cause the communities do not have the ability to come up with the local money.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Can I read into what you just said that you believe there is going to be support for further accelerated public works programs or for legislation to bring this grant percentage up to 50 percent? Because I sure would feel a lot more enthusiastic about raising this percentage, this amount of money that the big cities can get. recognize the need for it. But I would feel a lot more enthusiastic about it if I thought you were also going to move to support this accelerated public works program and to make the funds available in these smaller cities and towns to meet this sewage treatment requirement in those areas.

I think it is very urgent and, to my way of thinking, it is the key, the indispensable key to handling this water pollution problem in a lot of areas in the country.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Edmondson, I do not think it is fair or accurate to read either of those two possible conclusions into what I have said. I think there is a clear recognition on the part of the administration of this problem. I think the experience we had under the accelerated public works program pointed out one possible solution. I think this could be the way that ultimately might be determined that we would go. But what I am pointing out, however, is we also recognize that maybe another approach to this problem, and maybe from the point of view of our water pollution control program, the better approach, would be to revise the ceiling and the formula on the overall ongoing program.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Could I get verification on another part of your statement here, on page 5, when you talk about the question of the desirability of public hearings on establishment of water quality standards. When you continue and say: "The practicability of which would, in the final analysis, be subject to court reviews in any event." are you suggesting that you do not believe these public hearings for establishment of water quality standards are desirable?

Mr. QUIGLEY. I do not know if they are desirable or undesirable. What I think I am suggesting is there might be merit and wisdom if the members of this committee would take a hard look at the procedure as it is now spelled out or now proposed, and consider whether that could not be streamlined; and, at the same time, still come up with some relatively good and reasonable and sound standards, which as I pointed out, in the final analysis are going to be subject to court review.

In other words, I would hate to see the standards section become law and then find out that we are bogged down in a maze of legalisms and dilatory tactics and protracted public hearings. Because I think the clear intent and purpose of the standards section, as I understand the intent of the sponsors, is to have us move forward and practice a little preventive medicine. Let's catch some of our streams before they become polluted.

Mr. EDMONDSON. I think there is merit in that.

Mr. QUIGLEY. I think this committee will criticize us if 3 or 4 years from now we have not done too much on standards except have a lot of hearings.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Would you be agreeable to the addition to the bill of a provision with regard to court review that would make it clear that the court review provision by the Administrative Procedures Act would be followed?

Mr. QUIGLEY. Well, I think inherent in the bill as it is now written is the idea of court review. Now, whether it is in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act or not, I think there is not any question that there is no provision for court review and there should be.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Do you see any objection that you know of to having the clear statement in the law that the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act would apply with reference to the court review?

Mr. QUIGLEY. I have not, and it is so provided for in the Senateapproved bill. Clearly there ought to be, there must be the right of court review. Everybody should be protected from arbitrary action on the part of any administrator, even if I happen to be the administrator.

Mr. DORN. Mr. Chairman, I want to welcome our colleague back before the committee and commend him for his energetic devotion and dedication to public service.

I would like to ask the Secretary whether or not any conferences have been called between States at their request by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare or the Public Health Service in the last few years concerning pollution of interstate streams?

Mr. QUIGLEY. Yes, Mr. Dorn, there have been conferences. I think there have been a total of 34 conferences that have been held since the act has been on the book, and it is my recollection-I will verify this and supply it for the record that 14 of those were called at the request of a State, not necessarily both States involved, usually it is the downstream State that is suffering the ill effects of the pollution that has invited us in. In a number of cases, of course, Governors have invited us in to hold a conference on streams that flow solely within their State boundary but the States have not hesitated to exercise their prerogative and invite the Secretary to call conferences and where they have, in every instance those conferences have been held.

(The information referred to is as follows:)

ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS

Of the 34 actions initiated to date, 21 have been brought on Federal initiative to abate pollution of interstate waters. Thirteen actions were taken at the requests of State water pollution control agencies or individual Governorseight on interstate waters, two requested by Governors to extend to both interstate and intrastate waters, and three requested by Governors on intrastate waters only.

