Through the efforts of this committee we have terrific electric power capacity in this country. It uses over 1,000 billion gallons of water a day-which makes a lie out of the prophets of doom who say our total supply is limited to 515 billion gallons a day.

However, many of these dams take water from the bottom of the reservoir and this may be very low or completely devoid of dissolved oxygen. As Secretary I could set a dissolved oxygen limit immediately below the dam which would limit its production.

Nuclear powerplants present the problem of cooling the reactors. This means heat to the stream. Thermal pollution. Is it? If the discharge is the control, it is. If the stream is the control, it may not be. But as Secretary I could set limits which would cause trouble even if the stream was not seriously affected. Lest this committee think this imaginary concern, let me go back to the Mahoning conference.

I have here a copy of the HEW report on the Mahoning. It is, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others, a sad example of a water quality evaluation. A copy of it went to Congressman Clark before the conference. I don't blame him for having real concern over the health of the people at Beaver Falls after reading the report. The report is full of innuendoes but totally lacking in any data to prove the points.

It contains, however, some "standards" of water quality proposed by HEW to "prove" pollution. The Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission's report at the conference questioned the validity of these standards and showed that the setting of standards takes more time and competency than HEW has demonsrated it deems worthy of expending.

However, even after this documented reporting by OrSANCO, the HEW conferee announced his decision.

To set his decisions in perspective I should note that the Mahoning conference showed a fantastic recovery of this river in the last decade.

In 1954 the river was analyzed for moisture. It was undoubtedly one of the worst polluted streams in the country.

Since then 13 cities have built sewage treatment plants. The last and largestYoungstown-will be in full operation this year. The industries have a pro

gram which will be virtually completed by the end of 1966.

Both programs have been designed to provide an industrial water quality in the Warren-Youngstown area, and provide at the State line a quality which will not affect drinking water standards downstream.

But the HEW conferee did not agree that this was adequate. Without offering any data to support his view for the need or what the benefit-cost ratio would be, he announced that these new plants going into operation are inadequate and a greater degree of treatment must be provided within 3 years. He even gave a time schedule. This is intended to make the Mahoning, where steel mills line both banks, a fishing stream. The standards he suggested ignore all consideration of feasibility, reasonableness, and local area needs.

Congressman Michael Kirwan presented a statement to the conference on what his people wanted. In his decision the HEW conferee in effect paid no attention to the needs and desires of the citizens of the area.

The chairman of the conference gave an example of the power now assumed by HEW, even without this bill (S. 4) being passed. He told the mayor of Youngstown that under law the Corps of Engineers submits plans for public works to HEW for approval on adequacy of water quality. Where Federal funds are involved, there has been an administrative decision that complete treatment is considered minimum. He referred to the Mahoning canal being considered by the House Public Works Committee and said HEW approval is needed. The mayor learned for the first time that a canal to carry barges would require water of drinking quality.

There is a related problem deserving attention. When Congress said low flow augmentation could not be used as a substitute for adequate treatment of waste, did it mean the present interpretation by HEW that a combination of intermediate treatment and flow control to give maximum benefit at least cost is not to be permitted?

Mr. Chairman, you have some of the greatest water resources in the world in your proud State. Other States have them in varying degree. You and your committee have done a fantastic job of setting guidelines for selling pollution abatement and the fruits of your labors are now coming in.

Mr. Jones has earned undying gratitude for going into the problems of water management as well as pollution. His hearings in Washington and around the

country have done more good than he will ever know. His approach set the pattern-the only one which will sell pollution abatement. He asked individuals what their responsibility was and what they were doing about it. He did not threaten a law; he sold a conviction.

And this is the essence of President Johnson's creative federalism to accomplish his Great Society by closer Federal-State-local cooperation. We have too much at stake to destroy local initiative by providing dictatorship over what our streams shall be used for. The President wants clean streams. So do you. So do I.

I am certain that the President's dream of clean streams in his administration-I presume we have 8 years for this-will be a reality if there is FederalState-local cooperation.

