Dr. AMES. Well, I would say that we are concerned to a great extent in the voluntary approach to control of pollution at its source. Mr. HORTON. Well, yes, I understand that. But you have to make the determination as to whether or not it is safe for people to use the beaches. Dr. AMES. That is right. Mr. HORTON. Now, the question that I have as to that decision is: Are you satisfied, as the public health officer of the county, that you have ample information on a very frequent basis-you have indicated that you take your own samplings once a week but that you have the State samplings available on a daily basis-are you satisfied that you get enough timely information so that you can make that judgment on a continuing basis, as it were, during the swimming season? Dr. AMES. I would say so, I would say so. Mr. HORTON. One other question: This morning-I do not recall who the witness was, but he stated that they were unable to get information from you with regard to counts and that sort of thing. Perhaps you were not here when the statement was made, but it was contrasted with the fact that information from the Federal Government was made available and public, and then there were some criticisms that you did not make available information to the public with regard to the facts on which you based your decision. I do not know whether this is accurate or if it is not accurate, but I think you ought to have an opportunity, at least, on the record, to say whatever you would like with regard to that charge. Dr. AMES. No, I submitted a summary of our information to the person who queried and, as a matter of fact, I sent a copy of a letter to one of the local newspapers. At the same time it was criticized in terms of being in averages and in terms of certain percentages over 2,400 MPN [most probable number], but I did submit it in that way. Mr. HORTON. Thank you. Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman. Mr. JONES. Yes. Mr. MCCARTHY. We have talked a lot about strict enforcement. I just wonder whose job it is? Here we have the Van Lare law to amend the public health law in relation to the extent to which organisms of the coliform group may be permitted in certain waters of the State. We also have a Federal study, aptly sampled, 34 samples on Ontario, 34 at Durand-Eastman, 19 at Webster. In each case, the samples exceed the Van Lare standard: 20 percent on Ontario, 26 percent at Durand-Eastman, 37 percent at Webster. I wonder, Doctor, whose job it is to enforce this law. Does this law mean anything or what? Dr. AMES. I think, Mr. McCarthy, you will find the answer in the fact that the Summerville-it is on the first page of the material I furnished-the Summerville plant, which is overloaded, and is to be converted into a pumping station, that at the North St. Paul Street plant, a secondary treatment plant is under construction with State and Federal aid. Mr. MCCARTHY. What has that got to do with the enforcement of this law that is on the books now? The data I cite refers to conditions on the three beaches now. Dr. AMES. Well, the Mr. MCCARTHY. I mean eventually, sure, that will solve it, but I am talking about the summer, and the people who are using those beaches now. If that law means anything, it obviously is not being enforced because we here have well-documented scientific data which show the coliform count on all three beaches exceed the standards set in that law. Dr. AMES. Well Mr. MCCARTHY. Whose job do you think it is to enforce that? I assume you feel it is not yours. Would that be the responsibility of the State health department? Dr. AMES. No. We have had sessions with the appropriate operating authorities to attempt to secure voluntary improvement in their plant operations and to secure more adequate chlorination of the effluent at the local level. Now, the ultimate enforcement, the way I read the law, rests with the State health commissioner and the attorney general. Of course, this information is passed on, and the State regional people participate in these discussions locally so they know what is going on. But we do not have actual enforcement authority which is reserved, as I say, to the State attorney general and the State health commissioner. Mr. JONES. Are there further questions? I would like to remind the members of the subcommittee that we have eight witnesses listed for 15 minutes apiece, and that would take us to 6:45. So the interrogation is going to have to be limited if we are to receive the witnesses we have scheduled for today, and I hope we can. Dr. Ames, thank you very much. Dr. AMES. Thank you, gentlemen. Mr. JONES. Our next witness is Gen. Roy T. Dodge of the U.S. Corps of Engineers. General, I would like to qualify you before you commence. You have been in the Corps of Engineers. What is your academic background? General DODGE. Sir, I am a graduate of Auburn, Alabama, and Cornell, New York. Mr. JONES. That is enough. [Laughter.] General DODGE. I believe I went too far. Mr. JONES. What is the State of your nativity? General DODGE. Alabama, sir. Mr. JONES. You qualify exceedingly well. [Laughter.] General DODGE. Thank you very much for that reception, sir. STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. ROY T. DODGE, DIVISION ENGINEER, U.S. ARMY DIVISION, NORTH CENTRAL CORPS OF ENGINEERS General DODGE. Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of this Congress, I am Brigadier General Dodge, Division Engineer of the North Central Division, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army. It is my pleasure today to represent Lt. Gen. William F. Cassidy, the Chief of Engineers, at your hearing, and to present to you on the subject of pollution control and abatement a brief statement outlining, insofar as the time will allow, what the corps has done in this area, what we are doing, and some problems that still face us to which we are seeking solutions. The geographic area of my responsibility in the corps includes all of the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence River in the U.S. territory, and also the upper Mississippi north of St. Louis, and the Red River of the North, although they are not involved in this hearing today. The problems of water pollution are not strangers in the corps, nor in my own north-central division. Several years ago, in response to congressional authorization and provision of construction funds, and based upon an investigation by the St. Paul Engineer District, the action program for low water regulation of the Red River of the North was completed to ameliorate pollution problems. In the 1962 omnibus bill, the Oakley Reservoir on the Sangamon River, Ill., was authorized by the Congress for corps construction, with provision for low flow augmentation for pollution abatement. Capacity to provide such required flows is presently being designed into the reservoir. In the recent 1965 omnibus bill, the Ames Reservoir on the Skunk River, Iowa, was authorized for corps construction, with provision for lowwater-flow pollution abatement. Mr. JONES. Was the low flow augmentation done under the provisions of the 1958 act? General DODGE. Yes, which allowed us to go beyond the flood control, which is our primary authority, and into other uses of the water. Mr. JONES. I am glad to know, being author of that provision of the Flood Control Act, that it is being employed. General DODGE. Yes, sir. (Continuing with prepared statement:) A vast majority of current Corps of Engineers investigations, both in north central division and corpswide, are being conducted in close cooperation with the FWPCA, with a view toward providing adequate water supplies for municipal and industrial usage, together with augmented low-water flows to reduce pollution to an acceptable level after the fullest degree of treatment available to the riparian users of water in accordance with modern engineering standards. In the area of particular interest to this hearing there are numerous survey reports or investigations in which the Corps of Engineers has a congressionally assigned responsibility or interest which deals with more effective water usage. Many of these reports include provision for pollution control and abatement as a multipurpose usage of our water resources. Included among the Lake Erie-Lake Ontario Basin streams under study are the Cuyahoga, Buffalo, Sandusky, and Genesee Rivers. Coordination or cooperation with other Federal, State, local, and private water-oriented agencies is either a requirement of law or an agency-established regulation. In accordance with established congressional directives and corps policies, the most effective water and related land resource usage for all purposes is considered in all basin, subbasin and action plan type of reports. In coordination with FWPCA, pollution control and abatement are treated as a prime water purpose in appropriate instances. For ready reference of the committee, I have appended a list, which I won't go through at this time, of all the studies in which water pollution abatement is one of the areas of investigation. Treatment to abate pollution, including estimates of the costs and enforcement thereof, is primarily the province of the FWPCA of the Department of the Interior. The role of the Corps of Engineers in this field is to cooperate and coordinate to the fullest degree, and to engineer to the maximum practicable extent, effective measures which are within the realm of practicable feasibility in those projects for which the corps has primary responsibility. Within the corps' own establishments, aggressive steps have been taken to equip our floating plant-and I might add we have some 300 vessels in the Great Lakes area ranging from outboard motorboats to seagoing dredges-and shore installations with modern and effective pollution treatment facilities. In regard to the dumping of dredge spoil in the Great Lakes, the point has been made that this practice is not in consonance with pollution control objectives. The polluted material in the harbors, of course, does not originate with the Corps of Engineers. Our work consists of moving the material from one point in the lake, that is the harbor, to another-deep water. Thus we believe that