Forty States and the District of Columbia have been parties to these actions, of which four advanced to the hearing stage. Court action was subsequently initiated in one case and a court order issued.

More than 1,000 municipalities and a like number of industries have been included in the scope of these proceedings. They have included such large metropolitan areas as New York City, Detroit, the Kansas Cities, and St. Louis and such large corporations as Armour, Swift & Co.; Du Pont; Scott Paper; Vanadium Corp. of America; Olin-Mathieson; Crown Zellerbach Corp.; Weyerhaeuser Timber Co.; and others.

The pollution of well over 7,000 miles of streams and bays will have been abated when remedial facilities entailing the expenditure of an estimated $1.780 billion have been constructed. All types and sources of pollutants have been involved, including municipal sewage and industrial waste discharges such as food processing wastes, pulp and paper processing wastes, radioactive uranium milling wastes, and toxic chemicals.

ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS-FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

Actions taken on Federal initiative.-The 21 enforcement actions taken upon Federal initiative involved the following interstate water pollution situations: 1. Corney drainage system, 1954, Arkansas and Louisiana.

2. Big Blue River, 1957, Nebraska and Kansas.

3. Missouri River in the St. Joseph, Mo., area, 1957, Missouri and Kansas.

4. Missouri River in the Omaha, Nebr., area, 1957, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, and Iowa.

5. Potomac River in the Washington metropolitan area, 1957, District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia.

6. Missouri River in the Kansas Cities metropolitan area, 1957, Kansas and Missouri.

7. Lower Columbia River, 1958, Washington and Oregon.

8. Raritan Bay, 1961, New York and New Jersey.

9. Mississippi River, Clinton, Iowa, area, 1962, Illinois and Iowa.

10. Androscoggin River, 1962, New Hampshire and Maine.

11. Coosa River, 1963, Alabama and Georgia.

12. Pearl River, 1963, Louisiana and Mississippi.

13. Menominee River, 1963, Michigan and Wisconsin.

14. Lower Connecticut River, 1963, Massachusetts and Connecticut.

15. Monongahela River, 1963, West Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania.

16. Snake River, Lewiston-Clarkston area, 1963, Idaho and Washington.

17. Lower Mississippi River, 1964, Arkansas, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

18. Blackstone and Ten Mile Rivers, 1965, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. 19. Mouth of Savannah River, 1965, Georgia and South Carolina.

20. Mahoning River, 1965, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

21. Calumet Rivers, lower end of Lake Michigan, and tributaries, Indiana and Illinois.

Actions taken at State request.-State water pollution control agencies or Governors have requested Federal enforcement assistance in 13 pollution situations. Interstate pollution was concerned in 10 such requests, of which 2 also extended to intrastate waters at the requests of the Governors. Three actions involving only intrastate waters were brought upon requests of the Governors concerned.

1. Missouri River in the Sioux City area, 1958, South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas.

2. Mississippi River in the St. Louis metropolitan area, 1958, Missouri and Illinois.

3. Animas River, 1958, Colorado and New Mexico.

4. Bear River, 1960, Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah.

5. Colorado River and all tributaries, 1960, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, California, New Mexico, and Wyoming.

6. Holston River, North Fork, 1960, Tennessee and Virginia.

7. North Platte River, 1962, Nebraska and Wyoming.

8. Puget Sound-upper Columbia River, 1962, Washington; requested by Governor.

9. Detroit River, 1962, Michigan; requested by Governor.

10. Escambia River, 1962, Alabama and Florida.

11. South Platte River, 1963, Colorado; requested by Governor.

12. Upper Mississippi River, 1963, Minnesota and Wisconsin; includes interstate and intrastate waters at Governor's request.

13. Merrimack-Nashua River, 1963, New Hampshire and Massachusetts; includes interstate and intrastate waters at Governor's request.

