reduced by secondary treatment at the principal waste sources. This would remarkably reduce algae growth in the lake. Thus, construction of secondary treatment plants where they do not exist, and improved treatment techniques for those plants that now use secondary treatment, would be a first requirement for phosphate pollution control in Lake Erie.

The polluted water of the once great water resources of the Great Lakes has alarmed the Nation as well as the 25 million persons of the Great Lakes Basin States. As the largest reservoir in the world, they are the principal water source for existence and economic activity in that area. And, for Canada, too, the galloping deterioration of the Great Lakes is a calamity since the Canadian boundaries bisect all the lakes except Lake Michigan.

The weapons to attack pollution problems are now being forged. Some are already at hand.

In response to the awakened public demand for positive action, the water pollution control agencies of the five States bordering the Lake and Canadian authorities are formulating such criteria.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1965 may be said to constitute a real breakthrough in the battle against water pollution. In accordance with the provisions of that law, water quality standards must be in the process of establishment by June 30, 1967, or the Federal Government will establish them. Also, grants-in-aid for State administration, planning, and research are provided. Funds are available for construction of sewage treatment facilities up to 30 percent of the cost to local authorities, and $150 million is being provided for this purpose for the coming fiscal year.

The problem of combined sanitation and storm sewers, replacement of which is estimated will cost $30 billion, is being attacked. The 1965 Water Quality Act provides $20 million annually for 4 years for grants for research and demonstration projects of new or improved methods to eradicate this problem.

Another real breakthrough in water pollution abatement is the water pollution abatement bill which was passed by the Senate on July 13. Hearings on similar bills have been completed in the House Public Works Committee on which I serve. As passed by the Senate, this legislation would provide $6 billion in Federal aid over 6 years. While Federal grants for the present fiscal year totaled $150 million and would be the same for fiscal year 1967, the amount would rise sharply in 1968 to $600 million; to $1 billion in 1969; $1.25 billion in 1970 and $1.5 billion in both 1971 and 1972. If the House acts favorably on this legislation, and I have earnest hope that it will, New York would receive about $15 million this fiscal year and a total of $551 million over the next 6 years.

A major feature of this legislation is the provision that permits States and communities to prefinance the Federal share of the sewage treatment construction projects.

The bill also removes the ceiling of $4.8 million per project, which would allow cities to receive more funds. The cost of a new sewage treatment plant in Buffalo has been estimated to cost more than $30 million. Until this legislation is passed, no meaningful Federal legislation is available to help defray the cost of the proposed Buffalo plant.

Under the 30-30-40 formula, many communities have found it impossible to raise even 40 percent themselves. But, under the bill just passed by the Senate, a Federal loan fund would be established from which localities can borrow to meet that other 40 percent. Communities planning projects together for a metropolitan region would be eligible for a 10-percent Federal bonus over the Federal 30-percent aid. Communities combining to form a river basin organization can qualify for 50-percent Federal aid. In these circumstances, the Federal grant could amount to 50 percent of the entire cost, leaving only 20 percent for municipalities like Buffalo."

These congressional legislative activities combined with the program adopted by the conference held last August by the Governors of the five Lake Erie States, the International Joint Commission Report and the referendum voted by the people of New York State will indeed aid a great deal toward effectively combating the war against water pollution.

But let us not be deceived. Let us not be the least bit complacent. Much remains to be accomplished by government-local, State and Federal-and by industry.

Two major problems are left unsolved by the bill just passed by the Senate: The disposal of industrial waste and the separation of storm and sanitary sewers. At best, the $6 billion voted by the Senate would provide only primary and secondary sewage treatment for 80 percent of the population.

In regard to industrial pollution, most industries are aware that in today's world it is just as much their responsibility to contribute positively to environmental pollution by returning used water in usable condition.

Many complexities exist, as for example, in setting standards for old plants in comparison to standards for new plants. While industry has great responsibilities and many have accepted this responsibility, I believe they must receive more aid from the Federal Government.

As a 13-year veteran of the National Gypsum Co., I am very sympathetic and fully aware of the problems of businessmen. I have introduced legislation to provide fast tax write-offs to industries that install highly expensive pollution abatement equipment. S. 2947 does make it possible to provide tax credits to existing plants that install new treatment facilities, river basin by river basin. But if industrial plants are not part of the river basin approach, there is no law to date to provide the latter with tax credit for pollution abatement equipment.

During our recent hearings in the House, I raised this subject with Secretary Udall. And I was most pleased to learn from him that while this is a matter for the Treasury Department, he has taken it upon himself to be the advocate for this kind of legislation within the administration.

