and very many people have contributed to it and again it is going to be very helpful to this subcommittee in considering the problems that are before us.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Malone, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF DR. SEYMOUR SCHER, CITY MANAGER OF ROCHESTER, N.Y., PRESENTED BY JAMES E. MALONE, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER

Mr. MALONE. Mr. Jones, distinguished Members of the House of Representatives, ladies and gentlemen, I am James E. Malone, assistant to the city manager of Rochester, N. Y., Dr. Seymour Scher, who has asked me to appear here and present this statement in his name, in his absence from the city. Dr. Scher regrets his inability to participate in this hearing.

This hearing is symptomatic of the growing public concern over the pollution of the waters of this country. I recognize, as do you by your presence here, that the problem transcends State and, in the case of Lake Ontario, national boundaries, and is a legitimate and necessary subject of Federal attention.

The subcommittee choice of Rochester as a hearing site is at once both curious and understandable. It is curious because Rochester has a record of voluntary pollution abatement programs and of cooperative relationships with the New York State Department of Health which probably is unexcelled by any other community in the State similarly situated. Although there certainly is much room for improvement of Rochester's program and plant in the years ahead, there are urban centers in this region discharging wastes into Lake Ontario with recorded treatment effectiveness only a fraction of that which Rochester currently is attaining.

On the other hand, these same factors make it very understandable and appropriate that this hearing be held in Rochester. From the standpoint of both community and official willingness to respond with positive action, no better location could have been chosen. I am sure this will be evident to you from the testimony you have heard during the course of this session.

I do not intend to go into detail on what Rochester has done, or has not done, over the years in the area of pollution abatement. A capital improvement program, totalling more than $20 million expended since 1958 for this purpose, is shown in the materials I have placed on file with your chief counsel. I would note, however, that all that has been done in past years has been financed almost entirely from local sources, and has been in accordance with plans developed with and approved by the State health department.

Until very, very recently, the burden of providing adequate sewage collection and treatment systems has fallen directly on the municipality. For the most part, this has meant the highly developed urban centers, such as Rochester. This burden was placed where it could least easily be assumed.

The city is faced with an antiquated combined sewer system which would cost in excess of $500 million to modernize. There are nearly 600 miles of streets in the city of Rochester, many in need of major repair or reconstruction. Miles of deteriorated sidewalks require replacement. The municipal water system is more than 100 years

old, and costly improvements are needed now and in the years ahead. Traffic engineering problems of major complexity exist, crying aloud for modernization and computerized control. Deficiencies in recreation facilities in our most highly populated areas can be met only through prohibitively expensive acquisition programs. An aging school plant must be refurbished or replaced, and increasing demands on the urban education program must be met. Deteriorating structures and declining neighborhoods require conservation, rehabilitation, or clearance in expensive renewal programs.

There are, in addition, burgeoning demands on the city's operating budget, and the need for services is magnified by social and economic forces outside local control.

All of these problems, many of them the result of years of neglect and each as critical as the other, must be approached within the framework of the very limited financial resources available to this city-to any city.

Rochester, like most urban centers in the Nation, must operate within State constitutional tax and debt limits. To some extent, these limits act to inhibit the programs we might otherwise undertake. Even more important, however, is that within these property tax limits the tax rates are already so high that magnification would be self-defeating.

The cities of this country are in trouble. Rochester is no exception. The problems of this city and of other cities are, when compared with those of other levels of government, by far the greatest, by far the most serious, by far the most complex and by far the most costly. Yet relief and assistance extended are the least.

State governments, on the whole, have been unresponsive to the needs of cities. In New York State, cities receive a much smaller percentage of total revenues from State aid than any other units of government. This dearth of aid provided to cities for their essential functions can be interpreted only as a clear case of deliberate discrimination.

At the Federal level, the situation is somewhat more favorable, but remains hampered by the fact that the availability of virtually all Federal assistance is contingent upon a concurrent investment of substantial local funds.

I point out these financial facts of life for only one reason: To emphasize that Rochester offers no apology for its record in water pollution abatement. A considerable proportion of the local resources available has been devoted to meeting the problems of sewage treatment. We can do what we can do-and no more.

There are many who have appeared here today to criticize the city for moving too slowly; to say that we have not met our obligation to the community. The record, I believe, will demonstrate otherwise. We have, without exception, proceeded with programs developed in concert with the State, and approved by the State as meeting their requirements.

