The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10: 10 a.m., in room 1302, We meet in public session for the consideration of bills pertaining to the control of water pollution amending the Federal Water Pollu- The hearings will be on H.R. 3988, by Mr. Blatnik, of Minnesota; the companion bill, H.R. 4627, by Mr. Fallon, chairman of the Public The Chair will ask and the staff will see that the reporter has and at this point will insert a listing of the several related bills, and the (The list of bills follows:) WATER POLLUTION CONTROL LEGISLATION, JANUARY 4 THROUGH FEBRUARY 24, 1965 Federal installations, Air and Water Pollution Control: H.R. 982, Mr. Dingell. Federal installations-San Luis Valley, Calif., interceptor (identical to S. 649 committee amendment): H.R. 31, Mr. Baldwin H.R. 32, Mr. Edwards of H.R. 33, Mr. Leggett H.R. 36, Mr. Don H. Clausen H.R. 5144, Mr. Miller Mine sealing-Acid Mine Drainage: H.R. 896, Mr. Saylor. H.R. 5300, Mr. Johnson of California H.R. 5301, Mr. McFall H.R. 5371, Mr. Cohelan H.R. 5417, Mr. Moss Mr. BLATNIK. It was just a year ago today, February 18, that this committee, the full committee, was in its 11th day of a series of 12 days of hearings on similar water pollution control legislation. The bill had been passed at that time in the Senate by an overwhelming vote; it received the approval of the full committee, and then got bogged down in the hectic closing days of the long session last year. The hearings, which are available, amount to over 900 pages. The Chair hopes that with the many, many requests of witnesses to be heard, bona fide requests, that we boil down the testimony as much as possible to those aspects or features that are of particular concern, either in favor or opposed or which you feel ought to be modified some way or another. The whole general story of the need for water pollution control, the degree and the character and the nature of the problem, the accomplishment or the status of programs to date, are asked to be submitted in writing, and included of course in the report, so that we do not re-cover testimony now already well known to the committee and presently available in a formal document of this committee. Mr. BLATNIK. I have a brief statement I will ask to be inserted at this point. (The statement follows:) OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN A. BLATNIK The Committee on Public Works will come to order. We meet this morning to open hearings on H.R. 3988, S. 4, and related bills to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. We take up our consideration of these bills at a time of widening interest in the need to stop the outpouring of pollution into our streams and lakes, to save clean waters from destruction, and to raise the quality of waters already profaned. President Johnson, in his state of the Union message, described the threefold task before the Nation: A growing economy, opportunity for all, and the enrichment of the life of all Americans. It was in discussing the third goal that he spoke of the beauty of America that "has sustained our spirit and enlarged our vision." To protect this heritage he proposed, among other actions, that legal power be granted to prevent pollution before it happens, that we step up our effort to control harmful wastes, giving first priority to the cleanup of our most contaminated rivers, that we increase research to learn more about control of pollution. The President enlarged on that theme in his message on natural beauty, which proclaimed the right of our people to live in decent surroundings. He spoke of the manifestations of pollution, the price we pay for it. He stated the stark fact that every major river system in the country is now pol luted. He announced that the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare would undertake an intensive program to clean up the Nation's most polluted rivers. He expressed confidence that with the cooperation of States and cities, using the tools of regulation, grant, and incentives, we can bring the most serious river pollution under control. He recommended that new legislation be enacted to curb pollution. It has been nearly 9 years since the Congress, with the enactment of Public Law 660, 84th Congress, established the first permanent national program for a comprehensive attack on water pollution. The Federal role was fixed as one of support for the activities of the States, interstate agencies, and localities. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act authorized financial assistance for construction of municipal waste-treatment works, comprehensive river basin programs for water pollution control, research, and enforcement. It provided, too, for technical assistance, the encouragement of interstate compacts and uniform State laws, grants for State programs, the appointment of a Federal Water Pollution Control Advisory Board, and a cooperative program for the control of pollution from Federal installations. With the enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1961, Public Law 87-88, the program was strengthened in several important respects. The appropriations authorization for waste-treatment works construction grants was increased, joint projects to serve two or more communities were encouraged, the dollar ceiling for a single project was raised from $250,000 to $600,000, and was set for a joint project at $2.4 million. The research function was strengthened, the appropriations authorization for State program grants increased, the principle of low-flow augmentation for water quality control was established in law, the administration of the program was vested in the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (rather than the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service), and the enforcement authority was extended to navigable as well as interstate waters. The impact of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act has been impressive. It has taken us in less than 9 years from a situation in which untrammeled pollution threatened to foul the Nation's waterways beyond hope of restoration, to a point where we are holding our own. But that is not enough. The familiar factors of population