Dr. LAWRENCE. Perhaps, Dr. Ingraham, who is going to follow me subsequently, and has had somewhat longer experience with the commission, and has had more specific experience with the standardsetting part of it, may wish to comment in more detail on this.

My opinion is that, as I mentioned previously, it assures that all the areas of State responsibility and concern are properly considered in the establishment of standards.

Mr. HORTON. Well, now, if I wanted to put my finger on one person or one agency in the State government that establishes these standards, to whom would I look or to which agency would I direct my attention? I am speaking now about a municipality. It is concerned about the standards of the stream in its area. To whom does it go, does it go to the seven groups or agencies, or does it go to one agency?

Dr. LAWRENCE. It goes to one agency, composed of seven members, the Water Resources Commission. The actual basic work on this is done through the health department, but there is only one agency involved.

sir.

Mr. HORTON. Which agency is that?

Dr. LAWRENCE. That is the Water Resources Commission.

Mr. HORTON. And you are representing them now?

Dr. LAWRENCE. Yes, I am giving a statement for the chairman,

Mr. HORTON. Are you satisfied that the procedures for the establishment of the standards are adequate in the department?

Dr. LAWRENCE. I have been, sir; yes, sir.

Mr. HORTON. Who has the responsibility for enforcement of the standards? This is another major problem.

Dr. LAWRENCE. The enforcement of the program is the responsibility of the health department.

Mr. HORTON. That is Dr. Ingraham?

Dr. LAWRENCE. Dr. Ingraham, that is correct.

Mr. JONES. Any further questions?

Mr. HORTON. No further questions.

Mr. JONES. Thank you again, Doctor.

Our next witness is Dr. Hollis Ingraham, commissioner of the New York State Department of Health.

Dr. Ingraham, it is a pleasure to have you, sir.

STATEMENT OF DR. HOLLIS S. INGRAHAM, COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH, NEW YORK STATE, REPRESENTING HON. NELSON A. ROCKEFELLER, GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK STATE

Dr. INGRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Jones. It is a great pleasure to be here.

Mr. Jones and members of the subcommittee, I am Hollis S. Ingraham, commissioner of health of New York State. I am speaking on behalf of Governor Rockefeller.

Today, I want to summarize the progress we have made in New York State. Because I plan to be brief, I will submit for your record a more detailed account that concerns this part of the State. (SUBCOMMITTEE NOTE. The supplemental information referred to appears as app. 2, p. 227.)

Dr. INGRAHAM. I want also to pay particular tribute to Mr. Jones and this House subcommittee for their leadership in the water pollution

field. We appreciate what you have done, and are doing, in gathering the facts, alerting the Nation to the crisis and devising plans for effective Federal, State, and local partnership arrangements to end pollution.

I have several points to make today. The first is to tell you what we have done in New York State and give you an up-to-date account of progress, and brief you on some problems we have met. And, finally, I would like to enlist your further support for current proposals before the Congress that will assist in ending the pollution of our waterways.

Our own State's Water Pollution Control Act was enacted in 1949. It empowered the State health department to control existing pollution and prevent new sources. Before this could be done, the waters of our State had to be surveyed and classified and standards of purity legally established. This imposing task was completed on January 1, 1964.

Early in his administration, our Governor recognized that a more intense State effort would be required if water pollution was to be curbed in our time. In 1960, he directed that a study be made to find out how much money would be needed by municipalities to build needed sewerage treatment facilities. This study pinpointed the number and location of facilities needed and set up a system for keeping the information up to date.

This survey also provided a basis for implementing, on a priority basis, his second measure, which was a 1962 law authorizing the State to pay the full cost of sewerage planning studies for clusters of communities with common water resource problems.

Mr. JONES. May I interrupt for a moment. I am interested in that point for this reason. I think with the Appalachia Act, and later in the Economic Development Act of the last Session of Congress, we began a new era in our thinking on community centers and community developments to approach it on an area development basis. Now, are you reasonably satisfied that that view is being accepted now by the local communities-that "it is better to go together than it is to go alone"?

Dr. INGRAHAM. I think it is being accepted to a very large extent. We have many examples throughout the State of communities trying to get together and to arrange for joint facilities. One of the first of these was Utica. Utica is one of the hubs of pollution in the State. It has been cited as a polluted area for many years.