The city of Rochester has been endeavoring for 1 year, for 1 whole year, gentlemen, to get the State of New York to sit down with us to work out an acceptable program for the future. Only last week, on July 11, 1966, did the State respond. Within 5 days of that response, the city and the State had reached agreement on a future course of

action—a course of action with a potential price tag of $38,500,000 over the next 4 to 5 years.

Should we have moved sooner? Believe me, gentlemen, we are apprehensive now about committing ourselves to this level of expenditure, based upon State administrative policy-which changes as the personalities and thinking change. To have proceeded without this minimal level of guidance would have been to follow a perilous course. It may well be a perilous course, even with this guidance, since there are no guarantees that the State will not suddenly change its standards, again. The program to which we are now committed does not take into account the very expensive prospect of phosphate and nitrate removal, which will probably be the next order of business after 1972. We are, therefore, even now, placed in a position of investing millions of dollars without the benefit of knowing definite standards or final goals.

The city of Rochester is also proceeding with the adoption of a comprehensive sewer use ordinance. This, too, is a cause for some apprehension. Unless enforcement of sewer regulations on industrial polluters comes from State or higher agencies, serious problems of dislocation may result. What will the city have gained, if, through the imposition of excessive pretreatment requirements on local industries, we force them to relocate to communities which do not impose these burdens.

Earlier, I mentioned the degree of cooperation which has continuously been exhibited by the city with respect to water pollution abatement. I feel it necessary, also, to mention the complete lack of such cooperation on the part of the county and State governments over the past year and, indeed, right up to the date of this hearing.

Pollution, unfortunately, has been allowed to become a political issue in Rochester, to the detriment of sound and reasonable plans and programs. I believe, however, that when the noise and the "grandstanding" subside, the city can return to the required cooperative relationships with both county and State. For that reason, I will not recite here the unprofessional manner in which these two levels of government have conducted their affairs with this city. However, if the subcommittee wishes, I shall be pleased to provide documentation.

The city now has made a commitment in the field of pollution abatement, a commitment which necessarily will affect other necessary capital expenditures. We do it willingly, as we have in the past.

Let me repeat: We offer no apology for our record; neither do we pretend that we have achieved the program level which is now required. We know there are deficiencies. We know some are serious. But the solution will come only when the solutions to the plight of cities in general come. If other vital programs suffer because of our commitment to the cause of pollution abatement, we really then are taking a step forward and a step backward at the same time.

Federal and State Governments have recognized the needs in this area of pollution abatement, by providing plant construction aid. But, this is not enough. Anything less than a total commitment by cities to all the problems which plague them will not do the job. I

this subcommittee to view the subject of this hearing not as an isolated problem, but as one of many problems of the urban core. I urge that you leave Rochester not just with an understanding of the

need to provide assistance for waste treatment, but also with an appreciation of the need for aid to cities that must solve all of the massive problems which face them. I ask you, therefore, to consider the following:

1. That the city of Rochester has in the past and will continue in the future to meet all of the programs, standards, and requirements of the State of higher levels of government, but that the city can reasonably do this only if long-range goals and standards are known in advance.

2. That the entire field of sewage collection, treatment, and enforcement of waste discharge standards is not a local problem and cannot be handled on a local basis; future planning and programing must be conducted on a regional basis, if success is to be achieved. Although the cities deserve most of the credit for what has been accomplished, the responsibility for what has not been done rests primarily with the State and Federal Governments.

3. That Federal standards of water classification and sewage treatment be imposed in the Great Lakes Basin, because these waters are of great national and international importance, and that communities complying with such standards receive additional Federal financial assistance.

4. That the Congress make it possible for cities to make total commitments to the myriad problems besetting them by providing unallocated grants-in-aid to such urban centers.

The cities of this Nation are in need of help. The States have not responded. New York State has not adequately responded, with programs, guidance, or financial assistance. Without response and assistance from Federal and State levels, the programs to which we all aspire cannot be achieved.

Thank you very much.

(The attachments follow:)

Nussbaumer, CLARKE & VELZY, ENGINEERING ASSIGNMENTS WITH ROCHESTER,

N.Y.

