pollution control and abatement. I simply suggest to you there are those who have discovered the environmental crisis within the last few years, which is superior to no discovery at all, but we wish to commend you, Mr. Chairman, for your foresight and your understanding of it well over a decade ago. We thank you for the opportunity of appearing before you today.

Mr. BLATNIK. We have with us Mr. John Kinney who also has testifield as a private consultant. I am glad to see him this morning. I want the record to show that he was available here 2 weeks ago and we got caught in a bind between legislative action on the House floor which delayed our hearing testimony from all the scheduled witnesses. We appreciate the gentleman's patience and understanding as well as his coming back to be available at the convenience of the subcommittee. Mr. Kinney, we have your statement. Do you want to proceed to read it or call attention to those aspects which have not been covered and which you want to direct your attention to?

STATEMENT OF JOHN E. KINNEY, SANITARY ENGINEERING

CONSULTANT

Mr. KINNEY. I submitted it for the record 2 weeks ago when I had to leave. But I think a couple of points in there might summarize the concerns that I have listened to you and Mr. Holifield express.

Very frankly, I must publicly admit my admiration for your guts in being able to say that something offered in the name of environment might have a deficiency in it, because these days when the scare is on and any promise to help protect the environment has great public appeal, it takes nerve to suggest that it is not all it might be cracked up to be.

This is particularly so in an election year. But the points that you make in terms of the deficiencies in this proposal, I think, would be well summarized in the point you were just making; that is, by using the term "environment" it would seem to be all encompassing, when actually the proposal suggests that environment and pollution are interchangeable. They are not.

The adverse effects and various aspects of the physical environment is covered by pollution, but environment as a whole covers the whole gamut of full impact on man.

The other day when Mr. Ash and representatives of the Office of Management and Budget were talking, they were proposing that there should be an increased authority to this agency to establish standards; that the agency should have the responsibility for monitoring and then for policing.

The questions from the subcommittee in terms of what would be covered in these various areas were answered with a good many words such as "expect that," "would be surprised if," "would hope that."

It would seem as though there are many deficiencies in the proposal, many areas that have yet to be tied down, and once the agency is established the recommending crew would no longer be around. So I do not know how the tie-in would take place.

But I notice, in terms of the increased authority to set standards, it was mentioned as the highest significance and it really is, because while pollution is only part of the environmental picture the control over standards can really control the environment.

In reference to these 80 or so agency programs that you were referring to that have to do with environmental activity, you could find out that eight or nine that are in this group could be making decisions that would control them. The control may be right and it might be wrong. But in terms of the setup, there seems to be no basis by which we can in advance anticipate effects.

If monitoring is to be a total part of it, eventually the NOAA operation must be transferred over to the new agency, because this will be monitoring the atmosphere. So also must the U.S. Geological Survey be transferred over. Otherwise, the monitoring will not be total or noncompetitive with other agencies. By having this as a separate agency it could be in competition with each of them.

These concerns I raise because I think they should be anticipated before rather than to listen to a hassle afterward, because, to me, placing the environment in perspective soon is our most important project. If it is to be total, then it must not only be population distribution, availability of food from land and sea, availability of minerals from land and sea, but energy. All of those must be placed in perspective.

Now, in all of the discussion by the Government in proposing this, I heard no references to the existing faults that are occasioning the new proposal. Obviously, there must be some faults or there would not be a need for reorganization. But taking the existing agencies and putting them together under a new title seems to be a bit shortsighted. I doubt whether it will answer those deficiencies as they now exist.

Mr. BLATNIK. I think the witnesses for the Government were stating that efficiency for the program is to eliminate fragmentation. I think they felt that putting those programs into one agency would make it more effective. That was the contention. They did not answer why they left so many other environmental programs out of the

agency.

Mr. KINNEY. The integration of land, air, and water I totally concur with. Separating them into different facets, answering the one problem causes a new one. I think they should be together. But in terms of solving the individual problems, there must be some kind of a deficiency in there or we would not be making a proposal for some of the changes that are now being set up.

One of the concerns Mr. Holifield raised I would like to use as an illustration. We can set a limit, as was proposed, for a 1° limit on the discharges and temperature in Lake Michigan. No discharge can be more than 1° above the existing water level.