growth, urbanization, technological development, a higher standard of living are producing pollution at a fantastic rate. will take a much greater effort at all levels of government, and on the part of industry, agriculture, conservationists, civic groups and other voluntary organizations, and individual citizens to come to grips with the monumental problem of water pollution. It It was my privilege to introduce and to manage in the House of Representatives both the 1956 and the 1961 water pollution control legislation. The bill which I have introduced in this session, H.R. 3988, would implement recommendations of President Johnson for a stepped-up attack on pollution. It is similar to S. 4, introduced in the other body by Senator Muskie for himself and 31 other Senators, and capably managed by the Senator from Maine to passage in the other House on January 28 by a vote of 68 to 8. The distinguished chairman of this committee, the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Fallon, has introduced a bill identical to mine, H.R. 4627, and other Members are sponsoring identical or similar bills. There have also been introduced and referred to the Committee on Public Works bills dealing with particular aspects of the total pollution problem. I am certain that the testimony given in these hearings and the forthcoming committee deliberations in executive session will result in our report to the House of Representatives of a strong bill to press the fight for clean water. H.R. 3988, the Water Quality Act of 1965, does not hold the key to the total problem of water pollution. It does hold the means for a more effective national program for the prevention, control, and abatement of pollution. I will make brief mention of some of its provisions. First, the bill would add to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act a positive statement of the act's purpose 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. Second, it would give the national water pollution control program an organizational placement commensurate with its importance through the creation within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, elevating the program from its present status as a division within a bureau within the Public Health Service. Third, the bill would authorize a 4-year program of research and development on new and improved methods to cope with the overflow from combined storm and sanitary sewers, a complex pollution problem which has plagued particularly the older cities of the United States. Fourth, H.R. 3988 would give more meaningful financial assistance to populous areas with critical unmet pollution problems by increasing the dollar ceilings for waste treatment works construction from $600,000 to $2 million for a single project, and from $2.4 to $6 million for a joint project, serving two or more communities, with the 30 percent of project cost limitation in the present law not affected. Fifth, the bill would authorize the Secretary, calling on the judgments of the appropriate Federal, State, interstate, and local officials, of industry, and other affected interests, to fix water quality standards for interstate waters, to protect the public health and welfare and to raise the quality of these waters for public water supplies, fish and wildlife propagation, recreation, agriculture, industry, and other legitimate uses. He would promulgate standards only in the absence of satisfactory State or interstate standards for the waters involved. Sixth, H.R. 3988 would undergird the enforcement authority with subpena. power by authorizing the Secretary to administer oaths and to compel the presence and testimony of witnesses and the production of any evidence that relates to any matter under investigation pursuant to the abatement section of the act. It is not expected that the power would be used except in rare instances. Indeed it may never be needed. But it would assure that investigations would not be hampered by a failure of cooperation on the part of any persons concerned. Clean water is a resource beyond price. The usual list of "legitimate uses" of water includes public water supplies, fish and wildlife propagation, recreation, agriculture, and industry, with navigation and power often given separate mention. We could lengthen the list with specific reference to drinking water and other domestic purposes, to the various delightful water-oriented sports, and to the intangible worth to a community-yes, to the needs of the individual spirit— of the sight of a shimmering lake or stream. Pollution has not spared the Great Lakes, the largest fresh water source on earth. The threat of pollution hangs over the cool, clean waters of the last large unspoiled river near a major population center in the Middle West. Now is the time to take another stride forward in water pollution control legislation. The needs of 1965 are heavy. The far greater needs of the year 2000 demand that we act today to save the waters of America. The CHAIRMAN. I would like to ask unanimous consent that the bill, H.R. 3988, just be referred to in the report as identical to the one that is being considered, to save the cost of the printing. Mr. BLATNIK. Without objection, it is so ordered. We are very pleased and honored to have with us a gentleman who was a former member of this body, an able member, who is distinguishing himself in the field of conservation and resource use, and is eminently qualified in the field of water resources, the Honorable Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior. Mr. Secretary, welcome this morning. We look forward with great interest to your presentation in these very important hearings. STATEMENT OF HON. STEWART L. UDALL, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR Secretary UDALL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. If I may, I have a prepared statement that is available and if this could appear in the record, then I could summarize the highlights. I would like to set an example of brevity for the committee, if I could, this morning. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Your prepared statement will be placed in the record at this point. (The statement follows:) |