be abandoned. The Nation will demand increased productivity in housing. This can be done only if labor, builders, and manufacturers work together in enlightened self-interest. IX. PUBLIC HOUSING We oppose any extension of public housing. No public housing should be approved for any locality until approved by vote of the citizens of that community. 1959 OFFICERS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOMEBUILDERS Carl T. Mitnick, Merchantville, N.J., president Martin L. Bartling, Knoxville, Tenn., first vice president John M. Dickerman, executive vice president. Mr. MITNICK. As stated therein, this association has for years recognized the problem of providing adequate facilities for modern family needs as "the most important need for the long-range growth of our civilization." In October 1955, a community facilities committee was established within the National Association of Home Builders. With the assistance of our economics department, this committee engaged in intensive study of the problem, its dollar dimensions, and its impact on housing and on the economy. This committee quickly expressed its strong feeling that the task of providing community facilities must be undertaken on a local, State, and National level as rapidly as possible in order to permit the homebuilding industry to provide for America's housing needs in the years ahead. Based on estimates from Department of Commerce official sources, it called attention to the fact that expenditures on community facilities were then at the rate of $8.6 billion per year (including highways, schools, hospitals, water and sewers, and other local governmental buildings) compared to an estimated necessary annual rate of over $20 billion for the next 10 years. For water and sewers alone, we estimated that for the 10 years of 1955-65, the country should be spending $25 billion including $15 billion to replace obsolete and outmoded systems. In 1956 the National Association of Home Builders further recognized the increasing importance of the subject by establishing a separate staff community facilities department to work continuously on the problems in this field. We are convinced that unless we begin to make progress between now and 1965-at which time all population experts estimate that new family formation by World War II war babies will strain the capacity of the homebuilding industry-we shall shortly be faced with the need for the greatest and most rapid expansion our local communities have ever faced. The deficit in actual community facilities appears, however, to be increasing. Although official statistics are not available beyond 1956, there is every indication we are falling further and further behind each year. I request that you include in your record a copy of an article appearing in Fortune magazine for December 1958, entitled "The Worst Public Works Problem." As summarized in this excellent article, there is a deficiency of almost $7 billion in sewerage facilities and over $412 billion in water supply systems. This is a real and present national problem. Mr. SPENCE. Without objection, the article may be included in the record at this point. (The document referred to is as follows:) [From Fortune magazine, December 1958] THE WORST PUBLIC WORKS PROBLEM (By Edward T. Thompson) Politics, apathy, and the headlong rush to suburbia have made water and sewerage facilities the greatest single deficiency in U.S. public works. And the way things are going, we may not catch up for 40 years. Fourteen miles southwest of downtown St. Louis is a subdivision of $30,000– $50,000 homes called Ronnie Country Club Acres. Its 25 families are happy in homes in such a desirable neighborhood-until it rains. "Then," says one despondent resident, "the septic tanks overflow and sewage lies in the yards or runs down the street." The people of Ronnie Country Club Acres have spent a lot of money trying to rectify the condition by improving drainage fields or putting in storm drains. The owner of one of the houses secretly installed a pipe that takes any overflow from his septic tank and discharges it alongside the State highway. But none of these expedients has solved the problem; it's still unpleasant when it rains on Ronnie Country Club Acres. The situation that has overtaken these St. Louis suburbanites, with their large investments, is one that is familiar across the United States; it is one small item in the most neglected of all the public works problems arising out of postwar prosperity, mobility, and population growth. Fortune in the previous articles of this series on public works has analyzed the highway situation, into which the Government may be charging blindly, but at any rate is charging, and the vast school-building program that is actually catching up on the famous "classroom shortage" of a few years ago. But water supply and sewerage, as this concluding article shows, remain a signal failure in public works. These vital deficiencies are being attacked haphazardly, reluctantly, and locally, instead of on an areawide basis, which is the only effective approach. And not only are water and sewerage facilities woefully deficient, their potential as a powerful tool for shaping communities is being almost totally overlooked. Not surprisingly, the deficiencies in both sewerage and water facilities, which have been growing steadily more serious for nearly 20 years, are most serious in the sprawling suburbs. The Nation's exploding metropolises have filled the country with a hodgepodge of water and sewer systems bounded by political lines instead of natural drainage basins, systems that were often inadequate even before they were completed, much less paid for. The U.S. Public Health Service, in a community-by-community survey, found that nearly half of the 100 million Americans who have community sewers do not have adequate sewage treatment facilities. The Business and Defense Services Administration estimates that some 40 million people need new or improved sewage-collection systems. BDSA also says that almost half of the 117 million people who use public water supplies can't be sure of having enough water available on a hot summer day to put out a major fire. It is relatively easy to stir up indignation over industrial pollution, a wellpublicized problem that will be solved, if at all, by private not public works. Similarly, it is not hard to gain support for such