In 1952 the city engaged Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy to prepare a report on garbage and refuse disposal by incineration. The report included a study of the quantity and quality of the material to be delivered to the incinerators, the capacity, number of incinerators, and their location.

As a result of the findings in the report, the west side incinerator was built and placed in operation in 1955 and the east side incinerator the following year.

In 1956 the engineers were engaged to make a report on the trunk sewer system and the sewage treatment plant serving the city of Rochester.

The report on the sewage treatment was serial 3665 financed 50 percent by the State. This report proposed the construction of additions to the sewage treatment plant to provide the following:

Stage I: Construction of sludge treating and disposal facilities which was the most critical need. The program included vacuum filters and sludge incinerators, the estimated cost of which was $720,000.

Stage II: Construction included the sludge disposal buildings to house the above at an estimated cost of $1,290,000.

Stage III: Construction of sludge digesters, elutriation, and other related work estimated to cost $949,000.

Stage IV: Construction of additional sedimentation tanks and related work on the site of the westerly open sludge beds. Estimated cost about $1 million. There were some allowances in the overall estimate of contingencies, professional services, etc. which brought the total up to $4,544,000.

Following the submission and approval of the report by the city, final plans and specifications were ordered for all stages of construction. These plans have all been completed and approved by the State department of health.

The report on the trunk sewers was serial 3675 financed 50 percent by the State. This report investigated the following:

I. East side trunk.

II. West side trunk.

III. Densmore Creek overflows.

IV. Genesee Valley Canal sewer.

This report recommended the following:

First stage: Construction of various chlorinating and screening stations at trunk sewer overflow points.

Second stage: Covering of Densmore Creek overflow from city line to Densmore Road.

Third stage: East side interceptor relief sewer to supplement.

Fourth stage: Genesee Valley relief tunnel.

Fifth stage: Extension of east side interceptor relief sewer from Densmore Creek to Atlantic Avenue.

The estimated cost of the entire program was about $11,319,000.

Both of these reports were approved by the county and State health departments.

In 1959 the city engaged the engineers to prepare final plans and specifications for the various overflow point construction, and the covering of Densmore Creek from the city line to Densmore Road. This work was financed 50 percent by the State. The serial number was 3926.

This work has been completed and approved by the State department of health.

In the same year the city authorized the engineers to prepare final plans and specifications for the demolition of the existing sewage treatment plant serving the Hopper Hollow area, and replace these facilities with a pumping and chlorination station which would pump the flow to the main sewage treatment plant. These plans were all approved by the State department of health.

In 1961 the city engaged the engineers to prepare final plans for the St. Paul Street sewer, the Portland Avenue relief drains and a preliminary report regarding sewer facilities in the University of Rochester, Strong Memorial, and Municipal Hospital area.

The work for which final plans were prepared was estimated to cost $3,781,500. This work was finished and approved by the State department of health.

About this time the city engaged the engineers to review and consult with the State of New York regarding the design and financial considerations relating to a city contribution for the Central Avenue tunnel through the Baden Ormond area. Some time in 1962 a failure occurred in the main plant outfall sewer at the sewage treatment plant site. During this emergency the engineers were engaged. to design the repairs and replacements required.

As the various contracts for sewers, treatment facilities, pumping stations, and other related work have been placed under construction, the engineers have been engaged under the existing contracts to provide general engineering services during construction. The city has provided resident engineers and inspectors. At the present time there are several active contracts on which we are providing services as above.

HISTORY OF POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROCEDURES TAKEN BY THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, N.Y., SINCE 1955, REGARDING SEWERAGE FACILITIES

The waters of the lower Genesee River, Lake Ontario opposite Rochester, and Irondequoit Bay were classified by the New York State Water Pollution Control Commissioner, of which Mr. Anselmo Dappert was the executive secretary and engineer.

Reports made by State agencies at that time listed the following deficiencies in the municipal sewerage system.

1. The majority of the city sewers are of the so-called combined type which carry both sanitary sewage and storm water. During dry weather all of the flow is carried to the sewage treatment plant. At times of storm there is an overflow to surface waters such as the Genesee River and Irondequoit Bay. The State recommended that a larger amount of sewage flow be carried to the sewage treatment plant up to the capacity of the plant outfall, before bypassing.

2. Where such overflow could not be continued to the sewage treatment plant, some treatment such as chlorination and removal of screenings should be provided for such discharge.