The real problem results from the aggregate of community and industrial effluents spewed into the entire upper Great Lakes system. But Buffalo and the Niagara frontier do not suffer alone. Fully one-third of this Nation is dependent in greater or lesser degree on the preservation of the Great Lakes as the world's greatest supply of fresh water and as the most economical route to the Nation's heartland for bulk commerce.

It is clear, therefore, that the fundamental problem of pollution in Lake Erie and in Lake Ontario cannot be solved by a competition between Albany and Washington which would be costly and fruitless.

I do not suggest, however, that the States do not have a proper responsibility in a comprehensive program of water pollution control. Clearly, it is the duty of the individual States to complement Federal efforts. It is surely their responsibility to work in harmony with Federal programs and to carry out the planning and intent of measures initiated by Federal authorities on a broad interstate basis.

This means then, that not only must the individual States be prepared to work hand in hand with Federal authorities on measures within their respective borders, it also means that lines of communication among the States must be established so that the efforts of each State may be coordinated into the total program.

To this end it is my desire to seek legislative action in our State capital to initiate a conference of State legislative representatives from each of the States bordering the Great Lakes-Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York. This conference would provide the forum for exchange of information and views on the most mutually beneficial steps to be taken in concert with the Federal program outlined in this bill.

The end result, it seems to me, can only be an ideal Federal-State partnership. In closing then, may I urge your honorable committee to give a favorable report to H.R. 4264 so that this critically needed legislation can begin to render benefits during this calendar year.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Baltimore, Md., March 17, 1965.

Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON,

House of Representatives,

Rayburn Building, Washington, D.C

DEAR CONGRESSMAN FALLON: I appreciate very much your cooperation in allowing us to present a statement in behalf of our opposition to S. 4 which would transfer the Water Pollution Control Administration from the U.S. Public Health Service to a new office in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Last year this department did present a statement to the Committee on Public Works concerning our stand on the proposal last year. This department is still opposed to such a change in legislation and would recommend highly that the activities of Water Pollution Control remain in the Public Health Service.

I am attaching a statement which was submitted last year by the department and I would like to reiterate our position in this matter. I would greatly appreciate your support of our position and would strongly urge the defeat of S. 4. Sincerely yours,

WILLIAM J. PEEPLES, M.D.,
Commissioner.

WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACCOMPLISHMENT IN MARYLAND, 1953–64 Maryland is a small State. On July 1, 1953, it had a population of 2,589,249 which had grown by July 1, 1963, to 3,315,673. This was an increase of 726,424 persons or 28 percent of the 1953 population. Such a group of people, all in one location, would constitute a new community three-fourths the size of Baltimore. This is an excellent example of the kind of problem we contend with in overcoming the deficit in sewage works construction which occurred during World War II and the Korean war, catching up with the requirements of the evergrowing population, and hopefully, finally getting just a little bit ahead of such needs.

During this 11-year period 44 Maryland communities with a current population of 244,000 designed and constructed sewage treatment facilities to serve a population of 449,000. Expenditures for these facilities amounted to a total of $31,480,

000 which, when supplemented with an additional $12,310,000 spent for collecting sewers to add new services, amounts to a total of almost $44 million. These cost figures are minimum, representing only those expenditures of record with the department of health and are regarded as incomplete. A listing of the 44 communities is attached, hereto, for reference.

In this same period 692 industries and commercial establishments of all sizes and varieties installed some type of water pollution control facility to meet the requirements of the water pollution control commission. The cost of such installations is usually not reported to this commission. However, it is known that 12 of the larger industries expended an estimated $18,450,000 in the development, design, and construction of industrial waste treatment and pollution prevention facilities. A listing of these industries and their expenditures are attached, but represents less than 2 percent of all establishments providing controls.

The known expenditures for installation of both community and industrial waste control facilities for the period 1953-63 amount to a total of $62,240,000. Following are accomplishments in the program development and operational area taking place in the same time period.

1. Maryland decided at the beginning of the Public Law 660 grant operation to provide a construction grant matching program of its own. For every construction dollar offered in Federal funds another dollar in State funds is provided to extend the coverage of the program. It is administered in such a way that one Federal dollar is matched with one State and two community dollars. The State grant funds are "open end" but limited to matching the Federal funds. The net effect of this arrangement is to make the grant program available each year to more communities to the extent of matching community expenditures up to a limit of 50 percent.

There is currently a "backlog" of some 18 Maryland projects representing a total of $4,300,000 in Federal grant requests (listing attached). Since Maryland's allocation of construction grant funds under Public Law 660 is only $1,500,000 per year, some of these communities will have to wait almost 3 years, under current program provisions, to receive grant aid. The State department of health is, therefore, recommending to the Maryland General Assembly that the equal matching ratio-State dollar for Federal dollar-of the State grant program be modified so that State funds may be used for grant purposes in excess of Federal funds to give immediate aid to communities ready to proceed.