water projects as the Missouri River Basin program, which through flood control, irrigation, and new powe sources will change the fortunes of huge areas of the country. But sewer ar water needs are less visible. The ordinary householder is satisfied as long clean-looking water flows from his faucets, and as long as the sewage someplace where he can't smell it. In all, says BDSA, the U.S. investment in municipal sewerage system least $6.9 billion short of what it should be, and in waterworks is short billion of the needs. In the next 17 years, to correct today's deficie to provide for the expected surge in population and for depreciation o facilities, BDSA estimates, the Nation should spend at least $44 billion on waterworks, sewers, and sewage treatment plants. This would mean spending $2.6 billion a year-which is about twice the average rate of outlays for this purpose since 1946. Of the two problems-water and sewage the latter is by far the more critical. Says one BDSA official: "I don't think the municipalities will catch up on sewers for 40 years." This is an ideal that no U.S. metropolitan area has achieved. It is a diagram of the kind of modern water and sanitary sewerage system that Black & Veatch, Kansas City consulting engineers, consider adequate for an average midwestern metropolitan area of 1 million residents. Its hypothetical cost: $473 million. Actual investment might vary from $240 million to $700 million, depending on topography, population density, subsurface soil conditions, and other local factors, and an additional investment of at least $100 million would be needed to provide satisfactory storm sewers. The water and sewerage problems cannot be separated. Up to 95 percent of the water that is purified and distributed to users must be disposed of as sewage; in a metropolitan area this requires an extensive system of lateral and interceptor sewers leading to a modern treating plant that removes 70 to 90 percent of organic pollutants from the sewage. The natural purifying ability of the river (or bay or lake) takes care of the rest, and thus the people in communities a few miles downstream can use the water in their homes. MORE PEOPLE, MORE WASHERS The United States has no absolute shortage of water. The shortage is one of reservoirs, transmission lines, and pumps; these have not been adequate since 1940. During World War II new waterworks construction was virtually nonexistent, and from the end of the war through the Korean emergency, rising costs and material shortages kept the pace of construction well below what was needed to keep up with the population. Since 1940 practically all of the increase in population (from 132 million to 175 million) has been in urban areas; the population dependent on public water supply, says BDSA, has risen from 82 million to 117 million. At the same time, the advent of such appliances as automatic washers has raised the per capita consumption of public water from 122 gallons to 160 gallons per day. By 1977 some 149 million people (of a total population of 209 million) will be in communities with public water, and their per capita needs will be at least 200 gallons daily. The total cost of new waterworks construction needed between now and 1975 is put at around $20 billion. By 1975 at least 134 million people will be in areas with public sewerage, compared to 100 million today. To provide them with adequate sewage disposal, $24 billion should be spent. A great part of this spending is needed for sewagetreatment facilities. Until recently, most sewer systems were considered adequate if they simply provided collection lines. The raw sewage could be dumped, as it still is in St. Louis, New Orleans, and many other areas, into a convenient stream or river, which through dilution and natural bacteria action would often purify itself within a few miles. But as population became more dense, the amount of raw sewage discharged began to exceed the purifying capacity of the streams. Federal and State authorities agree that the Mississippi just below St. Louis is highly polluted. Most large cities and many smaller communities recognized the dangers of pollution and built so-called primary treatment plants-in effect, settling tanks that reduce organic pollution by about one-third. Now, however, the quantities of sewage have risen to such a level in areas like Denver and Washington, D.C., that more intensive treatment is needed-secondary treatment, which, by aeration and settling, leaves the effluent 70 to 90 percent "clean." Primary-treated sewage from Denver now enters the South Platte River, which is a source of irrigation water for downstream farmers; even though the State warned of a health hazard in 1956 and recommended secondary treatment, Denver is still not spending the necessary money. NO SALES APPEAL IN SEWERS Besides the sheer population growth, a complicating factor in the problems of water and sewerage is the pattern of that growth. When new houses are erected on sites contiguous to built-up areas, it is a relatively simple matter to extend community water and sewer lines to them. But the subdivider, in his search for cheap land, generally jumps out into the countryside, then tries to persuade the city to bring water to him. Usually he is willing to pay for the installation of waterlines within his development, plus at least his proportionate share of the water main from town. In most cases, the town is willing to pay the incremental costs because it can be fairly sure it will recover them in increased water revenues as the area builds up. Sometimes, however, as in many parts of Florida that have a high water table, the cost of bringing water from town is greater than drilling a central well or wells at the development, so the developer builds the facilities and then either goes into the water business himself, or deeds or sells the equipment to a private utility. In either case, the home buyer pays the cost in the price of his house. Sewerage is another matter. A developer may install sewer lines, pay for the trunk line from town, add the cost to the price of his houses, and leave the owner with a permanent system. But most developers don't operate that way. Unlike a good water supply, which practically all buyers insist on, sewers have little sales appeal. Buyers seem to ignore the rather obvious fact that up to 95 percent of the water that enters a house must