As a matter of fact, the original work on the coliform index of pollution was done in the waters draining Utica, by Dr. Theobald Smith, one of the most eminent scientists this country ever produced. This work was done in 1892, after his association with the Albany Medical School. Dr. Smith had then joined the Federal Government, where he was the first man in the world to demonstrate that arthopods could transmit disease. I mention this because of the historical interest, since Utica has been cited as an area of pollution for decades, and was also the site of very early, important scientific work in the field of water pollution.

Utica and eight other communities in that area have agreed to start construction of a joint sewerage treatment facility.

In the Albany area, 21 communities have joined together in a joint study, and I could list many other instances throughout the State

where this is the type of joint action by communities that are sometimes disparate in their political views and in their other interests.

Mr. JONES. Well, I think one of the inspirations, to have these laws to encourage community development, was your work in this State in developing area hospitals which are now recognized as the example to follow in other areas. Instead of building these smaller, expensive hospitals and having temendous administrative costs, they found that putting them together would aid in treating the chronically ill.

Dr. INGRAHAM. It is indeed true and, perhaps, the area in which we are now sitting is the region in which hospital planning has been developed to the greatest extent. Some of the earlier studies were done here, and the movement is still spearheaded by a former Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Mr. Marion Folsom.

To resume my prepared statement, Mr. Jones, speaking of the law authorizing common studies, 87 of these studies have been made to date in the State. In the Erie-Ontario basin, 35 studies costing $1.6 million have been made or are in progress.

In 1963, at the urging of the Governor, an amendment was put to the voters that would permit municipalities to exceed their debt limit for building needed sewerage treatment facilities. It passed easily. In 1962, the legislature passed, upon the Governor's recommendation, another State aid measure which was funded in 1965. It provided one-third State financing for the operation and maintenance of sewerage treatment facilities that met certain standards. Statewide. 153 such grants, totaling $5.11 million, have been made. In the ErieOntario basin, some 47 plants have received such aid for a total of $871,450.

Full State financing of comprehensive water supply studies, as distinguished from the sewerage treatment studies, was funded in 1964. So far, 13 studies, costing $1.13 million, have been authorized. In the Erie-Ontario basin, studies for nine areas have been authorized at a cost of $596,000. Ten more are to be awarded in the near future.

All these were but a necessary prelude to the main thrust of our State's action against pollution. In December of 1964, the Governor introduced a seven-point pure waters program proposal and announced that he was giving the problem of water pollution top priority in New York State. On May 12, 1965, he signed into law the five main timbers of this program. The key measure of this program was a pure waters bond issue. Voters approved this issue by an overwhelming 4-to-1 margin in November 1965.

This bond issue provides to municipalities 60 percent of the cost of building sewage treatment facilities. It also envisions that the Federal Government will eventually pay for half of the 60 percent the State of New York is now financing. Other features of the Governor's pure waters program include provisions

To encourage industry by tax incentives to build new industrial pollution control facilities;

To establish an automated water quality monitoring system; To expand vastly State research in water pollution control methods;

To provide more effective measures for enforcing the State's law against water pollution;

To step up action to eliminate pollution from State and Federal institutions.

Progress has been notable since enactment of the pure waters program. Today some 105 construction grant applications are being processed at a total construction cost of $356 million, with estimated State grants involved of $170 million. As of July 1, 135 enforcement hearings have been held against major polluters with 95 already under orders to abate pollution by a deadline. In the Erie-Ontario area, 53 hearings have been held-27 communities and 26 industries-with orders issued to 48.

Thirteen research projects have been launched at a cost of $330,000 and another $130,000 is budgeted for five more projects. State and Federal institutions have been surveyed at 70 locations and remedial action identified. Budgetary and construction scheduling has begun on these.

A 60-station automated water quality surveillance system has been planned and two sites are already nearly operable. Meanwhile, 145 manually operated surface and ground water stations are in operation.

We have also set forth, as State policy, that comprehensive sewerage studies will be required of every major urban area. Engineering studies are also mandated for cities that have combined sewer systems. In addition, a minimum of secondary treatment is required for all discharges into streams classified as "C" or above in the receiving waters or downstream.