2. Maryland regulatory agencies participated with those of the District of Columbia and Virginia in, I believe, the first pollution abatement conference called by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare under provisions of Public Law 660. The Public Health Service in two sessions-August 22, 1957, and February 13, 1958-reviewed objectives of the several jurisdictions for abatement of pollution of interstate waters of the Potomac River in the Washington metropolitan area and approved plans for accomplishing them. Progress on this project has been substantial and on Maryland's part is virtually complete. Action, incidentally, on the part of the Public Health Service in this entire matter was effective, constructive, and productive.

The State regulatory agencies also participated in a similar conference convened in Pittsburgh, Pa., in December of last year to review problems of pollution and pollution abatement of the interstate waters of the Monongahela River. Out of this conference should emerge an effective Federal-State-interstate agency program for dealing effectively with the problem of mine acid waste discharges in this river basin.

3. In the spring of 1958 the congressional Joint Committee on Washington Metropolitan Problems, chaired by Senator Bible, undertook investigation of water supply and pollution abatement problems in Maryland, Virginia, and the Washington metropolitan area. Testimony on behalf of Maryland was given before this committee. Out of the water supply and pollution abatement reccommendations of this committee have emerged two highly significant developments: the planning and construction of the intercepting sewer to serve Dulles Airport and Virginia and Maryland communities between the airport and the District of Columbia; and establishment by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (a voluntary association of local government jurisdictions of Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia) of the Regional Sanitary Advisory Board, directly implementing a recommendation, in the absence of any legislation, of the Bible committee report. These two actions represent coopera

tion and accomplishment of the highest order, voluntarily pursued, between the Congress, Federal agencies, State agencies, and local government to meet staged water pollution control objectives.

4. The Regional Sanitary Advisory Board, referred to in the item preceding, immediately addressed itself to developing a sewerage program to meet the needs of the growing Washington metropolitan area. It raised $25,000 by subscription of member agencies and contracted with eminent sanitary engineers to devise a master sewerage plan for the area. I submit a copy of this excellent report for your record. The Sanitary Advisory Board is now pursuing the implementation of this report. Currently the Board is engaging in similar studies to produce master plans for regional solid waste disposal and regional water supply.

5. Through another action of the aforementioned Sanitary Advisory Board, policy development was pursued to establish practical means of implementing water quality objectives for the Potomac River between the Monocacy River and Little Falls. Water quality objectives were those advanced by the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. Objectives for control of treated effluent to tributaries of the Potomac within Virginia and Maryland were developed by the Sanitary Advisory Board. These policies on water quality objectives and effluent control were then incorporated into a single policy statement which was officially adopted by the regulatory agencies of Maryland and Virginia. A copy of this policy is also attached.

6. In another area, Maryland is actively participating with New York, Pennsylvania, and the Public Health Service in the voluntary development of water quality objectives for the Susquehanna River Basin. This activity has only recently started and specific results cannot yet be reported. This is, however, another example of voluntary cooperation between States, and between State and Federal agencies in pursuing desired objectives for water quality in interstate streams.

7. With the advent of Public Law 660, Maryland expended a substantial part of its first 2 years' program grant funds to participate in a 3-year research study of the flow patterns and assimilative and dispersal characteristics of the waters of Baltimore Harbor. This study, performed by the Chesapeake Bay Institute of the Johns Hopkins University was jointly financed by the aforementioned Federal funds, State funds, and contributions made by local industry through the Baltimore Association of Commerce. Total expenditure approximated $100,000 of which $30,000 was voluntarily subscribed by Baltimore port industries. This splendidly illustrates the support by industry of an independent, objective study to develop patterns under which industry would be regulated.

The study produced invaluable data with regard to the manner in which the waters of Baltimore Harbor can be constructively used to serve the large industrial complex of the port of Baltimore without degrading these waters and without having subsequent deleterious effect upon the resources of the Chesapeake Bay.

8. For the period since completion of the Baltimore Harbor study, the program grant funds have been devoted to the operation of a water quality survey and study section within the State water pollution control commission. This program, jointly planned to serve the needs of both State regulatory agencies, operates on a budget in excess of $70,000 per year. It is producing and accumluating a vast amount of data on the water quality characteristics of streams in all parts of the State. This data is being used as the basis for evalution of water pollution efforts and will in the future serve as baseline for the program of water quality management in Maryland.

9. For the past 3 years the State has budgeted to the department of health an annual sum of $35,000 for study of the assimilative and dispersal characteristics of estuaries of the Chesapeake Bay in areas where population growth will require new waste disposal facility development. These studies are being carried out by the Chesapeake Bay Institute. We are requesting funds to continue them. I submit, for your record, a copy of the report of the initial projects in this field research program.