be carried away by some sort of mechanical means. So the developer puts in septic tanks at perhaps two-thirds the cost of sewers, without, of course, informing the buyer that these devices may be adequate for only 5 to 10 years, and that in the meantime there will be maintenance costs. When the septic tanks start giving trouble, the house owners often find that the only solution is a sewer system. Then they not only have to write off their investment in the septic tanks, they have to pay considerably more for their sewers than they would have when the houses were built because properties and streets have to be torn up. Septic tanks are all right if certain conditions are met: if the drainage field is big enough and the soil drains easily. Authorities agree, however, that the average development lot of less than a quarter acre is seldom sufficient even with the best possible conditions. "BREAK UP THE COMPETITION" Planners and engineers, in a rare display of unanimity, believe strongly that metropolitan action is vital if the country is to get the kind of sewerage it needs. They cite several reasons for their belief. Individual municipalities within a metropolitan area do not pass the laws necessary to curb the installation of septic tanks; each town is afraid that if it is too strict with a developer he will simply build his houses elsewhere. The separate towns can't or won't do anything to bring uniformly high standards to the multiplicity and variety of sewerage systems that already exist in every metropolitan area. On the Virginia side of the Potomac River across from Washington, for example, there are 14 sewerage-collection agencies operating 19 treatment plants (only 1 gives secondary treatment); in addition, there are 70,000 people without sewers at all. The lack of concerted action is due partly to the fact that the man at the top of the hill just doesn't care about the problems of the man at the bottom. Sioux -City, Iowa, for instance, despite longstanding complaints from people downstream on the Missouri River about pollution, has refused to build a sewage-treatment plant. Moreover, "clusters of governments can't make overall policy," as Robert Wood, political scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, points out. "One city can make its own residents happy, but not much else. Even if governments want to solve problems on a broad scale, officials are hamstrung by outdated laws and the nationwide scramble for resources. We need to break up the competition among communities." Sewage treatment makes sense, of course, only if an entire area participates. There is little incentive for 1 town to clean up its sewage if 30 others around it aren't equally conscientious. Finally, argue the planners, there is the economic advantage of metropolitan sewerage. The capital investment required for a treatment plant to serve 500,000 people is only about three-quarters as much per capita as for one that serves 50,000 people in the same area; per capita operating costs are also usually less in a big plant. These are not necessarily arguments for establishing overall metropolitan governments; but they are potent arguments for setting up public-works authorities able to operate on a metropolitan scale. "MOSCOW OR SEATTLE?" Seattle and its environs are typical of what planners call the conglomerate mess of suburban sewer facilities, and of what can happen when communities fail to take an area wide approach to the problem. The Seattle area now has a population of about 850,000, over 65 percent of it within the city limits, the rest in surrounding fringe communities. The area is expected to have a total population of a million and a quarter by 1980 (only half of it inside the city limits). Until this summer, sewerage service was controlled by 49 agencies. Though there are 25 sewage-treatment plants in the area, raw sewage from about 425,000 people is regularly discharged at 60 different points into Puget Sound, the Duwamish River, and Elliott Bay. Treated sewage from 80,000 people enters Lake Washington directly from 10 treatment plants and indirectly from at least 4,000 septic tanks. In addition, when it rains heavily, overflows of raw sewage enter Lake Washington and Green Lake more than 40 times per summer. As a result, the concentration of certain plant nutrients, mostly phosphorus and nitrogen, has increased to the point where plant life is choking the lake. About one-third of the total population is without public sewers, and to keep up with residential development some 6,000 private septic tanks are being built annually at a cost of $2 million. Engineers consider many of these no better than a temporary solution. Much of Seattle itself uses combined sewers that carry both sanitary sewage and storm runoff (a situation common to most big cities). Because of inadequate provision for stormflows, many of these sewers overflow when it rains, flood basements, and discharge sewage into streets. The logical area for future growth is around Lake Washington, but its greatest attribute the lake is being ruined. The communities on the eastern shore of the lake recognized the problem, and also recognized that they could solve it only in concert. So 3 years ago the towns tried to get together on a joint trunk sewer line that would take the sewage out of the lake and put it in Puget Sound. But the well-intentioned attempt quickly turned into a battle. Two of the communities, Bellevue and Lake Hills, couldn't agree on what plan to adopt; nothing got built. Meanwhile, a group of private citizens led by James Ellis, an earnest young attorney, and strongly encouraged by Seattle's able mayor, Gordon S. Clinton, had been pushing the cause of metropolitan government for the area. Ellis, in fact, had helped draft a new charter for King County, in 1952, which would have created a county-manager form of government. Opposition slogans such as "Is This Moscow or Seattle?" plus the lack of a compelling reason for administrative change killed it at the polls. In 1956, the city and county finally did get together to finance a $130,000 sewerage study by Brown & Caldwell, San Francisco consulting engineers; the State pollution control commission contributed $10,000 toward the study. Concurrently, Ellis' group drafted and pushed through the State legislature in 1957by one vote-a law that allowed the formation of a metropolitan municipal cor |