this practice does not add to the pollution of the lake waters. However, we enthusiastically support the need for positive and aggressive action to cure the pollution problem and are anxious to take any steps which are feasible and practical which will contribute to the solution. With this in mind we have made a study recently on the merits of placing the material in diked disposal areas as an alternative to dumping in the lake. This preliminary study considered 15 projects on Lake Erie and the results indicate that this will be an extremely costly procedure. The first cost of providing diked disposal areas with a 10-year life was estimated to be about $110 million, which together with the added dredging costs would amount to an annual charge of about $16 million over and above the cost of disposal by present methods. This figure is for selected sites on Lake Erie alone and for the first 10 years. Lack of suitable space after the first 10 years could conceivably increase this cost materially later. When all of the lakes are considered-we are talking now about 15 harbors-when all of the lakes are considered, and there are 107 harbors, we are dealing in tremendous additional costs. Also this is only a partial solution and has other unsatisfactory aspects. It will not take care of polluted matter in solution of suspension and the disposal sites will not be very attractive areas on the lake front. The basic question then is whether this additional expenditure is warranted and whether to spend the money for this purpose or to apply it to eliminating pollution at the source. The economics of providing the diked disposal areas are now under consideration by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration of the Department of the Interior. I might interject here that our report was sent to Washington last February. It has been discussed with the Federal Water Pollution Control officials. It is now in their hands, and we have asked them the basic question: Should this amount of money be spent in this manner or should it be better spent in some other way in attacking this pollution problem? As soon as we have worked out a coordinated answer between the two of us we will submit something to Congress, and I would expect that this fall Congress may hear our recommendations as to whether we get additional money for this purpose or for some other means of attacking this problem. Another action we are taking has to do with the control and removal of floating debris as opposed to the chemical and bacteriological pollution which one normally thinks of. We are preparing such a study for Cleveland Harbor. Such a study has been completed for Buffalo Harbor and Niagara River and is presently before the Bureau of the Budget for consideration. The Corps of Engineers joins with other Federal, State and local agencies in concern over pollution problems such as in Lake Erie and will continue to seek means to preserve our water resources. I greatly appreciate this opportunity, sir, to appear before your subcommittee and present this statement for General Cassidy. (The attachment to General Dodge's statement follows:) Survey investigations involving consideration of water quality-west end of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario Location Cattaraugus Creek, N.Y. Cayuga, Buffalo and Chittenango Creek, N.Y. Tonawanda Creek Basin, Genesee River, N. Y. North Atlantic region comprehensive study. Northeast water supply study. State of New York program (sec. 214 of 1965 omnibus bill). Considered project Basin study; however, local flood protection for Provision of multiple-purpose reservoir on Buf- Local flood protection project and multiple- Considers all water uses, including water quality. Oriented toward water supply, including Considers all water uses where appropriate. Status of study Complete in fiscal year 1967. Complete in fall of 1966. Complete study in fall of 1966. Complete report in Complete in 1967. Study under way. Mr. JONES. Thank you, General Dodge. Do you have jurisdiction over the entire State of New York? General DODGE. That portion of it which drains into Lake Ontario and Lake Erie, which is a rather thin band in the northern part, sir. Mr. JONES. Do you know whether any consideration is being given. to the employment of title I of the Flood Control Act of last year? General DODGE. Title I? Mr. JONES. Title I of the Flood Control Act of 1965. General DODGE. Is this the New England water supply study? General DODGE. As a matter of fact, my division is participating in it because the part of New York in my division area is involved. I met with General Cassidy just this week on that subject, sir. We are moving out with all possible speed. Mr. JONES. Thank you, General. Any further questions? Mr. HORTON. No, I have no questions. Thank you, General Dodge, for coming. I do think it would be appropriate to say we have worked very closely in my district, and I know others have, with Colonel Neff, and I note he is here with you today. He has worked very closely with us in helping us with the problems we have had in our district. |