10. We are planning, together with representatives of the District of Columbia, for a comprehensive study of the biological behavior and reaction of aquatic life in the estuary of the Potomac River under the influence of enriching nutrients introduced into the aquatic environment by highly treated sewage. We must obtain more knowledge with respect to how the biological balance of the aquatic environment may be upset, not through pollution such as with raw sewage but through overfertilization and overstimulation of development of certain form of life by nutrients released from highly and effectively treated sewage.

11. The Maryland Water Pollution Control Commission has entered into contract with the Natural Resources Institute of the University of Maryland for a field research study to determine the effects of heated water outfall into brackish and tidal waters of the estuary of the Patuxent River. The study is for the purpose of determining quantitatively the effects of installing a major electric power generating unit at Chalk Point on the Patuxent River; and to gain understanding of the physical, chemical, and biological effects of large volumes of heated water upon the aquatic environment. This study began in March 1962 and will continue for 4 to 5 years with a total expenditure of $130,000 to $160,000

12. In March 1962 the water pollution control commission contracted for a research study at the Johns Hopkins University which was designed to

1. Determine the distribution and concentration of synthetic detergents in representative waters of the State;

2. Determine the rates of biological breakdown of synthetic detergents in soils receiving detergent bearing wastes; and

3. Examine the feasibility of simplified field methods for identifying and estimating the concentrations of specific synthetic detergents.

This study, now completed, involved a total cost of $22,438.

13. The water pollution control commission, in October 1962, contracted also at Johns Hopkins University for an urban sediment study to investigate and make recommendations concerning the problem of erosion of land surfaces and resulting siltation of waters of the State during metropolitan community development. This is a problem of increasing seriousness. Its preliminary investigation will involve expenditure of $5,500.

Especial attention is called to the fact that the funds provided for the studies described in items 9 through 13 are entirely from State sources.

I have related to you progress involving our State which I believe is quite substantial. It covers areas of facilities construction, State aid to facilities development, field research and data collection, establishment of water quality objectives, interstate collaboration, master planning of new facilities, and administration. We are proud of our program and its accomplishments. They have taken place with aid of the current provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the effective working relationships mutually established between the Public Health Service, the State regulatory agencies, and the communities actually spending the money for necessary facilities. Had the provisions of sections 2 and 5 of S. 649 been incorporated originally in Public Law 660, I do not believe these accomplishments would have been any greater. Indeed, if the fine spirit characterizing the working relationship on the part of the Public Health Service had not been reflected by such a proposed agency as the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, the progress could, in fact, have been less.

Despite such accomplishment, however, much remains to be done. We need help in doing it-help provided in terms of incentives rather than the threat of chastisement. I see no way in which the provisions of S. 649 to which I have referred will extend such aid to Maryland or to any other State. In my judgment we cannot hope to meet our objectives for water quality management and control with the Federal agency portion of the program governed to large degree on considerations of administrative status of the operation and a declared intention of wielding a big stick. What is urgently needed, on the other hand, is a program of substantially increased incentives to expend the vast sums of money at the State and local levels which will be necessary to meet the water supply and waste disposal needs of the growing U.S. population.

May I offer several suggestions as to the ways in which the Congress can provide additional effective aid in meeting our mutual stream quality objectives:

1. Declare it to be public policy that the construction grants phase of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act will be continued indefinitely until the Nation's objectives for sewage treatment facilities have finally been met.

2. Provide a basis for increasing construction grant allotments to States, perhaps on a formula basis such as that which operates in Maryland, so that it will not be necessary to have waiting lists of communities desiring to construct facilities.

3. Provide for accelerated depreciation for tax purposes of expenditures by industry for water pollution control facilities.

4. Continue support at a high level for all forms of research-including that in the field-dealing with water pollution control and maintenance of water quality. This should include, for example, appropriating now to the Public Health

Service the money required to initiate at once the Chesapeake Bay portion of the Susquehanna-Chesapeake Bay Basin studies authorized by the Congress but not provided with the resources to carry it out.

5. Develop a program for planning and aiding the construction of water supply and sewerage services to the mushrooming suburban fringe areas so as to displace the need for individual wells and septic tank systems upon which a large proportion of our nonurban population is dependent.

May I respectfully suggest, in conclusion, that if our Nation had a concern for the water supply, sewage disposal, and water resource needs of our population equivalent to that which has been demonstrated so effectively for their highway transportation requirements, the need for a hearing such as this one here today would have been long since passed. I earnestly believe, and I urge you to consider, that the water quality and resource needs of our Nation deserve the marshaling of fiscal resources and the positive leadership approach by the Federal Government in a program directly comparable to that which is being carried out for planning and construction of highways. With such emphasis and expenditure we could expect to get ahead of this so urgent problem rather than be constantly fighting to catch up.

Maryland communities, institutions, and agencies constructing sewage treatment facilities since January 1953

1 Does not include resident population of National Security Administration. 2 Indicates population equivalent where industrial wastes influence treatment. 3 No limit set.