Status of enforcement actions

1. Corney drainage system, Arkansas and Louisiana: This enforcement action was held under the Water Pollution Control Act of June 30, 1948. On June 9, 1954, the Surgeon General found that oil well discharges originating in Arkansa

were endangering the welfare of persons in Louisiana by causing the pollution of the Corney drainage system. This pollution was primarily brine from some 75 oil wells, all privately owned.

A public hearing was held on the matter of pollution of the interstate waters of the Corney drainage system on January 16-17, 1957, at Homer, La. On the basis of evidence presented, the hearing board required that polluters of the Corney drainage system cease and desist from discharging substances which contribute to the pollution within 90 days of receipt of the board's recommendations.

As of 1960 the unsatisfactory brine pits had been replaced and abatement is being accomplished by injection systems. According to available information these systems are working satisfactorily and the polluters (owners of wells) are in full compliance. The Arkansas Water Pollution Control Commission and the U.S. Public Health Service keep constant surveillance on the area to see that proper operation of reinjection systems is maintained.

2. Big Blue River, Nebr. and Kans. A conference was held on May 3, 1957, at Beatrice, Nebr. Eleven municipalities and one institution in the States of Kansas and Nebraska were involved. Remedial action adopted and complied with by the conferees involved construction of new facilities and additions and modifications to existing facilities, as well as programs of improved operation and maintenance. Over $1.8 million was expended in the construction of waste treatment facilities, with Federal grants of $491,973. Cities involved included Beatrice, Friend, Milford, Hastings, and Wilbur, Nebr. The effectiveness of the treatment now provided for the discharges entering the Big Blue River is under study.

3. Missouri River, St. Joseph, Mo. area, Missouri and Kansas: A conference was held at St. Joseph, Mo., on June 11, 1957, on the pollution situation caused by the discharges of untreated sewage and industrial wastes by St. Joseph, Mo., and its associated stockyard area. Involved in the conference were 8 municipalities, 4 institutions, and 18 industries.

Failure to abide by the schedule necessitated the calling of a public hearing by the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare on the city of St. Joseph and 18 industries, which was held on July 27-30, 1959. Subsequently, in view of continued failure to comply, suit was filed by the United States against the city of St. Joseph in the Federal district court at St. Joseph, Mo., September 29, 1960. The court issued an order on October 31, 1961, substantially embodying the hearing board's recommendations.

Three million dollars in revenue bonds have been sold to pay for the construction of the main sewage treatment plant at St. Joseph. Industries involved will discharge to industrial district or municipal plants. The court has retained jurisdiction over compliance in this case.

4. Missouri River, Omaha, Neb. area, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, and Iowa: The first session of the conference was held on June 14, 1957, at Omaha, Nebr., and the second session on July 21, 1964, at Omaha. The conferees at the first session found that the major source of pollution was Omaha, Nebr. Fourteen municipalities, four sewer districts, two institutions, and five industries were involved. At the second session the conferees agreed to accept Omaha's new plan whereby the city would finance and build another treatment plant designed to treat packinghouse wastes, particularly paunch manure, not removed by the industries themselves.

5. Potomac River, Washington metropolitan area, District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia: The first session of the conference was held on August 22, 1957, at Charlottesville, Va., and a second session was held on February 13, 1958, at Washington, D.C. Untreated and inadequately treated sewage from Alexandria, Va., Arlington and Fairfax Counties, Va., and the District of Columbia contributed to pollution of the river. Eleven municipalities and two industries are involved.

The conferees at the second session established time schedules for remedial measures. Implementation of the time schedule is proceeding and substantial improvements have been made. Secondary treatment facilities at the Blue Plains treatment plant for Washington, D.C., were placed in operation in July 1959. Further improvements are now proceeding. Virginia and Maryland communities are also complying with the time schedule for construction of abatement facilities. Industrial waste has not been a significant problem in the Washington, D.C., area.

