difficult questions which it attempts to treat were dealt with in the statement on Government patent policy, which was promulgated by the President in his memorandum of October 10, 1963, for the guidance of executive departments and agencies, and the Senate provision is at cross purposes with that policy. We urge that this provision be deleted, and that the matter of patent rights be given separate careful consideration in connection with legislation already introduced for that purpose.

Concerning section 2 of the pending bills, we can understand the motive of those who would give the water pollution control program greater prominence in the Department of HEW so that its status will reflect the importance justly attached to it. We feel, however, that the Secretary would be better equipped to deal with the changing needs of the program if he were allowed to retain flexibility in the organization of his Department, rather than have it fixed by statute. In previous testimony before your committee and before the Jones subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Operations, we have referred to the unfortunate tendency of the enforcement conferences held pursuant to section 8 of the act to become highly formalized hearings, or even adversary proceedings in which State and Federal authorities appear as antagonists. In framing the Clean Air Act in 1963, language was included to require a consultation prior to the conference to minimize such antagonism. If this proceeding is regarded as lengthening unduly the enforcement process, we would suggest that Congress at least require a return to its original intent concerning the conference by the provision detailed in part E of the exhibit.

We believe that the adoption of this clarification would do much to foster cooperative participation, which should be earnestly sought in the first stage of the enforcement proceeding.

We come then, finally, to those provisions of these bills which we support. There appears to be real need for an additional Assistant Secretary in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to shoulder the increasing burdens involved in water quality control matters. We favor research for alternate methods of coping with the problem of storm overflows from combined storm and sanitary sewers, since estimates are that $30 billion or more might be required for their complete separation. We are also sympathetic to the raising of the limits on grants for construction, and to the encouragement of metropolitan or regional planning.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to present these views to the committee. We shall be pleased to answer your questions or to expand on our suggestions, either now or at some later time.

Mr. BLATNIK. General, I am sorry I missed the first part of your testimony. I skimmed through parts of it and shall read it with special interest.

I want to say what I have heard now on the subpena power is very sound. It is a very pertinent suggestion you make: very much so on your patent provision. You also have a lot of merit in your suggestion that the Water Pollution Control Administration be done by administrative authority rather than by statute.

Have you any comments on the nature of the conference procedure that you thought was a little too formalized in which the Federal representatives appeared more as adversaries? Because it was the intent certainly of the Chair, who was the author of the bill, that the conference be the procedure that you indicated.

Would you give us any instances or illustrations in which you have been involved or others you know of that have been involved?

General DECKER. There are none in which I have been personally involved, but there are some in which some of our member companies have been concerned.

I think the gentlemen with me have had personal experience in this field. I know of some by heresay, but I would rather they tell you from their own personal knowledge. I believe it will be more meaningful.

Mr. BLATNIK. Are you already identified.
Mr. CONNER. Yes.

General DECKER. Yes. This is Mr. Conner.

Mr. CONNER. Mr. Chairman, the most recent example I think is the conference on the Mahoning River, which just took place the early part of this week. It is our understanding that this was called under circumstances where the interstate commission, the Ohio River Sanitation Commission, and the State authorities involved were not notified in advance of the call. It was not done at their request, but rather on the motion of the Secretary. There was dissension between those bodies and the Secretary's people concerning the submission of data which these States already had in their files, and which they had an obligation of confidentiality by statute to observe.

All in all, it was far from a harmonious, informal conference of the type I am sure your committees had in mind when you first passed the statute. This, I am sorry to say, is not the exception but rather is becoming rather typical, in our experience at least, in recent years, in the administration of the conference section.

If you were able to take the material on page 5 of our exhibit, which spells out that the conference shall be informal and the conferees shall cooperate in framing the conclusions of the conference, and so on, we thing this kind of a specific direction from the Congress to renew your original intent would be a very constructive move. Mr. BLATNIK. I am very glad you called that to our attention. Any other questions?