It was proposed as a means for protecting the fishery. It sounded like a reasonable proposal. But we have no agency in Government that would suggest that maybe there might be some other consequences on the environment. The cities could not meet the 1° as well as the industries. That means all cities and industries must provide cooling towers and recycling.

In Lake Michigan we are pumping 5.7 billion gallons of water a day. To recycle that means 286 inillion gallons of water per day put into the atmosphere. Put that much up there continuously and we are not only going to have fogging and icing, but we could have weather modification. We could have more than that, though. That means 100 billion gallons of water a year taken out of Lake Michigan.

This could mean a drop in water level. This could have international effects. We have a Supreme Court decree that prohibits this. We have cities inland short of water. Under a Supreme Court decree they could get the water. They could watch the water floating uselessly overhead. That water will not come down in the same area, the precipitation will not be there.

The reason I raise this is the necessity to have a separation of the fact-finding from the policing. If all of the monitoring and the standards and policing are placed in a single agency-if, as Mr. Train suggested, this new UEC and EPA are to be mutually supportive, I wonder how many proposals will be before the Congress for their review.

It would sound like we are going to have one proposal coming before you at a time and it is accepted or rejected just as this proposed reorganization is. We are not going to have two chances with some of these consequences with our growing population.

There is also the suggestion that under this program it is to provide for the conservation of natural resources. We do not have a basis for a definition, particularly in terms of pollution control.

Now, what would be missing, in addition to a lack of facts, is that it does not cover the whole environmental picture. You mentioned land. We have had great concern through the press over Lake Erie. Our big problem in western Lake Erie is algae. If we were to close off all the sewers we would still have the algae problem.

It reflects the land drainage, it reflects the fact that they used to drain this out and made this a swamp.

In my statement I have added support for this small lake up in the Rockies above Aspen, Colo., which is identically the same picture as Lake Erie. There are no sewers above it. It is simply the matter of the land. There it is the matter in which the land has been opened up for recreation.

One other concern that I have in the proposal as offered, and one of the questions that the subcommittee should ask for answers is the role of the Office of Management and Budget in the transfer of personnel.

While I do not argue about the necessity for maintaining a strong policing action in pollution control, I would object to having the FBI, with the authority to set all the rules and regulations all the way from traffic standards up to wiretapping or seize, search and what have you, doing the policing.

I think it is going to be pretty much the same thing here. I think it is going to depend an awful lot upon the individuals, the leadership, and it is going to depend even more than that. There will be no court of partial review-no place where the Congress can go and ask if there is an alternative. As time goes on I think we are going to need more and more of these alternatives.

We also need to answer such questions as you have raised as to the significance of the program in HUD and Agriculture that are not going to be transferred over. If the title of this agency were pollution policing I would have a lot less reluctance to accept it. But with the idea that it is environmental protection, I think perhaps it is suggesting things that just will not come to be.

If we are going to live in this hoped-for world, coming up with the facts to prove the point, I think we are going to be coming back to

Congress 2 years from now and saying that we need another reorganization. Rather than to suggest that the failure is on the part of Congress for having to provide appropriate legislation, could we have a third person group that could offer to the Congress the alternatives so we could determine the true role of the administration in the program? These are my concerns, Mr. Chairman, the environment, protecting it, designing the treatment facilities, and making them work.

It has been my business for 30 years, and I know from your history of activity in this field, the concerns that you raise really attest to your background and knowledge, and I am hoping mine are offered in the same spirit.

Mr. BLATNIK. You raise some good points and I will assure you that they will be given full consideration as we keep them in mind and review the additional testimony that we expect will be coming from the Ash Council and from the Office of Management and Budget. There were some programs that were not included, and we have some questions regarding so many blank spots. This is just the beginning. We can do much better than start out with a poor beginning with the body of knowledge and experience that we have before us now, what has happened in the past, and what faces us in the immediate future.

The monumental proportions and complexities of this total thingit is just an enormous problem and that is the nibbling process as I see it.

Mr. KINNEY. I agree with you and I think with the emotional and political climate, undoubtedly this reorganization will go through as something which is a step in the right direction.

