State classification systems. But if it is the judgment of this committee to retain section 5 in the bill, we would offer a few comments about it.

First of all, we believe very strongly that Federal water quality standards should be set strictly in accord with the purpose of this legislation, to enhance the qualities of American waters. We do not think that these standards should be used to maintain the status quo, nor certainly not to retreat from that status quo.

We also therefore endorse, as strongly as we know how to endorse it, President Johnson's recommendation, included in his message on natural beauty, that this legislation should provide, and I quote:

Through the setting of effective water-quality standards combined with a swift and effective enforcement procedure a national program to prevent water pollution at its source.

This we think should be the main thrust of any standards set by the Federal Government under this legislation.

We believe that the practical effect of section 5 will be to encourage States to set their own water quality standards, and we would like to see some clear assurance that States standards will be in accord with the purpose of this legislation, to enhance quality of America's wa

ters.

We certainly would hope that State water quality standards would not be allowed to prevent initiation of Federal enforcement procedures where such procedures become necessary.

We believe that it should be made clear that water quality standards will be continually reviewed and upgraded, as our pollution abatement and control technology advances. We certainly would not want to have a standard set and then never have the opportunity to come back and revise that standard to improve the quality of the Nation's

streams.

In accordance with these comments, we vigorously urge that the legislative record on H.R. 3988 make it clear that the standards test shall be standards which will enhance water quality. In our opinion, the existing record concerning standards tend to be more explicit on how they should not be drawn than it is on what water quality standards ought to be. We believe that the legislative record on standards must be a positive record.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, Mr. Dennis.

(The statement by Robert T. Dennis follows :)

STATEMENT OF THE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA

I am Robert T. Dennis, assistant conservation director of the Izaak Walton League of America-a nationwide organization of citizens dedicated to the wise use and management of the Nation's natural resources.

Since its establishment in 1922 the Izaak Walton League has had a priority interest in clean waters. Indeed, the men who founded the league did so because

of their disgust with the wholesale destruction of prime recreational opportunities through contamination of America's waters, and because of their resolve to do something about this problem. In 1927, at the request of the National Recreation Commission appointed by President Coolidge, the league undertook the first national survey of water pollution. League public education programs contributed substantially to creating the favorable_climate under which past Federal pollution control laws have been enacted. League efforts in behalf of effective State pollution control action, and of construction of community sewage treatment plants, are numerous and continuing.

There

Mr. Chairman, our concern about water pollution is a major concern. fore, the opportunity to be here today is accepted with special appreciation. We come to express our strongest endorsement of H.R. 3988.

Within our total support for the bill, we wish to give particular emphasis to a few points.

We note that "the purpose of this act is to enhance the quality and value of our water resources and to establish a national policy for the prevention, control, and abatement of water pollution." The key word in this statement is "enhance." In using it, we believe the Congress makes it abundantly clear that it is not satisfied with the present quality of America's waters, and vows that their quality must be vastly improved by aggressive action at all levels of government.

We believe that section 2 of H.R. 3988 is an improvement over section 2 of the Senate version. While the League is less concerned about the administrative location of Federal water pollution control activities than with their effectiveness, we are on record that the total Federal program should be the responsibility of a single high-level agency.

Turning now to section 5: the Izaak Walton League has long feared that Federal water quality standards might become in effect licenses to pollute up to the full levels of whatever standards might be set. If it is the judgment of this committee to retain section 5, we would offer a few comments:

(1) Federal water-quality standards should be set strictly in accord with the purpose of this legislation to enhance the qualities of America's waters-not to maintain the status quo nor to retreat therefrom. We therefore endorse, as strongly and as positively as we know how, President Johnson's natural beauty message recommendation that this legislation should provide, "through the setting of effective water quality standards, combined with a swift and effective enforcement procedure a national program to prevent water pollution at its source rather than attempting to cure pollution after it occurs." [Emphasis ours.]

We regard section 5(e) as a necessary step toward this goal.

(2) The practical effect of this section very likely will be to encourage States to set their own water quality standards. We would wish some assurance that State standards will be in accord with the purpose of this legislation. It is imperative that State water quality standards not be allowed to prevent initiation of Federal enforcement procedures where necessary.

(3) It should be made clear that water quality standards will be continually reviewed and upgraded as our pollution abatement and control technology advances.

(4) In accordance with these comments, we vigorously urge that the legislative record on H.R. 3988 make it clear that the standards set shall be standards which will enhance water quality. In our opinion, the existing record concerning standards tends to be more explicit on how they should not be drawn up than it is on what water quality standards should be. We believe that the legislative record on standards must be a positive record.

Mr. Chairman, the fact that we have signed out a few specific sections of this bill in our comments does not lessen our endorsement of the remainder. We hope it may be speedily considered by the committee and the House of Representatives. We hope it is approved.

Thank you for the opportunity to present our views.

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Callison.

