water pollution control and abatement, part VII, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee. It pretty well gives the feelings of our industry and it saves a lot of time. If you want it for reference, we have it available.

Mr. BLATNIK. We have it and it is a very excellent piece of testimony.

Mr. RICHARDS. I would like to leave my pollution samples with you. I have no further use for them.

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Richards, could you make a comment as to what parts, what sections or aspects of the proposed legislation now before this committee for consideration would be of help to the State of Alabama or to a fishing industry such as yours, throughout the country? Mr. RICHARDS. Well, everything that I read in the bill would be a step forward, a step better for-I like the bill. I wish it were a lot stronger.

I think we have got to realize that the general public has got to pay this bill to clean it up anyway. We might as well figure out how much it is going to be and get busy on it. Because I am quite sure the industrial people, being business people, are not going to clean it up. We have got to clean it up for them or help them do it, or make it attractive to them.

But the part on the shellfish that concerns me, to give you a practical example, if you had some interstate concern, say an oyster concern that could not ship his oysters because they were polluted, the health officer would not OK it, and that caused him to lose money, he would have a devil of a time proving that any industrial people had anything to do with it, because industrial pollution kills an oyster, it does not pollute it. It either destroys what it eats and it starves to death, or the chemicals are well, the oyster will not pump a chemical, it will just close up and die. So he will never get harvested anyway.

So about the only thing this would amount to, some little packinghouse or chicken plant, or somebody that is dumping their effiuent in the bay, would be penalized for the oysterman's problems and the industrialist would come out like a rose; he would not even be touched.

They can pretty well prove that as far as coliform and bacteria are concerned, they are not affected. That is the reason they are not objecting to that part of it. They can always get out of that. And they will throw that onto the municipalities and to the little small business people.

I had a personal example of that with my plant. We lost the processing. I have a chicken processor that wanted to come in. The deal was all made, everything but the effluent. The only effluent would be little blood, bloody water, that would go. Everything else is saved and it goes into the feed and is ground up. It would be a new industry for me, a good deal for me. Very happy situation.

But the water improvement commission said we would have to tie into the city sewer line.

I am located on the Alabama State docks. To do this, the engineers tell us it would cost $225,000 for me to put sewerage-and I am within 100 yards of the river.

So that killed my business. I did not get the chicken plant. It has got to locate somewhere else.

But these industrialists are there putting the pollutant in by the billions of gallons, and I cannot put a little protein in the water. Chicken blood, all it is is protein--of course, it would affect the coli count.

But that is a good example. It seems like all laws nowadays are compromises of big business, big government, big labor, and everything, and the little businessman is the victim of the compromise.

So I would like to see that part of the law, a little something done to it to protect the small businessman. I would hate to see that a chicken plant was closed down because the man could not ship the oysters when the city of Mobile is putting 20 million gallons of sewage a day into the river.

So those kinds of things you have to be careful of. But generally the law is a step forward and I would like to see it passed.

Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, Mr. Richards. Thank you very much. The hearings are adjourned and the committee

Mr. TUTEN. Mr. Chairman, before you adjourn, I do not want to ask any questions, but I want to make a comment. This has been an outstanding witness.

Mr. BLATNIK. He certainly has.

Mr. TUTEN. He is amusing, informative, and he is convincing, and then he makes me feel right at home. He talks about like me.

[Laughter.]

If I would like to be convinced to vote for the bill, he has finished the job.

Since you are sponsoring, however, I wondered if you had heard him before and you are responsible for getting him up here?

Mr. BLATNIK. No, this is the first time I have heard him, but his reputation has gone ahead. I know he testified before the Jones committee.

This man knows his business, knows what he has done, as you have seen and heard for yourselves. He talks very earnestly and factually, and yet in a very fair way. There is no animosity, no incriminationmost fair and most earnest presentation, most comprehensive presentation.

Mr. TUTEN. Living in that part of the country, he has presented a real situation. That is the kind of situation that exists down there, no question about it.

Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, Mr. Richards. Good luck to you.

(Whereupon, at 7 p.m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m.. Tuesday, February 23, 1965.)

WATER POLLUTION CONTROL HEARINGS ON WATER

QUALITY ACT OF 1965

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1965

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,
Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10:15 a.m., in room 1302, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John A. Blatnik presiding.

Mr. BLATNIK. The House Public Works Committee will please come to order.

We meet in continuing the third and final day of public hearings on legislation on S. 4 and H.R. 3988, and related and similar legislation, proposing amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

We are very privileged and certainly honored to have with us one of the most distinguished Governors of the United States. Governor Rockefeller, we welcome you here to present a report of special interest to this committee regarding legislation, needs, and proposed programs to meet the ever-increasing critical problem of adequate supply of water both in quality and quantity.

Governor, I notice you have a prepared statement. Will you please proceed. We will be glad to have you read, interpolate, or summarize verbally, as you see fit.

STATEMENT OF HON. NELSON A. ROCKEFELLER, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. HOLLIS S. INGRAHAM, COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Governor ROCKEFELLER. Thank you very much, indeed, Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, I appreciate greatly the opportunity and the privilege of appearing before this committee. For a long time I have had great respect and admiration for your chairman and the members of the committee and what you have have done in facing up to what is one of the most serious long-range problems which I think we have as a people in this great country. Not only has your committee been foresighted, but the administration is now making a major issue of this whole question of pollution, and this is very heartening to all of us who share with you this concern as to one of our great God-given natural resources-water and its preservation.

I have had the opportunity of talking with your chairman, talking with the President, talking with Mr. Celebrezze, people from In

223

terior and other departments about the program here and its application to, specifically, our problems in New York State and the program which we have proposed this year for State action, which is intimately related with the Federal action in this field.

We share your objectives and your concern, and are trying to find a way of gearing our activities to yours in order to maximize the speed with which we can correct the existing situation.

Briefly, and in summary, the situation in New York, the problem we face is that nearly two-thirds of all New Yorkers live in areas affected by pollution-pollution that does not respect towns, city, village, county, or State boundaries. Nearly 1,200 communities and 760 industrial sources feed this pollution with poorly treated or untreated waste, even with raw sewage.

To meet the backlog of accumulated needs and new needs through 1970 will cost $1,709 million for local sewage treatment plants and interceptors. Up to now local communities have been expected to pay by far the bulk of the cost; but local governments, faced with other heavy responsibilities as well, cannot be counted on to do this job by themselves.

Elimination of industrial pollution will involve another $67 million.

We have good laws in New York relating to effective water pollution control, with adequate standards which are continuously updated and approved. New pollution is effectively prohibited, but our pollution control laws, be they State or Federal, cannot be fully effective until we have the money to overcome the huge backlog of needs.

I would like to speak first, Mr. Chairman, if I may, briefly on the Federal limitations under the existing Federal law, which is the subject of discussion before your committee, and how they affect us in the State of New York.

If I can have chart 3, please.

The $600,000 limitation per individual project and the $2,400,000 limitation on a joint operation affects New York very seriously, for these reasons.

I picked here a half a dozen projects in the larger counties and cities, eliminating New York City first, to show the size of the plants and the cost of the plants which are part of this total program of $1,700 million.

The sewer in District No. 3 in Nassau County would cost $52 million.

The Utica area is $7,500,000; Troy, N.Y., $9,300,000; Rockland Sewer District, $11,800,000; Westchester County Croton Watershed, $29 million; Suffolk County Sewer District No. 1, $45 million.

Therefore it is very clearly visible that these plants, which are essential to our communities, will only share in a very small percentage through the present Federal program with the existing limitations. I am basing the whole discussion on the basis of onethird Federal cost.

New York City and its largest plant, or one of its largest plants, spent $87,590,000. It received from the Federal Government $250,000 as its share; in other words, three-tenths of 1 percent of the cost of that plant.