Mr. MACKAY. You said that it was politically untenable until somebody came in and showed how you could handle the landfill next to a subdivision. That certainly has not come to the attention of the local government officials in my county.

Mr. LINSKY. May I suggest a visit to some of the sanitary landfills that are being operated in the Los Angeles County? The name of the contact person that comes to mind immediately-there are two people-Frank Bowerman of the Los Angeles Sanitation District, and Ralph Blage, who, I think, is in the room, who heads up your Federal program. He came out of California. I was sorry to lose him. He was out there. These two people could show and ought to be able to provide very good movies of a good, well-run sanitary landfill that you would not be ashamed of 100 feet from your home.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Professor Linsky. We are very glad to have had your testimony. I notice that you have some inclusions in your statement. These will go into the record along with your statement.

Mr. LINSKY. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Give Ervin Stewart our regards.

Mr. LINSKY. I will be very pleased to do so.

The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is William H. Cary, Jr. You are appearing here for the Conference of State Sanitary Engineers, are you not?

Mr. CARY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. CARY, JR., CHIEF PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ON BEHALF OF THE CONFERENCE OF STATE SANITARY ENGINEERS

Mr. CARY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name. is William H. Cary, Jr., and I am the Associate Director for Environmental Health in the District of Columbia Department of Public Health, and as such, the Chief of its engineering activities. I am a registered professional engineer, and have had nearly 40 years' experience in public health engineering practice.

I am here today to testify on behalf of the Conference of State Sanitary Engineers regarding the provisions of S. 306, to amend the Clean Air Act and for other purposes. The Conference of State Sanitary Engineers consists of the chief sanitary engineers of the 50 States, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. We are, therefore, on the firing line in the field of environmental health. We are very pleased to see Congress take such interest in the widespread and ever-growing waste problems facing our expanding urban areas and communities.

The conference is pleased to give support to the bill under consideration here. The general intent and purposes of this bill have our full support. There are some comments regarding a few specific items which will be considered shortly.

Two years ago the conference concurred with Congress on the need to intensify the attack on air pollution, and supported legislative proposals which led to the passage of the Clean Air Act in December

1963. This was covered by the statement presented by Meredith Thompson-page 260-264 of the hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 88th Congress, 1st session, on H.R. 4415, H.R. 4750, H.R. 3507, and H.R. 4061, March 18 and 19, 1963.

The conference, by resolution, at their meeting in June 1964 urged that the program developed under the Clean Air Act provide for: (a) establishment of meaningful liaison between State and Federal programs, (b) realistic financial support for programs which will result in a maximum of effectiveness and productivity for each grant dollar appropriated, and (c) State participation in all contacts between the Federal program and municipalities. Further, the conference identified the duties and responsibilities which must be assumed and developed in State programs. This action was subsequently supported and endorsed by the Association of State an Territorial Health Officers with an accompanying recommendation that the States with minimal legislation seek to obtain stronger legislative authority.

We strongly support and urge the passage of those portions of this bill which would establish at national level, requirements and standards for effluent discharges from new vehicles. In this manner uniform requirements will prevail throughout the country and this makes sense, both from a health as well as an economic standpoint.

While we believe that the legislation requiring a reduction in air pollution from these automotive sources should be national in origin and scope, and should be promulgated as soon as practicable, caution should prevail in establishing effective control dates. An enforcement program should be preceded by the development of demonstrably successful control devices and the establishment of workable control facilities.

We have a problem before us for which at this moment there is no totally adequate solution. If we are to equip all new internal combustion engines with devices to control emissions from both crankcases and exhausts, and we think this should be done, some method of policing their continued operation must be available. This has not yet been established on a practicable basis. In addition, State and local agencies will need to provide enforcement staff and facilities. We support the legislative authority and funding required to make such State programs possible.

In order to resolve some of the basic scientific problems and to apply such knowledge to the practical control of air pollution, the conference supports the establishment of a Federal air pollution control laboratory. This is an urgently needed support facility to all of our activities-local, State, and National-in the prevention and control of air pollution.

Many current solid waste disposal practices are inadequate, inefficient, and present major public health problems, including a substantial contribution to air and water pollution. The open dump which, unfortunately, is the all too common method used by most of our communities, also adds a new dimension to our pollution terminology-"land pollution." Rats, flies, and other vermin all find harborage and food in the dump-but not all of them linger at the dump. They travel to nearby residences, causing environmental public health problems there as well as at the unsightly, odorous dump. The thick

clouds of smoke are generally more easily identified than these other hazards, but they all are very real public health problems. Blight to the landscape and defilement of the natural scenery are inconsistent with the objectives for a beautiful America highlighted by the

President.

We therefore recommend the enactment of comprehensive legislation to provide Federal leadership and assistance on solid waste problen. We feel the emphasis placed by S. 306 upon the research and development aspects of solid waste disposal, including collection and storage, is certainly justified and needed. Funds, research, development, plans and time are all needed before a mass facility construction program could be profitably implemented. Unfortunately, the state of the art of solid waste disposal is not as far advanced as it should be when compared with our present-day complex technology in other fields. This is due primarily to a lack of research support in this very important field.

The general lack of adequate solid waste programs on both the State and local levels also points to the need for Federal leadership in this area. By making area wide surveys, studies, and plans; by providing money, manpower, and technical assistance; and by demonstrating urgently needed new methods and procedures, both State and local, the Public Health Service would be able to do a great deal nationally toward diminishing the serious solid wastes problems facing most of our communities.