We are pleased to see you again, Mr. Callison. We appreciate your coming down from New York to be here for this testimony.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES CALLISON, ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY

Mr. CALLISON. Thank you, sir, it is a great privilege for me and a great pleasure to renew my acquaintance with this great committee. It has been one of my profound experiences as a professional conservationist to have appeared before this committee in connection with water pollution control legislation. I think each time this matter has been before the committee, I was present and I testified, sir, at the time the original Blatnik Act was passed in 1956.

I would like, in my part of this panel, to put some particular stress on the importance of the construction grants program. We believe that both S. 4, the measure passed by the Senate, and H.R. 3988, are far too modest in their proposed amendments to the section of the present law which authorizes construction grants for sewage treatment works.

When Public Law 660 was enacted, it seemed to make sense, if incentive grants were going to be instituted, to encourage sewage treatment, to tackle the smaller and easier problems first.

The big messes caused by the big cities in the big rivers seemed to complex and too costly to approach, so limitations were written into the law that favored smaller cities on smaller streams or on streams only partially polluted. I am not blaming anyone else for taking this perfectly human approach. We all have a tendency to turn to the smaller and easier jobs on our desks or in our shops when big complex and unpleasant tasks can be put aside.

I was around, as I mentioned, and involved when Public Law 660 was considered and passed. The provisions that have channeled most of the grant money to the smaller municipalities seemed to make sense to me at that time. However, we feel that we have now reached a point of maturity where we must face up to the big jobs. We must attack the problems confronting us in the major centers of population where the rivers are the most grossly polluted, but where by the same token the benefits will accrue to the most people and to the entire Nation when the pollution is abated and the water resources made usable again.

As you know, Governor Rockefeller, of New York State-and I speak also, Mr. Chairman, now as a resident of the State of New York and as a representative of an organization which has its national headquarters in New York City-the Governor of New York has proposed a State bond issue of $1 billion in order to provide State aid equal to 30 percent of project costs in a 6-year program designed to meet the backlog of accumulated needs and new needs in sewage treatment works throughout the State by 1971. The total 6-year program will cost, it is estimated, $1,709 million. The $1 billion bond issue is proposed not only to finance a 30-percent State contribution, but to prefinance, if necessary, a 30-percent Federal share for each project, regardless of size.

The Governor's proposal has been strongly endorsed by the press in the State of New York and is uniformly applauded and supported by conservation organizations in the entire State.

We have been pleased to see that New York's political leadership has faced up realistically at last to the magnitude of the problem. It probably shows, however, that the sewage treatment needs of the State

have been consistently underestimated or glossed over in the past. I suspect the same is true in most States and that the similar national projections made by the U.S. Public Health Service also have been far too low. At any rate, the amount that Congress can appropriate annually for the construction grants program is now limited to $100 million. Thirty percent of the estimated needs in New York State alone in a 6-year program to get the job done would require Federal grants averaging $85 million a year, if the law permitted Federal participation up to 30 percent regardless of project size.

On the basis of the present program, the present limitations in the law, there are now ready to go some 1,500 sewage treatment projects throughout the country, which constitutes a backlog which would take $185 million just to finance the Federal share. So you can see how we are falling behind at the present rate of authorization.

Any way you figure it, on the basis of actual national needs, the present annual ceiling of $100 million is far too low. We recommend the pending legislation be amended to raise the authorization for construction grants at least to $200 million at this time, and a ceiling of $300 million would be more realistic.

May I also suggest respectfully, Mr. Chairman, that this committee write into H.R. 3988 or S. 4, whichever measure is reported, a provision which would call New York State's hand and ask the State to show its hand.

The Rockefeller plan at this date is only a proposal. The State legislature must approve the proposed bond issue, and then it will have to be taken to the people to be adopted in a statewide referendum.

My suggestion and my recommendation is that you write into the Federal law a provision that the Federal grants may equal 30 percent of the cost of sewage treatment plant construction, regardless of project size, in any State where the State itself provides financial aid. equal to the Federal grants in a program designed to meet all sewage treatment needs in the State by the end of the 6-year period. Such a stipulation and offer in the Federal program would provide a powerful incentive to other States to adopt similar realistic, allout attacks on water pollution, and it would help immeasurably to bring the program under control, and, sir, I think it would make New York put up or shut up. This needs to be done.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my emphasis on a part of my statement, and I thank you for the privilege of placing my entire statement

in the record.

Again, I want to thank you for this opportunity to express our views. Mr. BLATNIK. I express the Chair's, and I speak for all the committee members, appreciation for your presentation.

You bring back many memories when you talk about the initial act back in 1956. I say very candidly with deep feeling for these gentlemen here, and more of your associates not here, some of whom have since gone, if it had not been for them, there would have been no initial Federal Water Pollution Control Act to begin with. It was a tremendous contribution to the national interest far beyond the responsibilities just of your own organizations, of great benefits to all of the citizens, all of the people of this great country of ours.

We thank you gentlemen very much.

Mr. CRAMER. May I ask the last witness a question?

« PreviousContinue »