General, we thank you and your associates. We thank you very much.

General DECKER. Thank you, sir, for the privilege.

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. James F. Wright, executive director, Delaware River Basin Commission.

Mr. Wright, we express our appreciation for your appearance and great admiration for your patience for waiting so long for your turn to come up.

STATEMENT OF JAMES F. WRIGHT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION

Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BLATNIK. I am sorry but due to circumstances beyond our control yesterday, it has resulted in this pileup for today.

Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I would like to express the appreciation of the Commission for this opportunity to present our views on S. 4 and companion legislation, H.R. 3988.

The objectives of this Commission are in harmony with those the President set forth in his February 8 message to Congress on the subject of water pollution. We feel, indeed, that our statutory mandate contained in the Federal-interstate compact adopted September 27, 1961, anticipated for our basin the national concern now expressed in the subject legislation, and directed us to undertake therein the work now recognized as necessary for the Nation. Because of this, we feel it necessary to call to your attention a small but quite important reservation, and request an amendment that would eliminate a problem. The subject of our reservation is the provision contained in section 5 of the bill that would empower the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to set and enforce standards to control and abate pollution in interstate waters, including, of course, the Delaware River Basin.

Specifically, the Commission respectfully proposes that the legislation be amended so as to conform to the joint resolution of Congress approved September 27, 1961. By that joint resolution Congress directed that certain Federal interests in the water resources of the Delaware, including pollution control, be expressed through a commission especially created for that purpose. We believe that the following language added to the end of section 5 (b) (6)—on page 9, line 4 of Senate 4-will satisfactorily conform it to the joint resolution of 1961. I quote:

or (c) authorize the Secretary to promulgate or enforce standards without regard to the requirements of the joint resolution approved September 27, 1961 (75 Stat. 688) relating to the Delaware River Basin Compact.

The Commission, which is the multipurpose agency established under the Federal-Interstate Delaware River Basin Compact, would like to make five points in support of its request:

(1) The Commission already has full authority to set and enforce interstate stream standards in our basin to accomplish the same purposes as those envisioned in the proposed new Water Quality Act of 1965. Article 5 of the compact authorizes the Commission to make investigations and surveys, construct, operate and maintain projects to control pollution and abate or dilute existing pollution; authorizes classification and the setting of standards of the waters of the basin by the Commission; authorizes the Commission to require such treatment of sewage, industrial, or other waste as may be necessary to protect the public health or preserve the waters of the basin for uses in accordance with the comprehensive plan.

The Commission already has exercised its standard-setting powers by including, on an interim basis, in its comprehensive plan the zone classifications on the main stream which were formulated by the former Interstate Commission on the Delaware River Basin. They were included to provide a water quality framework pending further development. The Commission will consider on February 24 a proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan requiring minimum primary treatment of sewage throughout the basin, thus initiating regional controls over tributaries as well, and we have also brought the basin's ground waters under Commission protection by adding them to

the comprehensive plan and requiring standards for their protection. (2) Establishment and enforcement of water quality standards should be the job of the same agency having responsibility for planning all aspects of pollution control and water quality management throughout the basin. The various parts of the job should not be "administratively scattered" among different agencies.

In elaboration of this point, a variety of techniques for dealing with the pollution problem are being studied as the Commission moves to shape a water quality management program for the whole Delaware. Timed discharges, flow augmentation, reaeration, subsurface and offsite disposal, and effluent charges are examples that could be used in various combinations. Water quality management conducted as a regional enterprise should not be limited to any single solution, but invites the use of a wide array of alternatives. Setting and enforcing water quality standards is a central focus of the whole effort and should be the responsibility of the same regional agency concerned with all aspects of the problem.

(3) To succeed in establishing and maintaining a comprehensive planning, development and management program for the four-State Delaware Basin, the Commission needs freedom to integrate its water quality activities with its work on other resource purposes, such as water supply, flood control, recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement.