But I am just as sure that if this bill as now written is passed, there will be a number of States requesting hearings to set standards before they move a program. Why should they do as Ohio did on the Mahoning and then be told they are wrong?

And then after the Secretary sets the standards, the States can call another hearing to revise the standards. This could go on and on and on. If it does. this Great Society will be in a cesspool, not blue water. President Johnson gave the Congress and the people an objective. He did not dictate the means. Don't embarrass him by substituting hasty legislation for positive accomplishment. The CHAIRMAN. This concludes the public hearings on this legislation, proposing amendments to the Water Pollution Control Act. (Whereupon, at 6:03 p.m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter was concluded.)

(The following was furnished for insertion :)

STATEMENT OF HON. PETER W. RODINO, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. Chairman, members of the Public Works Committee, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to testify in behalf of the proposed legislation to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

For a long time I have advocated new legislation to control and correct the pollution of our water supplies. As a member of the NATO Parliamentarian's Conference Scientific and Technical Committee, I have been active in promoting studies of environmental health problems, such as air and water pollution. It is for these reasons that I introduced on January 4, 1965, my own bill, H.R. 151, and that I am here today to express strong support for the administration's bill, S. 4.

We can sum up what is happening to the streams in many parts of our country in just two words: America's shame. Water pollution in the United States has become a menace to our health, and an economic problem which robs us of the water we need. It destroys fish and wildlife, threatens outdoor recreation areas, and is often an esthetic horror.

In addition to ordinary sewage, outfalls are discharging slaughterhouse byproducts, lethal chemicals, and radioactive matter in our waterways. Polio, infectious hepatitis, and more than 30 other live viruses carried by sewage effluent have been isolated by Public Health Service officials. These germs have even been found in sewage that has already been treated. Because of the necessity of reusing water, there is an almost 50-50 chance that the water we drink has passed through someone else's plumbing or an industrial plant sewer.

The adverse effects of water pollution are much broader than health. Some industrial plants reject water as unfit for their uses. Swimming is forbidden on many beaches. Radioactive wastes are found in drainage basins. Floating garbage and other filth clog water supply intakes of some cities that take their water from open streams. Detergent foam runs from the faucets in several States. Mine acids pollute streams and kill wildlife. Oil spills kill birds and spoil beaches.

The first Federal Water Pollution Control Act, passed in 1948, authorized cooperative studies of the problem. The 1956 amendments authorized Federal grants for a small portion of the costs of sewage treatment plants. This program was strengthened and enlarged in 1961, but it is still not enough. We need to take a more positive approach to the whole problem along the lines contem

plated in H.R. 151 and in S. 4, and we need to do this immediately. The longer we wait, the greater the dangers and the larger the problem.

Our greatest need is for a new national policy for the prevention of water pollution as well as abatement of pollution already created. Passage of H.R. 151 or S. 4 will enable us to establish such a policy through the efforts of a Federal Water Pollution Control Administration directly responsible to the Assistant Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. It will also provide more money for research, development, and construction of municipal sewage treatment works.

The pollution of our waters is the worst in our history, most experts agree. And our future water needs are staggering. We are already using more than 300 billion gallons of water a day, and by 1980 we will be using 600 billion gallons each day. By the year 2000, a trillion gallons. It is clear that we are going to have to reuse our water time and time again.

Water pollution is not an insurmountable problem, but it must be worked on immediately. We must invest more money in city and industrial water treatment plaris and provide more research facilities for the development of efficient techniques of waste treatment.

The bill now under consideration, S. 4, is a step toward the achievement of the cleaner water supply needed to promote good health and to serve vital functions in the areas of industry, agriculture, and recreation.

I deeply appreciate the opportunity you have given me to testify before your distinguished committee. And I urgently recommend its prompt and favorable consideration.

