benefits of this proposal could extend far beyond lake level control. Imaginative schemes for using Canada's rivers to provide fresh water as far south as Mexico may in the future be a feasible way to meet the ever-increasing demand for fresh water. In any such plans the initial decision must be taken by Canada as to the use of its water resources. CONCLUSION The potential demand for Great Lakes water is large. While the population of the Great Lakes Basin with its industry, navigation, and agriculture will need more and more water in coming decades, pressure for distribution of water to areas outside the basin may be expected as the nation's need for fresh water and the problems of pollution control become criticial. Distribution of water from the Great Lakes on a larger scale without eventual return to the lakes, could appreciably lower the levels of the lakes. Decisions concerning the use of the great water resources of the Great Lakes and the control of the lake levels will have profound impact on the Great Lakes region and possibly on a vastly greater area of the North American continent. The International Joint Commission is the agency through which United States-Canadian agreements concerning lake level controls are reached. Twelve governments are involved: The United States and Canada, the eight Great Lakes states, and two Canadian provinces. The adjustment of the varied needs represented by these twelve governments, the enormous requirements for water that are predicted during the future decades of population and economic growth, the essential dependence on the Great Lakes system for commerce and power must all be weighed and balanced with the tremendous natural forces and great cost involved. CHAPTER V. CLEANUP PROGRAMS When the region was sparsely inhabited and water resources seemed unlimited and indestructible, the question of the protection of water quality did not arise. With the growth of the population and economy in the Lake Erie Basin, the conflict between the right of the individual to use water and impair its quality and the need of the public to preserve its essential water resource becomes critical. Legislation and pollution control programs now in effect are only a first step in resolving this conflict. There is a complicated array of federal, state, interstate, and local agencies concerned with different aspects of water and related land management. In general terms, the federal program is designed to assist states and municipalities through research, surveys, and grants. It also has certain enforcement powers. The states or interstate agencies have power to establish water quality standards and most of the responsibility for enforcing them. County and municipal levels of government are concerned with the detailed implementation of the pollution control programs and with the planning, building, and operation of waste collection and treatment systems. FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAMS The federal role has been one of support for the activities of the states, interstate agencies, and localities. Until recently, water pollution control was a funetion of the Public Health Service and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Primary responsibility now rests with the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, which was established in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare under the 1965 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and transferred to the Department of the Interior in 1966 at the request of President Johnson. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act authorizes: financial assistance for construction of municipal waste treatment works; comprehensive river basin programs for water pollution control; research; and enforcement. It provides also for technical assistance, the encouragement of interstate compacts and uniform state laws, grants for state programs, the appointment of a Federal Water Pollution Control Advisory Board, and a cooperative program for the control of pollution from federal installations. ASSISTANCE Some municipal sewage treatment plants were built with the assistance of federal funds under the Public Works Administration as early as the depression years of the 1930's and more recently in areas designated as having special need. Federal grants-in-aid for the construction of sewage treatment works (plants, interceptors, and outfalls) under the Water Pollution Control Act have assisted numerous communities in the Lake Erie Basin to build or improve waste treatment facilities. The appropriations for federal assistance under this Act have increased from $50 million per year in 1956 to $100 million for the year ending July 1, 1965. However, these amounts have not been adequate to provide assistance to all municipalities needing to build treatment facilities. The grants are allotted among the states according to population and per capita income, with 50% going to communities of under 125,000 population. The limit of assistance is 30% of the total cost of a project, and ceilings have been set as to the amount an individual or joint project could receive. Because of the high cost of plants to serve populous communities, the urban communities and the populous states have received a relatively small proportion of federal aid for necessary waste treatment construction. This federal program does not provide financial aid in laying sewer lines which many communities find extremely costly.1 In order to provide a more equitable distribution to urban areas, the amendment to the Pollution Control Act passed in October, 1965, doubled the ceilings for individual projects to $1.2 million and for combined projects to $4.8 million. The new law has authorized an additional $50 million per year to be distributed on a population basis only. In order to encourage the states to share with the federal and local governments in the cost of plant construction, the ceilings on this additional appropriation will be waived if a state agrees to match the federal funds. So far, New York State has been the only one in the Lake Erie Basin to undertake to assist local communities with state funds for treatment plant construction. INVESTIGATION The Public Health Service, in cooperation with other federal, state, interstate and local agencies and private interests, has been making a study of the Lake Erie region as part of the Great Lakes-Illinois River Project. The study includes a determination of the present conditions of the water, and of the extent, type, and sources of pollution. In contrast to the enforcement conferences discussed below, the comprehensive study program will only be able to make recommendations on desired water conditions, control