The classification of streams as "E" or "F" which is practically an open sewer standard, will be eliminated as rapidly as possible by the State Water Resources Commission, which is also engaged in establishing ground water standards prior to classification hearings.

All these steps represent what we believe to be the boldest stroke against water pollution yet taken in the Nation. Because of the urgent public mandate for prompt action, it has not been without its problems. We are working under extreme pressure, high public visibility and have severe manpower shortages. We have had substantial backlogs of applications for State-aided comprehensive studies, plan review and construction grants because of our manpower shortage. Recruitment of engineers is and has been difficult. What is more, we expect our workload in the pure waters program to increase greatly in the next 2 years.

These problems notwithstanding, we are determined to get the job done, and done right. We recognize that the urgent and novel aspects of the pure waters program call for innovations and administrative judgment of the finest caliber. Accordingly, with Governor Rockefeller's full support, I culminated a nationwide search for the best person available to guide this program successfully. I have with me today the man selected for this key job, Mr. Dwight F. Metzler. He is serving in a newly created post of deputy commissioner for the pure waters program. His career accomplishments make me fully confident that he will provide the imagination, judgment and energy that will be needed to maintain momentum in our pure waters program in the years ahead.

The main obstacle to pure waters in our State, lack of local funds, has been removed through our construction grant program. It enables localities to build needed facilities as quickly as they can be planned. We are providing, without arbitrary limitation, 30 percent of the cost of these facilities as our State's fair share. We are also advancing another 30 percent as prefinancing of what we believe is the proper Federal share.

It is encouraging to us that a Federal bill to provide $6.2 billion in Federal aid for a massive clean-up of our water resources appears to be moving satisfactorily through the Congress.

We are also pleased that the bill would lift existing dollar-ceiling limits on construction grants and reimburse States like New York which have advanced to localities the anticipated Federal share.

Although this hearing is not concerned directly with such legislation, I think it proper for me to say that I wish this bill well.

Mr. JONES. Doctor, I have to go back next week and sit in the executive session to mark up the bill.

Dr. INGRAHAM. I wish this bill well, and I trust you will give it your full support.

Mr. JONES. I asked for it and I got it. [Laughter.]

Mr. HORTON. Mr. Chairman, all I can say is that Dr. Ingraham was talking to the right man.

Dr. INGRAHAM. I said it with a smile, sir.

Mr. JONES. You know, the doctor and I have been in this business a long time. At the first hearing that this subcommittee held in Washington, the doctor was kind enough to come down and testify, and Mr. Metzler also testified, I believe, in Kansas City.

Dr. INGRAHAM. He is a transplanted Kansan, sir; you are quite

correct.

Mr. JONES. Yes. So we are making progress, Doctor.

Dr. INGRAHAM. You are indeed, sir.

Mr. JONES. We hope so.

Dr. INGRAHAM (continuing with prepared statement). Governor Rockefeller has long favored Federal participation in the financing of the cost of returning pure waters to our State.

In summary, we are moving fast in New York State and we are going to meet problems promptly as they arise. With effective Federal financial support, which may be near at hand, we shall be even more certain to reach our goal. And that goal, as you know, is to bring the rich benefits of pure water to all of New York State by

1972.

I thank you.

Mr. JONES. Thank you very much, Doctor. Any questions?
Mr. ROUSH. Mr. Chairman, I have a question.

Doctor, in two instances in the course of your statement, you mentioned pollution by Federal institutions. In one instance, you mention that State and Federal institutions have been surveyed at 70 locations and remedial action identified. Could you identify the Federal institutions which are contributing to the pollution of your streams?

Dr. INGRAHAM. I could do that, sir. I am not sure that I have the list with me, but I certainly can provide it.

Mr. JONES. Our subcommittee has already issued three reports concerning our study of waste water disposal practices at over 1,000 Federal installations.

(SUBCOMMITTEE NOTE.-The reports referred to are as follows: "Disposal of Waste Water at Federal Installations" (H. Rept. 1636, 88th Cong., July 30, 1964); "Disposal of Sewage and Industrial Wastes by Federal Installations" (H. Rept. 555, 89th Cong., June 29, 1965); and "1965 Survey on Disposal of Sewage and Industrial Wastes by Federal Installations" (H. Rept. 1644, 89th Cong., June 22, 1966).)