STATEMENT OF HON. SAMUEL S. STRATTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the committee on behalf of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1965. I have supported the Water Pollution Control Act in the past and I support this legislation. It recognizes not only the vital need to clean up our rivers and waterways, but also the perfectly patent fact that without concrete and continuing help from the Federal Government this job simply cannot be done. In fact the history of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act has shown not only that Federal assistance can be effective in meeting local pollution problems, but also that even the relatively modest amount of Federal assistance made possible by this program can and in fact already has called forth a far greater measure of local participation and initiative in meeting the problem of water pollution than was ever forthcoming before the program began.

The need to abate pollution is particularly important to the 35th Congressional District of New York with its rich endowment of natural water resources. If the people of my district are to take full advantage of the magnificent recreational possibilities and water supplies which the rivers and the lakes of our area provide, the sewage problems that confront our rural and suburban areas today must be solved. In fact the State of New York has mandated that our communities must begin to clean up this pollution.

Yet the State of New York has thus far provided no money to help these communities meet this need, and the inadequate taxing resources which local governments in my area now possess make it almost impossible for them to do the job themselves.

That is why we need this program and why we must continue and expand it as this legislation would do.

Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, I am also constrained to invite the attention of the committee to several features of this current legislation which I believe should be altered if the program is to be of maximum effectiveness to the district which I have the honor to represent.

First of all, I strongly believe that the funds made available to local communities under this bill should be extended to cover not only sewage treatment plants and main interceptor lines but also other sewerlines as well, including laterals. The fact is that oftentimes the costs of such sewerlines are as great if not greater than the costs of the treatment plant or the major interceptor lines themselves. In my experience it often turns out that without help of this kind many communities simply cannot effectively solve their pollution problems and cannot even fully utilize the help provided by this program as it stands at the moment.

I urge the committee to amend the bill to provide for this extension. Second, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that with the emphasis in this new bill on urban areas. We could, I am afraid, find that this program would end up doing very little for suburban or rural areas. I have, of course, no desire to oppose the proper effort to make large cities eligible for some help under this program. But, after all, these cities are in most cases much better equipped to finance the costs of such projects than are smaller rural communities. Moreover, if we put the ceiling on grants to individual cities too high we might well find that the entire funds appropriated under the program were used up for one or two cities, with nothing left over for all our rural areas.

I commend this point too, Mr. Chairman, to the sympathetic attention and approval of the committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the courtesy and attention of the members of the committee.

STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL H. TODD, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. Chairman, may I respectfully make the following suggestions re section 8 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments: Section 8(b) (2), change $1,000,000 to $1,500,000.

Section 8(b) (2) (A) (2), change to $3,000,000.

The reasons for suggesting this change are as follows:

Under the law as written, if a single metropolitan area were governed by a single municipal government, the maximum grant available under the present amendments would be $1 million.

If this same metropolitan area were governed by, say four local governments, the maximum grant available would be $4,400,000. ($4 million plus 10 percent.) Under these circumstances, there is a definite reason for not consolidating local governmental units into more rational, less fractionalized, metropolitan governments. I do not believe this law should provide this reason, which makes for

bad local governmental organization in many instances.

I have been advised that the meaning of section 8 is such that a bonus might not be granted to a single governmental unit serving a whole metropolitan area. I believe that it should be made clear that the intent of the act is to provide the bonus whenever a plan covers a metropolitan or urban area, regardless of the number of governmental units involved.

Should my proposals be adopted, the incentives to maintain fractionalized governments would be reduced to a ratio of 4.4 to 1 to 2 to 1. The total demands for money might remain about the same, because of the reduction in the upper limit.

I appreciate this opportunity of submitting my views.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES A. VANIK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to express my appreciation to your committee for giving me the opportunity to present testimony on this vital legislation. As a Member of Congress from the city of Cleveland, I represent a community which must depend upon Lake Erie as a source of water supply. In 1950 the city of Cleveland withdrew 241 million gallons of water a day to supply Metropolitan Cleveland. In addition to the municipal supply the industrial plants of the Cleveland area were pumping 570 million gallons a day from the Cuyahoga River and about the same amount from Lake Erie. Most of the industrial water is used in the steel and petroleum process and is returned to its source after use with overwhelming quantities of pollution. The figures which I have submitted were for the year 1950 and since that time they must have increased in both the municipal use and the industrial use categories.