There are two provisions of S. 306 which give us some concern and on which we recommend changes. The first is that we believe that the designation of air pollution agencies to receive grants for solid waste surveys and planning is too restrictive because the problem of solid waste disposal has much broader effects than air pollution alone. Most of the job to be done in conducting surveys and planning is only partially related to air pollution. We believe that other competencies are required in solutions of the total problem of solid wastes and that the designation of air pollution agencies as recipients of these grants is too limiting. We recommend that your committee consider modifying section 206 to provide for designation of the appropriate State agency nominated by the Governor. This will permit a State to use its resources in the most beneficial manner.

The second point on which we offer a suggestion is that the authority for grants (sec. 204) be broadened to include surveys, studies, and investigations. We believe that these additional functions will be extremely useful and important in initiating and developing effective solid waste programs in the States and communities.

In summary, the Conference of State Sanitary Engineers believes that S. 306, modified as recommended, would be an important legislative step in coming to grips with automotive exhausts and solid waste problems because it emphasizes the improvement and application of advanced technology in the field. We believe that with this type of assistance our States and local communities will be better equipped to handle their responsibilities of providing services which are essential to health, and general welfare and safety.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before your committee to present the views of the Conference of State Sanitary Engineers. We hope that you will find our comments helpful and that you will give them favorable consideration.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida (presiding). Thank you very much, Mr. Cary. We do find your comments very helpful. We are very appreciative of your taking time to present the comments of the State Conference of Sanitary Engineers.

Do you have any questions, Mr. Carter?

Mr. CARTER. No questions.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. As I recall, the District of Columbia did have a program on air pollution a couple of years ago.

Mr. CARY. We are establishing a program at this present time, sir. We do have an air pollution problem right in this community. Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I am aware of that.

Mr. CARY. Our particular problem here is automotive exhausts. We believe that the establishment of some national standards and the requirement of these devices on most vehicles will be most helpful to us. Our automobiles are primarily transient automobiles, many of them coming in from neighboring States. We do not believe that the District itself should take this action, because only a small portion of the cars that create the problem in the District would actually be repaired or changed or modified.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. You do not think that it would affect the problem by requiring all of the vehicles in the District of Columbia to have these devices?

Mr. CARY. My feeling is this, sir, that if the District of Columbia, by itself, as a single jurisdiction in this metropolitan area, should take this action to require these devices, with the cars that come from tourists across the country, and the automotive industry, the trailer business, and the cars that come into the District from Maryland and Virginia, unless these were equipped also, it would not be an effective program.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I agree that it will certainly be more effective to have it nationwide. Of course, this is the purpose of this legislation, but I do not share your feeling that it would not be of benefit to do something here. For instance, I doubt if most of the visitors get into this morning and afternoon rush with all of our employees coming in and out of town and going to their homes or going to work. And that is what I get caught with. I do not see too many visitors at that time, but they are people here going to or coming from work.

Mr. CARY. That is correct, sir. I agree with you entirely.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. What is the District of Columbia doing? Mr. CARY. The District of Columbia has one of the six national continuous air monitoring stations here. We are cooperating in this national network. We are establishing a program of local control, of local nuisances. At the moment we are looking to some national leadership in the problem of automotive exhausts.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. As I recall it, a couple of years ago there was a drive on, that they were stopping automobiles with very heavy emission, that is, the police were during that period.

Mr. CARY. This is continuing, sir. This is a local problem that we are dealing with.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Do you have a local regulation on this? Mr. CARY. Excessive smoking is covered by a local regulation on

cars.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. What can be done about it?

Mr. CARY. Locally registered automobiles can be required to be repaired to the point where they do not discharge this heavy smoke, but this is not the entire problem.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I understand that. You said this is being done?

Mr. CARY. This is being done.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I had not heard of it for a couple of years. Mr. CARY. This is one of the continuing programs. You have not probably heard that we are chasing rats and would not, unless it was called to your attention. We do have a continuing program in this connection. All cars are inspected at least once a year. This is one of the points of examination.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. How many would you say within the last year have been stopped and have been required to have their automobiles repaired?

Mr. CARY. I would have no notion.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Would there be any record of this?

Mr. CARY. I do not know whether this could be developed as a fact, but a number of them have come to my attention where people have complained about a particular car, and this complaint has been transferred to the proper authority for action and that includes some of our buses, too.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. The buses, too?

Mr. CARY. The buses, too. We are working with the local bus company now on an experiment, in trying to control their exhaust problems with a device. One of the larger manufacturing companies is providing some devices. The bus company is providing some buses for this experiment.

We have not been very successful with that, but it is a step in the right direction. This kind of experimentation has to be carried out. Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I wonder if you could submit for the record of the subcommittee information as to what you are doing in this field. I think that it would be helpful and to have the information as to the results you have had to date with an evaluation of this. That would be most helpful to the committee.

Mr. CARY. I will be glad to submit all of the information we have. (The information referred to follows:)

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

The existing program for control of air pollution in the District of Columbia is comprehensive and has been developed over a long period of time. Perhaps the earliest legislation on air pollution was passed on November 19, 1875, and it is still enforced by the Department of Public Health. In essence, it covers so-called present-day public health nuisances which are concerned with odors, noxious gases, and dusts, resulting from certain natural causes or offensive industrial trades. There are also penalty and severability provisions. Since its inception, its legal effectiveness for controlling air pollution has been demonstrated by the Department of Public Health in proceedings conducted by the corporation counsel.

As urbanization developed this early ordinance on public health nuisances also served as a basis for regulations enforced by other disciplinary District agencies. For example, with the creation of a District Zoning Commission, by an act of Congress in 1920, regulations were subsequently adopted to prohibit those offensive trades which were previously recognized as being potentially a nuisance to the public.