Encouragement should be given to applications for program grants submitted by agencies authorized to conduct regional programs, whether interlocal or interstate. This could be accomplished by reducing the local matching funds requirement for such regional programs. Such grants should be awarded on a program project rather than a formula basis. We thank you for this opportunity of expressing appreciation for the Committtee's fine work in combatting air pollution and in launching a program on solid wastes disposal. We believe that the changes in the Clean Air Act which are proposed in S. 3112 can measurably strengthen the programs of air pollution control. We are glad to see that the solid wastes management program is under way and are confident that your Committee will give serious consideration to ways of strengthening that program also. Senator EDMUND S. MUSKIE, AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, Chairman, Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. Chicago, Ill., June 14, 1966. DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: The American Medical Association wishes to submit its views on S. 3112, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1966, now pending before your Committee. This bill would, among other things, extend the air pollution control program and increase its authorization for appropriations, and would also provide for maintenance grants. The present law provides matching grants to air pollution control agencies and intermunicipal and interstate agencies for the cost of developing, establishing or improving programs for the prevention and control of air pollution. S. 3112 would further assist programs for the prevention and control of air pollution by providing maintenance grants up to one-half to air pollution control agencies and up to three-fifths to intermunicipal and interstate agencies for the costs of maintaining such programs. We believe the effect of this amendment will be beneficial. The grant mechanism should bolster local and regional operations, encouraging a greater degree of local initiative, particularly in interstate and intermunicipal areas. In addition, the bill would eliminate a serious inequity in the present law. Certain metropolitan regions are penalized in that they cannot obtain assistance for maintaining their currently large and expensive programs, while a metropolitan region without a program could receive up to two-thirds of the cost of creating a new program. Under the proposed legislation this inequity would be eliminated. The American Medical Association has supported previous air pollution control measures, and recently, in June of 1965, the AMA House of Delegates adopted a statement recognizing the health hazards resulting from air pollution and recommending that maximum feasible reduction of all forms of air pollution should be sought by all responsible parties. We believe that this bill can further this end, and we support the enactment of this legislation. Sincerely, F. J. L. BLASINGAME, M.D., Senator MUSKIE. This concludes our morning session. The committee is adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m. the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, June 9, 1966.) AIR POLLUTION-1966 THURSDAY, JUNE 9, 1966 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AIR AND WATER POLLUTION The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 4200, Senate Office Building, Senator Edmund S. Muskie (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Muskie, Randolph, and Boggs. Senator MUSKIE. The committee will come to order. It is a pleasure to welcome this morning an old friend and a distinguished colleague who has been one of the leaders in the crusade against air and water pollution. It is a little difficult for me to understand how States like Montana and Maine generate special interest in air pollution. Perhaps the two States together have a monopoly on clean air in this country. Nevertheless, I think it is interesting and reassuring that the citizens of both States are concerned with this problem. I think the citizens of Montana are well served by a Senator who is so alert to the problem and to the dangers of pollution. It is a pleasure to welcome you here today. STATEMENT OF HON. LEE METCALF, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA Senator METCALF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the course of my testimony I will demonstrate that a State as sparsely populated as Montana has an air pollution problem, too. And water pollution problems. That shows that every State, not only the States of New York, Illinois, and the heavily populated States have this problem of pollution. Mr. Chairman, of course the efforts that you and the members of your committee have made in the past 5 years to meet this increasing problem of air and water pollution deserve the highest public praise. As a former member of this subcommittee, I know full well how all of you have impressed on the national consciousness the seriousness of the contamination of our environment. No longer is air and water pollution a concern primarily of scientists and engineers-it has become a vital public issue. The hearings you began earlier this week prove, once again, that the concern of this subcommittee goes beyond pending legislation by performing a vital function in educating the Nation about specific air pollutants which cost the Nation billions of our dollars each year in economic losses and threaten our lives and the lives of our children. Air pollution in the United States is truly a national problem. It is not only a hazard in our highly industrialized metropolitan areas; air pollution is a threat in the Rocky Mountains, in the farmlands of central Florida, in the vast expanses of the Middle West, and, in fact, wherever air pollution