I pray that we do not let our desire to reach the moon blind us from the fact that we are losing our fight to save America's waters. The cost of pollution prevention may be high, but the price of failure would be disastrous.

Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, Mr. Spisiak. You certainly make a very forceful case on the need for more adequate pollution control pro

grams.

Would you have any comment to make or any recommendation on specific legislation before the committee at this time?

Mr. SPISIAK. I do believe that the matter in reference to the liquid detergents, or the so-called hard detergents, with the ABS factor, is one that could be done. The mere consideration

Mr. BLATNIK. This committee is familiar with the problem. Mr. SPISIAK. I know that. But the mere consideration by this committee I do remember that it was defeated, the Towers amendment, I believe, contained it, and it was defeated in prior legislation. I urge respect fully it be included in future consideration, because I do feel that in itself—the reason I mention that is I do an awful lot of speaking before service groups and women's groups, and they all ask me on a private level-the individual people in the State of New York-"What can we do as individuals?"

One of the things that it has been possible to tell them is if they would consider their own individual cases, many of them being served by septic tanks, this at at least something a woman can do. She can go to a store and buy a biodegradable type of liquid detergent, and she feels, at least in her own instance, she is cutting down on the contamination of her ground water supply for the future.

I believe that basically the statement stands for itself, and I do believe that you certainly must feel that I know what I am talking about, on the lack of enforcement in the State of New York. I regret I cannot toss any more bouquets, but I do not think our Governor or our State needs them. They have had all they need. I think a little consideration of our failure is more important at this time. Mr. BLATNIK. Any questions?

Mr. McCarthy.

Mr. MCCARTHY. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to compliment Mr. Spisiak, who resides in the district I represent. Mr. Spisiak has really been a pioneer in this. For years, he has been fighting this fight. And, as you can see, he is very knowledgeable on this subject, and all of its ramifications. I certainly appreciate him taking the time, at his own expense, to come here to present his testimony, which I think was very illuminating.

I think it is rather ironic that the Governor of our State, where lack of enforcement has been a tragedy-as you have cited by the dearth of the number of cases and by the fact that there is only one mobile unit to test the water-should be making a great display about his interest in combating pollution. If anything, New York State should be hanging its head in shame. So I certainly thank Mr. Spisiak for his testimony.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Cramer.

Mr. CRAMER. The last thing I want to do is get into an argument with regard to New York's politics. We have enough problems where I come from.

But I gather your criticism of the present Governor, having had his head in the sand, as you say, for a while, would apply equally if not more adequately to his predecessors, who apparently never did get their heads out of the sand?

Mr. SPISIAK. I would hate, myself, to have discussion deteriorate to personalities. I would have been the last person to have brought the Governor into the situation, except for the fact that I feel very strongly that any public official who allows his personal life to dissuade him or to take any of his time away from our State, which he is sworn to serve, is no longer to be considered as free time. I believe his personal life is his own; on the other hand, I do feel that in the last 6 years that we have had the honor of having him, we have not had all of the help that we could have had from him in regard to water pollution. This is the only point that I make.

I am not happy with what has happened, and this is not any crash program that is being proposed at the present time.

We were in a crash program state many years before he came into office. So, rightfully, as we say, we cannot criticize him for what he inherited. But the lack of any kind of action in the past years, as I go back here, the past 12 years, there has been none in the past 12 years to talk of and what there has been has been a suppression of information. We really do not know in the State of New York.

Mr. CRAMER. His predecessors had their heads in the sand permanently and never did get them out, if you want to use that as a comparative statement.

Mr. SPISIAK. That is your statement.

Mr. CRAMER. I asked you the question initially. I would be very interested in knowing, because you made some interesting rather broad statements as to, you think that this committee and the Congress should pass strong penalties, and we should strengthen the enforcement sections, and so forth, even beyond the bills under consideration. What I would like to know is what do you have to recommend to the committee specifically on those points?

Mr. SPISIAK. Thank you. I think that I should have mentioned, a little bit more specifically, the violation of the treaty between Canada and the United States. It displeases me a great deal. I have a lot of Canadian friends. I live very close to the Canadian border. I see daily, or this occurs daily and certainly is very apparent, violations of the treaty that exists between Canada and the United States. We are discharging, along the lakeshore of Lake Erie and the Niagara River, daily tons, tons of materials which find their way through the actions of the giant mixmaster, which is Niagara Falls, to such a point that below Niagara Falls, the waters that were on the American side are no longer on the American side; they revert to the Canadian side. Their beaches are contaminated, their waterfront area is destroyed, desecrated by pollution originating in the Buffalo area on the American shores.

Mr. CRAMER. I understand these problems exist. My question is, What recommendation do you have that would amend this bill before us or existing law that would provide penalties? What penalties would you recommend, and how would this be carried out?

Mr. SPISIAK. I would hesitate to give you recommendations as to what type of penalties. I have not had any interest in penalties. I do not think that we need penalties.

We do need, however, to determine what is going on and when it is going on. The determination should be made by the courts, not by people such as myself.

Mr. CRAMER. I was quoting your testimony. You said heavy penalties should be imposed. I would be interested in knowing what penalties you have in mind.

Mr. SPISIAK. Right now a $10 penalty would be higher than anything we have had in 20 years in our State, so that would be a heavy penalty, heavier 10 times than anything we have had.

Mr. CRAMER. Of course, we have court provisions in the present law that requires the polluting parties that make the pollution subject to contempt of court.

Mr. SPISIAK. I realize that.

Mr. CRAMER. That is a pretty heavy penalty. If you have ideas of heavier penalties, I would like to know what they are.

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. McEwEN. Thank you, Mr. Cramer.

You made a very broad allegation that the State of New York had done nothing in the abatement of pollution problem. It is not my purpose to argue the question, but, Mr. Chairman, I believe I would be remiss in not making at least two or three observations.