In September 1964, I had the honor of escorting the chairman of this committee, the Honorable John Blatnik, on a tour of the Cleveland waterfront. The deplorable lack of pollution control in the areas we visited was visually obvious. It is my hope that the legislation which you are drafting will determine whether the industrial plants which use the waters of the Great Lakes and their tributaries are using every known and approved procedure to reduce the current outpouring of pollution. It is my opinion that a dual standard of water pollu

tion control persists in this country. Higher standards prevail on the Ohio River system to protect the vital interest of downstream users. The industrial users of Great Lakes water apparently have the license to do as they please in complete disregard of the higher levels of water pollution control which their counterparts must meet on the water systems of America's interior.

A large body of water like Lake Erie has an assimilative capacity that has already been exceeded. Official Government reports have indicated that at the bottom of the Lake Erie Basin ferrous, sulfide-petrochemical emulsion has been steadily rising over the lake bottom. This concentration of waste on the lake bottom is growing in area and in depth-destroying organic life and the capacity of the lake to develop orderly self-purification.

I have not been able to fully determine what corrective processes can be developed for the petroleum and the chemical industries, but there are basic water pollution procedures which should be followed by the steelmaking industry, and I recommend that your legislation provide a mechanism for determining whether these procedures are being properly followed on the Great Lakes.

Operation 1: When ore is reduced to molten iron in the blast furnace, the gas generated in the process is washed with water in equipment that removes 98 percent of the dust it carries. During the smelting the furnace shell must be cooled, so a supply of water is circulated through hollow metal plates imbedded in the refractory lining; it is then pumped to the gas washer. The washer water is clarified in large settling basins.

In this operation 200 pounds of dust are produced with every ton of iron made. With proper settling, less than 4 pounds of dust per ton should appear in the waste flowing into the river or lake.

Operation 2: A scale of iron oxide, which forms on the surface of hot steel, is blasted loose by streams of water under high pressure as the metal is rolled into desired shapes. The scale is carried by water to a basin where most of it settles, but the finest particles settle very slowly.

The amount of mill scale discharged may be very small, but it tends to discolor streams for a short distance. The recovery of mill scale can be brought about through further settling and the use of precipitators.

Operation 3: In the cold rolling process a continuous strip of steel passes between a series of rolls to reduce its thickness, simultaneous with a steady stream of emulsified lubricant being played on its surface. Emulsified oil, however, neither settles nor floats.

Suitable chemicals have been found to cause the oil to rise to the surface of the water where it can be skimmed off. There is also a new technique now being developed which provides for absorption of oil on the precipitate formed by chemicals after which the water emerges crystal clear and is returned for reuse. Operation 4: The hydrogen and methane gas when leaving the coke ovens is cooled with water sprays which condense the tar and dissolve the ammonium salts. In subsequent recovery processes a liquor is discharged containing a variety of organic compounds. Among the most objectionable are the phenols that can cause a bad taste in drinking water after it is chlorinated.

The prevention of pollution by operation 4 is by cooling the red hot coke with this liquor, thus decomposing some of the phenols and driving off the remainder in steam. The other and preferable method is to recover the phenol and remove it entirely.

The production of steel, chemicals, and oil are not clean industries. Our concern should be directed to determine whether these industries are following pollution-control procedures in keeping with general standards for the industry. The water pollution procedures set forth above are the industry standards for the steel industry as reported in the official industry publications. These standards are strictly complied with by the steel industries of the Ohio Valley and the industrial tributaries of the Ohio. Here the water must be cleansed for the reuse of downstream users. There is no reason why lesser standards should apply to the outpouring of industrial waste into the Great Lakes.

I urge that the legislation you are drafting will not overlook the necessity forpreserving the Great Lakes as a source of usable fresh water supply. Thank you for your time.