sources may be found. I am especially concerned with air pollution because of problems that exist in my own State. That air pollution can be as acute in Missoula which has a population of approximately 30,000 as it can be in New York or Chicago is a matter of public record. Missoula is truly a beautiful city, in breathtaking surroundings. The city is fondly called the garden spot of the West. However, since location in the Missoula Valley of the pulp and paper industry this statement has been questioned by some. Frequent meteorological inversions which occur in the valley cause the wastes emitted by these industries to be trapped close to the ground, thus throwing over the area a noxious, unpleasant blanket of smoke. Often visibility is reduced by close to 50 percent, literally turning day into dusk. Most of the people affected by this pollution are aware of the seriousness of the problem. Local physicians have warned of possible adverse health effects. I will cite one other instance of serious air pollution in my State. It involves fluoride contamination from a phosphate plant in the town of Garrison. On March 15, 1966, Montana's State health officer advised me as follows concerning the intensification of air pollution in that community, quote: Sometime prior to the first of the year, the company expanded its facilities by doubling the number of kilns that it has in operation. Whether the quantity of material produced is also doubled, tripled or remains the same as it was we do not know. It would appear, however, from our meager sampling data that the fluoride concentrations both in the grass and in the air have increased as much as fivefold for air values, and from ten to fiftyfold for grass values. Prior to this year's increase in pollution in that community local citizens had already started litigation against the company. The pollution not only endangered health, it endanger the cattle herds and the timber industry. The court recently ruled for the plaintiffs. That, Mr. Chairman, is a landmark decision in the Montana courts where these people have gone in, sued for damages, and have secured damages for pollution from this phosphate industry. Senator MUSKIE. Is the court involved a court of record, Senator Metcalf? Senator METCALF. This is a district court. Senator MUSKIE. Is there a written opinion that we could include in the record? Senator METCALF. There is not a written opinion. There is a judg ment that I would be glad to put in the record. (Subsequently Senator Metcalf submitted the following exhibit :) IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE 18TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF GALLATIN (No. 16469) David Dutton, et al, Plaintiffs, v. Rocky Mountain Phosphates, Inc., Defendant (No. 16470) Edward Mollenberg, et ux, Plaintiffs, v. Rocky Mountain Phosphates, Inc., Defendant JUDGMENT The above entitled actions came on for trial before the Court and jury on March 21, 1966, and continued until April 2, 1966. The jury had for its consideration the determination as to whether or not the above named defendant was liable in damages to the plaintiffs and the Court had for its exclusive determination the prayer made by plaintiffs that a permanent injunction should issue to restrain the defendant company from discharging into the atmosphere fluoride compounds in such an amount as to be damaging to livestock owned by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs Mollenberg, Dutton, Tavenner, Graveley, Brand, Knop and Gilman appeared in person and through their counsel Russell F. Smith (of the firm of Smith, Boone & Karlberg), Alfred F. Dougherty and Douglas Drysdale. The action brought by co-plaintiffs Tuppes and Perkins was dismissed on motion of their counsel. The actions brought by co-plaintiffs Christofferson and Christofferson, and Donald Rock were dismissed as to the the question of damages. The defendant appeared by its President, Bryce L. Rhodes and its counsel Malcolm MacCalman and Wade J. Dahood (of the law firm of Knight & Dahood). Extensive testimony and other evidence was submitted and the Court having duly considered the evidence and having been fully advise in the law and the premises and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law having been filed herein and having directed that judgment be entered in accordance therewith and by reason of the law and findings: It is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that all of the Plaintiff's applications and actions for a permanent injunction to enjoin the operation of defendant's plant at Garrison, Montana, be and hereby are denied and said actions dismissed with costs to defendant. Dated this 16 day of May, 1966. W. W. LESSLEY, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE 18TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE of Montana, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF GALLATIN (No. 16469) David Dutton, et al. Plaintiffs, v. Rocky Mountain Phosphates, Inc., a Corporation, Defendent, and (No. 16470) Edward Mollenberg, et ux, Plaintiffs, v. Rocky Mountain Phosphates, Inc., a Corporation, Defendant FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above-entitled actions came on for trial before the Court and jury on March 21, 1966, and continued until April 2, 1966. The jury had for its consideration the determination as to whether or not the above-named defendant was liable in damages to the plaintiffs and the Court had for its exclusive determination the prayer made by plaintiffs that a permanent injunction should issue to restrain the defendant company from dischargnig into the atmosphere fluoride compounds in such an amount as to be damaging to livestock owned by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs Mollenberg, Dutton, Travener, Graveley, Brand, Knop 64-886-66- -11 |