Another factor is the increasing need for additional and continued research. But this research must no longer be used as a stop-gap or procrastination tool. We know enough to make great strides, remedial and preventive. We do not need to wait for additional data before beginning actual clean-up procedures.

A stronger national policy has been activated, with greatly increased funds, with a bigger stick to wield in enforcement of quality standards, an enlarged research program with regional laboratories to deal with special problems, and an enlarged program of basic data collection.

And administration is certain to be more direct and effective now that the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration has been given the status of an Assistant Secretary.

I hasten to emphasize that the activities and responsibilities of the State governments in water pollution abatements are in no way restricted. In fact, as Congress has determined on many occasions, it is the primary responsibility of the States. The Federal Government is involved only to assist financially, technically, and morally to the fullest possible extent.

The extent to which remedial measures can restore Lake Erie are speculative. Its biological metabolism has been so severely disrupted through the years that it has the limnological characteristics of cancer. Should the flow of pollution be stopped immediately, a reversal of its devolution would still be problematical. The shallowness of Lake Erie has made it particularly vulnerable to the disease of degeneration by pollution. One fact is crystal clear. year, it surely will be too late.

That is if all concerned don't act now-now-this

We must move ahead on the massive undertaking I have outlined. But an even more massive undertaking may later be required to insure the survival of Lake Erie-that is the infusion into the entire Great Lakes basin of massive amounts of fresh water. One plan for accomplishing this that has great merit is the huge Great Replenishment Plan. It calls for the re-cycling of water in rivers flowing into James Bay into the Great Lakes.

It is a grandiose but realistic undertaking which, I fervently hope, will eventually be jointly undertaken by the United States and Canada.

The uncertain fate of Lake Erie, serious as it is, may be but a preview of what may happen to all the Great Lakes if pollution is not eliminated. Lake Ontario is well on its way.

Mr. JONES. Thank you very much, Mr. McCarthy.

We can, in these hearings, get some feeling that these fears can be quieted. That is part of the purpose of our being here. The situation may become one of desperation, and we want to see that the Federal Government, as far as possible, can appropriate whatever is necessary in the way of skills, knowledge, and information, by way of cooperation, to see that the situation does not become desperate. It will cer tainly take a great deal of effort on all of our parts to see that it does not come about.

We are pleased to have associated with us today Congressman Barber Conable, a Member of Congress from the 37th District of the State of New York.

As I stated earlier, Mr. Conable is on the subcommittee of the Committee on Science and Astronautics that is looking into the area of scientific research, trying to gather together the best minds we have in the country and to apply them to the scientific and technological aspects of pollution abatement.

We are pleased to have you, Barber.

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBER B. CONABLE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. CONABLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee.

I shall be brief, and I will not interfere with the other witnesses. There is controversy always about the proper functions of government, but there is no question but that Republicans and Democrats alike, conservatives and liberals alike, are getting an increasing awareness that the people of this country do expect the problem of water pollution to have a high priority in the proper functions of government, a higher priority than it now has.

It is in this context that we have a sharply increased interest among the various legislative committees and investigatory committees of the Congress.

I am pleased that there is so much activity of this sort. I can see nothing but good that will come from it.

Now, in studying the national problem of pollution-and it is a national problem-your committee is quite properly focusing attention on the Rochester area. For many reasons, I think, Rochester and the Rochester area can afford for you a rewarding study.

The first reason is that this is an old area, it is an established area. The cities of the Northeast have historical problems of a great magnitude, as you have already mentioned. These historical problems are based on, perhaps, the lack of planning in the past, perhaps the fact that our technology then was considerably below the level of our present technology. We have, as you say, a serious problem in the Rochester area as a result of the combination of storm water and human waste disposal systems, and the cost statistics stagger the imagination in looking for any kind of a complete solution.

This is not only an old area, though. This is also a growing and dynamic area and the growth activity is, of course, constantly putting further strain on our water resources. In this respect the Rochester area can also afford a good laboratory for your study.

The water resources of this area are an important part of the resources of this area. We have one of the few rivers flowing north in the United States. It is a great river, part of the water basin of the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes themselves are an important resource of this area. So water resources are important here, important to us and important to the life of our community.

We have also a unique problem in the Great Lakes, not just the problem of water resources generally, and Congressman McCarthy, our neighbor from Buffalo, has alluded to the fact that the Great Lakes form the water basin for the industrial heartland of our country.

So although pollution of the Great Lakes is a unique problem, it is one in which the national interest has to be included.

Our

We have here also strong traditions of local government. Here in western New York, we are proud of our local government. citizenry has shown initiative, generally.