I am mindful that in my own district the Power Authority of the State of New York, without taxpayers' money, but financed solely through the investments of prudent investors who bought their bonds in connection with the development of power on the St. Lawrence River, and at their own cost, installed sewage treatment plants in two communities where they felt their work was having some effect on the flow and natural character of the river. And the State of New York, Mr. Spisiak, in the largest State institution bordering that river, a State hospital in my community of some 2,000 beds, the State there led the communities in putting in a sewage treatment plant for that hospital. I would like to think that through this leadership the remaining substantial community on the American side is in the process of completing interceptor sewers and sewage treatment plants. I think the record will show we have made progress, granted not enough.

I was a little surprised to hear you say nothing in the State of New York has been done as a matter of pollution abatement.

Mr. SPISIAK. I do not think we can take any pride in the fact, when we put up buildings, we put up sewage disposal systems to handle the sewage we provide. This is what we should be expected to do.

I state here in the record there has been no marked improvement in past pollution. There has been no attempt to determine whether or not we have been living up to the law.

To say that New York State is putting up buildings or people in the State are putting up buildings without adequate provision for sewage is not any statement that I would make.

I do realize new construction is being adequately served by sewage disposal systems of their own making, or they would not build them. But I do not think this is any sewage abatement; I think this is merely what we would expect of anyone that is providing pollution, to take care of what they are creating.

Mr. McEwEN. I am citing an institution that has existed for a long time. I am referring specifically to St. Lawrence State Hospital, a 2,000-bed hospital, which has been there for some 50 years. The State came in and put in a sewage treatment plant, which led the other communities of the district.

We have heard repeated references in this hearing today and prior hearings before this committee, to the fact that the Federal Government has failed in many, many areas, on airbases and other Federal installations, hospitals, prisons, et cetera, to provide adequate sewage treatment facilities.

The gentleman from California gave an illustration of pollution of the San Francisco Bay, caused in many instances by Federal installations.

I think it should be clear on this record, Mr. Spisiak, at least in the State of New York, the State in its own institutions has taken great strides in the treatment of sewage from those State institutions. Mr. SPISIAK. I think it is good to mention the Governor incorporated as one of the seven points in his platform the point he is asking for authority to provide adequate sewage on any construction of State buildings, prisons, and so forth. Again, I say I do not think it is necessary to secure legislation for that. He has had the power, in fact the mandate in the law, the Water Pollution Mandate Act of 1949 provides that there shall be no construction in the State of New York and any plan submitted must adequately provide for the treatment of any sewage which will be disposed of, or the effluence, as the result of the occupants of the State structure.

(At this point, Mr. Roberts assumed the chair.)

Mr. McEwEN. Do you know of any comparable provision of Federal law of Federal installations?

Mr. SPISIAK. No, I do not.

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you.

Mr. CRAMER. What is your business, Mr. Spisiak?

Mr. SPISIAK. I am in the jewelry and real estate business.

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, sir.

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you, sir.

The next witness is Mr. Harold Wilm, commissioner of New York State Department of Conservation and chairman of the Water Resources Commission, New York State.

Mr. Wilm.

STATEMENT OF HAROLD WILM, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK, STATE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, AND CHAIRMAN, WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION, NEW YORK STATE

Mr. WILM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Harold G. Wilm. I am commissioner of the New York State Department of Conservation and chairman of the New York State Water Resources Commission.

I might ad lib at this point just a little bit to remark that New York State seems to have had quite a place in your day today and we appreciate it very much. There have been quite a variety of opinions expressed. I would like to remark that at last you are going to have

one speak for a national organization, not just New York State, even though I come from there.

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. Wilm.

Would you care to make your statement a formal statement and then comment on the other points?

Mr. WILM. Yes.

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you.

Without objection, the statement will be made a part of the record. Mr. WILM. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

Mr. WILM. What I really meant to say was I am representing a national organization, the Interstate Conference on Water Problems. Mr. ROBERTS. I understand.

Mr. WILM. I see. Thank you.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, is he through?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Wilm, do you wish to comment on your statement?

Mr. WILM. Oh, yes. I beg your pardon. I misunderstood. Mr. ROBERTS. We will file your prepared statement, but you may stress informally whatever points you may wish to.

Mr. WILM. As you doubtless know, the Interstate Conference on Water Problems is a national organization of State officials concerned with all phases of water sources, of which water pollution is one. We have been quite active and helpful, we hope, in Federal legislation, one outstanding case of which is the presently pending Water Resources Planning Act of 1965.

Our principal concern with this bill, while we, of course, are interested in building up the strength of water pollution control activities in the Nation, and naturally we feel very strongly, heartily in favor of Governor Rockefeller's New York State program, still we have chosen this time to express our concern particularly over section 5, which has been referred to a number of times today.

We do feel very strongly that the present bill really conveys powers to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, which are not intended by the declaration of the policy of the Congress in the Water Pollution Control Act, and other statutes, nor in the President's own recent message to the Congress, in which he said to improve the quality of our waters will require the fullest cooperation of our States and local governments working together. We can and will preserve and increase one of our most valuable natural resources, clean water.

Yet the standard-setting parts of the bills before this committee, which we question, would alter that declaration of congressional policy and place in the Secretary of Health. Education, and Welfare truly dictatorial powers to impose standards upon the States.

Aside from imposing standards upon the States, this same broad grant of authority would effectively displace State, local, and interstate agencies now functioning in the field of water pollution control, insofar as water quality standards are concerned. Nor is it sufficient to contend that the Secretary's action shall come only when State standards are inadequate. If this committee and the Congress intend that Federal action shall be supplemental, this intention must be made explicit in the statute, and an appropriate provision tailored to that end.