I am reminded of the old remark that if you do not know where you are going it does not make any difference which road you take. Sooner or later, I think, the definition of the route must be made, but we must know first where we are headed.

So it would seem to me with a number of congressional committees involved in substantive legislation, a number of appropriation subcommittees that will be involved and the resolution of those issues, unless they are resolved will mean instead of having one agency we will still have a number of other agencies all under one title.

It would appear then that the one group in the Congress to ride herd on this will be the Government Operations Committee, simply because this will continue to go across many lines and the one agency or congressional committee that would have that kind of responsibility would be yours.

Part of it is the concern over the lack of fully developing the program; the other part of it is the expressed hope that your committee will stay with it so we can try to coordinate these multiple choices. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you very much, Mr. Kinney.

The subcommittee has received for insertion in the record a statement by Congressman G. William Whitehurst, who was scheduled to testify in person but could not be with us today; and a statement by Congressman Rogers C. B. Morton. Without objection, these two statements will appear at this point in the record.

(The statements referred to follow :)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. G. WILLIAM WHITEHURST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity you have given me to appear before you on a subject of such national importance as the fight against the pollution of our environment. I wish to indicate my support for the President's Environmental Protection Agency.

You would think from all the attention it is now receiving that the fight to preserve our ecology is new, and that we had just discovered the problems of pollution. The news media have devoted a great deal of time and space to the subject, time and space that I feel are long overdue. They have been joined by many groups across the Nation, and together they have called for some rather drastic and immediate action by the private sector of the economy. They have also called for action by the Federal Government and asked that we get into the thick of this fight to eliminate, or at least abate, the ever-increasing danger of pollution.

It occurs to me that the very fact that such a great deal is being asked of the Government is a sad commentary on the efforts that have been put forth for almost 15 years.

The Federal Government's efforts began in earnest during the 84th Congress, with the passage of air and water pollution control legislation. It is evident today that this effort has not been as successful as we had hoped, nor apparently as it was needed to be, for today the human race is faced with the dubious distinction of achieving what no other animal has been able to accomplish: destroying itself in its own waste.

At present, it is estimated that more than 80 Government agencies are involved in fighting pollution, and herein lies the problem. There is no doubt that pollution control is needed, and we all know the end results we want: clean air. clean water, clean landscape, control of our wastes, and a substantial reduction of all pollutants. The main item lacking in the pollution abatement effort is the machinery to direct the attack. It is not enough to pass new laws and appropriate more money in the scramble to find the right combination to end pollution.

Of course, in this time of inflation, high taxes, and tight spending, every dollar must accomplish the absolute maximum. All of this calls for leadership, planning, and coordination.

Under the present condition of pollution control agencies scattered across the Government, it is too easy for the left hand to not know what the right hand is doing, and inefficiencies in administration develop. This may be one reason why the pollution control effort has not been effective so far.

If we are to meet the President's concern as expressed in his special message to Congress on pollution, and if we are to develop an orderly system of doing business, a centralized agency must be established to lead the fight against pollution.

It is easy for me to support such an agency. I proposed in my bill, H.R. 15969, the Pollution Abatement Act of 1970, a centralized independent agency to head the pollution abatement program, fund research, and establish standards. This Agency and its operations are very similar to the administration's program, except that my bill would not have located the Agency in the Executive Office of the White House.

Mr. Chairman, concentrating the pollution control effort in one agency, whether independent or not, will enable more efficient use of tax dollars being spent to restore, renew, and reform the abatement program. Central management in one agency to solve problems and work with the States and public will speed the effort to eliminate this blight over our Nation. In our desire for quick action we must not waste the funds expended. A single agency would oversee the operations to eliminate the duplicated efforts now underway, and it would insure the largest return for the dollars spent.

President Nixon stated in his Midwest meeting with several Governors investigating the pollution problem that a "total mobilization" of the Nation's resources is needed to fight pollution, and he called for reform of governmental institutions, bringing them up to date and into the 20th century. I believe a central agency such as the Environmental Protection Agency could most effectively and efficiently utilize the resources made available in the pollution fight. I support it.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for giving me this opportunity to appear before you.