New York State has been progressive in the field of water resource management and antipollution work.

Those of us who have had any experience with water pollution are well aware that the problem is so staggering that any solution must come as a result of a partnership effort, and we are fortunate in this area to have other members of the partnership of government, not just the Federal interest but the State and local interests, to support a strong partnership effort.

For this reason, the Rochester area is a good laboratory in which to study partnership solutions.

My able colleague from Rochester, Frank Horton, has already alluded to the fact

Mr. JONES. Mr. Conable, these eyeglasses came from Rochester, N.Y. I bought them in Alabama, so I have an interest in Alabama to buy your good eyeglasses which are made in Rochester. So, I am interested in Rochester. [Laughter].

Mr. CONABLE. Mr. Chairman, we want your vision to be unimpaired. [Laughter.]

I would like to say also not only do we have strong traditions of local government and State government here to bring to bear on this problem in partnership with the Federal Government, but we also have an aroused citizenry. This is probably one of the best organized areas in the country.

We have many conservation groups, industrial groups, trade union groups, different organizations that are deeply concerned about the problem of water pollution.

There is no need to point out the need here in the Rochester area. We are aware of the value of our water resources and so cooperation from the citizenry will not be hard to achieve.

Mr. Chairman, we are delighted to have you here in the Rochester area. My dear friend and colleague, Frank Horton, and I share the representation of this area in the Congress. We feel that this hearing will be a contribution not only to our own understanding about problems but to the national interest in dealing with the problems of water pollution.

Mr. JONES. You do your job well, I assure you.

Mr. CONABLE. We are proud you are here, and we greet you.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Roush.

Mr. ROUSH. Mr. Chairman, those who serve in the Congress have the inclination for patting each other on the back, and after listening to my three colleagues, I would like to go through this for just a minute. [Laughter.]

I would like to do this as sincerely as I can. It has been my privilege to serve with our chairman for a long time. We have held these hearings all over the country, the Far West, the Northeast, and central part of our country and in the southern part of the country. His leadership has made a tremendous contribution, I think, in the attempt to solve this great national problem.

Frank Horton has always been along, and the best thing I can say to these people in this community, I think, is that he must have tremendous influence with this committee. I am a Democrat, and we

control Congress, we control this committee, and we have never been to Indiana yet, and yet through his influence we were able to bring this committee to this area.

I have really appreciated the work and the contribution that Frank has made. He is a good Congressman.

Then, I think, Mr. Conable, we have an unusual opportunity. We serve on another subcommittee together; it is a subcommittee of the House Committee on Science and Astronautics. We have just initiated-a as a matter of fact we started the day before yesterday-a series of hearings which will deal with the scientific and the technological aspects of this problem.

Everywhere this committee has gone, we have been impressed with the tremendous costs of the present programs which are dealing with the problem of pollution. If somehow, Barber, our committee can come up with some scientific and technological information which will lower these tremendous costs, thereby making it possible for local communities to handle their problems, and enabling the U.S. Government to have a program which will be economical, then I feel that the committee will make a tremendous contribution.

I know that you have expressed tremendous interest in the work of that committee, and if your past work with that committee is any indication of what you will do on that subcommittee, we can expect very fine things from you.

Then, there is my friend on my right, Congressman Richard D. McCarthy, of Buffalo, who shares my political affiliation, and who is a freshman in the Congress. We have good Congressmen and we have better Congressmen, and I class him as one of the better Congressmen, because of the tremendous contribution he has made in his own right as a member of the House.

I am looking forward, Mr. Chairman, as always, to getting the testimony of these people, because, as I told you, it is always refreshing to get away from the bureaucracy in Washington and to listen to these very forthright and honest statements on the part of the local officials.

Mr. JONES. I take it then, Mr. Roush, that every member of this subcommittee is a candidate for reelection. [Laughter.]

We will hear next from Mr. Donald C. Nelson, Jr., president, Monroe County Conservation Council. Mr. Nelson, we are pleased to have you. You have a statement that is being circularized.

STATEMENT OF DONALD C. NELSON, JR., PRESIDENT, MONROE COUNTY CONSERVATION COUNCIL

Mr. NELSON. It is doubtful if anything I can say to the members of this subcommittee will add materially to their knowledge of the pollution problems confronting us in this area. Our local problems are not significantly different from those of other communities throughout the Nation.

Pollution of local waters has been of concern to sportsmen and conservationists for quite some time, with initial action being taken around 1947. Since then interested people in the Monroe County Conservation Council have attended hearings, meetings with local citizens and town boards. There have been claims and counterclaims by local pollution control agencies, both State and county, and various scientific and conservation groups.