In House Report 310 of the 1st session of the 87th Congress on the then-proposed Delaware Basin Compact legislation, the House Judiciary Committee said:

*** There is a vital need to coordinate the various activities of the many departments of the State and Federal levels if all of the various alternative demands upon the one river are to be reconciled, planned efficiently, and operated without conflict ***. A single basin agency is the obvious answer since the basin area is universally recognized as the proper unit for water resources administration.

(4) The interest and jurisdiction of the Federal Government with regard to water pollution control in the Delaware Basin already have been firmly established by the Congress through enactment of the Federal-Interstate Delaware River Basin Compact.

I might add, in amending or adding to the comprehensive plan, affirmative action by the Federal member makes it binding on all Federal agencies and such plan is the controlling frame of reference for development of all water resource projects, public and private. (5) The effectiveness of the Commission to carry out its pollution control program would be handicapped by the creation of concurrent and duplicatory Federal standard-setting authority.

On this last point, I submit that the pendency of intervention by another Federal agency puts the authority and effectiveness of Commission standard-setting in an ambiguous position. We are deeply concerned that it could foster delays in complying with Commission proposals and encourage polluters to play both ends against the middle. This would vitiate the intent of a most important portion of our compact.

For the reasons that I have above stated, we feel that the amendment we seek will avoid the potentially contradictory situation that might arise in having one Federal agency vested with the power to upset a judgment developed by another agency in which a Federal

commissioner participates. We feel that the amendment will insure consistency with the joint resolution of Congress of September 27, 1961, and will promote effective Federal-State cooperation in full and willing partnership.

Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, Mr. Wright.

Any questions?

Thank you, sir.

Mr. David L. Gallagher, chairman, Air and Water Resources Subcommittee, National Association of Manufacturers.

STATEMENT OF DAVID L. GALLAGHER, CHAIRMAN, AIR AND WATER RESOURCES, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS; ACCOMPANIED BY DANIEL W. CANNON

Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity of appearing here and for your patience on a long day.

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Gallagher, we thank you for appearing and for your patience in bearing with us in order that you may present your testimony on this long day.

Mr. GALLAGHER. Thank you.

If I may have your permission, I would like to file my complete testimony.

Mr. BLATNIK. We appreciate that and, without objection, it is so ordered.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Gallagher follows:)

TESTIMONY OF DAVID L. GALLAGHER, CHAIRMAN, AIR AND WATER RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE, CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS

My name is David L. Gallagher. I am chairman of the Air and Water Resources Subcommittee of the Conservation and Management of Natural Resources Committee of the National Association of Manufacturers, a voluntary association of business enterpises producing approximately 75 percent of the Nation's industrial output.

My background includes active roles in the Water Pollution Control Federation, the American Water Works Association, and the Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Association. I am actively engaged in the water supply and water pollution control field as marketing manager-public works, Worthington Corp., Harrison, N.J.

THE "WATER IN INDUSTRY" REPORT

Water pollution control matters are handled within the National Association of Manufacturers by our conservation and management of natural resources committee and its air and water resources subcommittee, of which I am chairman. A major project of the conservation committee has been a national survey and report on industrial water use. The report, entitled "Water in Industry," was published on February 4, 1965. It reveals that industry has invested more than $1 billion in water pollution control equipment and is planning to invest much more. It also reveals that industry is spending more than $100 million each year to operate such equipment. In addition, it brings out the fact that industry spends very substantial amounts in process designs and installations which reduce pollution loads greatly but do not get counted as water pollution control expenditures. We believe that this report demonstrates conclusively the sincere interest of industry in minimizing water pollution. The cost of carrying out the survey, which was sponsored by the National Association of Manufacturers and the Chamber of Commerce of the United States in cooperation with the National Technical Task Committee on Industrial Wastes and carried out by more than 20 industry trade associations, is estimated as being in excess of $500,000.