6. Missouri River, Kansas Citys metropolitan area, Kansas and Missouri: The conference was held at Kansas City, Mo., on December 3, 1957. Principal sources of pollution were discharges of untreated and inadequately treated sewage and industrial wastes involving 30 municipalities, 3 subdivisions, 3 institutions, 2 sewer districts, and 33 industries. A schedule of remedial measures to be instituted by the two Kansas Citys and north Kansas City and their associated industries was recommended by the conferees.

When effective progress was not obtained in accordance with the schedule of remedial measures the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare called a public hearing on Kansas City, Kans., Kansas City, Mo., North Kansas City, Mo., Fairfax Drainage District of Kansas, and 11 industries. The hearing was held June 13-17, 1960, at Kansas City, Mo.

Substantial progress has been made in the Kansas Citys metropolitan area. Financing has been provided for the construction of pollution abatement facilities by Kansas City, Kans., in the amount of $15 million; North Kansas City, Mo., $7,443,000; and Kansas City, Mo., $75 million. Two industries involved, Phillips Petroleum Co. and Sinclair Refining Co. are providing their own separate treatment. Other industries, including Procter & Gamble, General Motors, and Swift & Co., will be served by the municipal system.

7. Mississippi River, St. Louis metropolitan area, Missouri and Illinois: A conference was held March 4, 1958. at St. Louis, Mo., involving St. Louis, 22 other sewer districts in Missouri, and 23 communities, 17 industries, and an institution in Illinois. The conferees established a time schedule for remedial action. In November of 1962, St. Louis voted a $95 million bond issue for the construction of treatment facilities and action has or is being taken to abate pollution from the Illinois sources. Some industries, including Shell Oil Co., Standard Oil Co., United Starch & Refining, and Sinclair Oil & Refining, now provide adequate treatment. Eight progress meetings have been held to coordinate pollution abatement programs in the area.

8. Animas River, Colo., and N. Mex.: The first session of the conference was held April 29, 1958, at Santa Fe, N. Mex., and a second session was held June 24, 1959, at Santa Fe. A mill of the Vanadium Corp. of America, abandoned mines, and the municipalities of Durango and Silverton, Colo., were involved. The conferees found pollution of the Animas River was caused by discharges of uranium milling wastes and toxic chemicals from the Vanadium Corp. of America at Durango, Colo.

The Vanadium Corp. complied with the conference schedule by January 1960 by construction of necessary facilities and treatment is satisfactory. The Public Health Service made additional recommendations which were followed by the corporation and surveillance is continuing. The river has now been incorporated in the Colorado River Basin project.

9. Missouri River, Sioux City area, South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas: A conference was held July 24, 1958, at Sioux City, Iowa. Sewage and industrial wastes from sources in South Dakota, Nebraska, and Iowa caused pollution of the Missouri River so as to endanger the health and welfare of persons in States other than that in which the discharges originated. Major source of the pollution was Sioux City and its associated industries, notably meatpacking plants. A schedule of necessary remedial measures was established by the conferees.

Failure to abide by the schedule necessitated the calling of a public hearing by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare on Sioux City and 10 industries, March 23-27, 1959. Sioux City, the major source of pollution, has now completed its sewage treatment plant at a cost of $2.3 million. Most of the major interceptor sewers have been completed. Industries named in the hearing proceedings, including Swift & Co., Armour & Co., and other meatpacking plants, will connect to the municipal system.

10. Lower Columbia River, Wash. and Oreg.: The conference was held on September 10-11, 1958, and followed by a second session September 3-4, 1959. Waste discharges from Portland, Oreg., Vancouver, Wash., 47 other communities, and 21 industries, among them Crown Zellerbach Corp., Weyerhauser Timber Co., and other pulp and paper companies, were involved.

A remedial time schedule for pollution abatement was recommended by the conferees. In Portland, Oreg., the voters approved financing for treatment facilities on November 8, 1960. All Washington municipalities and industries, including some of the Nation's largest pulp and paper companies, are reported in compliance by the State with the exception of Vancouver and Cathlamet