measures, and improvements, as well as estimates of cost and methods of implementation, and cannot back up its decisions by public hearings and court action. ENFORCEMENT While primary responsibility for enforcement of pollution abatement rests with the states, enforcement procedures are available to the federal government where interstate or navigable waters are concerned. Upon request of a state, or by decision of the Secretary of the Department of Interior, a conference may be called whenever pollution from one state is claimed to be adversely affecting the health and welfare of persons in another state. The Governor of a state may also ask for a conference when the pollution is endangering the health and welfare of persons in the same state. Appropriate remedial measures are recommended to the states and opportunity given to the states to carry out the necessary measures. If the states do not fulfill this obligation, the federal government may take legal action to secure abatement of the pollution. The federal government has been engaged in enforcement procedures in the Michigan sector of the basin requested by the Michigan Governor. A conference in this area was held in 1962 and was reconvened in 1965. At the request of the Governor of Ohio, an enforcement conference in two sessions, one in Cleveland and one in Buffalo, was held in August of 1965 for the purpose of considering Lake Erie pollution. All five states in the Lake Erie Basin participated in the conference. Allthough some states initially were reluctant to agree that federal intervention was desirable or necessary, all participants agreed to abide by the recommendations and conclusions coming out of the conference. They all agreed that Lake Erie and its tributaries are interstate waters and that all five states contribute to the pollution of the lake. Therefore this situation comes under federal enforcement power. 1 Proposals to raise total federal appropriations are under consideration. 2 Now the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. A summary of some of the numerous significant agreements reached in these conferences follows: 1. All municipal sewage plants to give at least secondary treatment, and this process to be adapted to remove the maximum amount of phosphates. The effluent to be chlorinated when receiving waters are to be used for water supply or swimming. 2. No more combined sewers to be installed and those now in use to be elminated where feasible. 3. Industrial waste treatment to be improved. Records to be kept of wastes put into waterways and the information to be kept by the State Health Departments in open files and available to those with legitimate interest in the information. 4. Establishment of surveillance stations for water quality monitoring, on Lake Erie by the federal government on the tributaries by the states. 5. By May 1966, the states are to propose a schedule for accomplishing the program. The Federal Conferee suggests (in part) that planning be completed by August of 1966 and construction by January 1, 1969. RELATED FEDERAL PROGRAMS While most of the federal program of water quality control has been centered in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, and is now centered in the Water Pollution Control Administration of the Department of Interior, other agencies who assist. Information and technical or financial assistance may be obtained from agencies in the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Agriculture as well as from agencies within the Departments of Interior and Health, Education and Welfare. The U.S. Coast Guard has the authority to board vessels, investigate, take samples and report violation of the law which prohibits putting refuse into the navigable waters of the United States. (Enforcement of this has proved difficult on the broad expanses of the Great Lakes.) Water quality control may also be included in multi-purpose programs undertaken by other federal agencies for flood control, power projects, and other uses. When reservoirs are constructed in these projects, consideration may be given to storage to augment downstream flow, although additional water for flushing should not be a substitute for adequate treatment of waste. Agreement among the agencies concerned as to the meaning of the term “adequate” is not always reached. Federal agencies involved in comprehensive planning of multi-purpose projects in the Lake Erie Basin are the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. WATER RESOURCES PLANNING An estimated 35 federal agencies located in various departments of the federal government are involved in programs having to do with water management. The Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 is an attempt to coordinate these various activities which range from flood control to navigation, from wildlife preservation to power development. The Secretaries of Army, Interior, Agriculture, and Health, Education and Welfare, and the Chairman of the Federal Power Commission make up a Water Resources Council which, with presidential approval, can establish procedures for comprehensive river basin planning by creating a River Basin Commission. When a Basin Commission is formed, representatives of the federal agencies and states within the basin prepare comprehensive, coordinated, joint plans for the management of water resources in the basin. Grants can be made to the states to develop and carry out these comprehensive plans. Such a Commission for Lake Erie or for the Great Lakes as a whole can be set up if one-half of the states involved petition for it and the Water Resources Council agrees to it. A Great Lakes Commission might also be set up as a result of forming a Great Lakes Basin Compact, an interstate compact of the states involved. This would require an act of Congress and ratification by the states concerned. INTERNATIONAL The International Joint Commission was created in 1909 by treaty between the United States and Canada to consider problems concerning rights or interests of either country along the common frontier. Each country recognized that it bad an obligation not to pollute the waters to the injury of the health and property of the other. Until recently its concern about pollution in the Lake Erie region has been confined to the Detroit and Niagara Rivers, but the Commission is now undertaking a new investigation which includes the main bodies of Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, and the international section of the St. Lawrence River. The Commission carries out its investigation through appointed advisory boards of technical experts and prepares a report which includes recommendations to the governments of the two nations. The responsibility and the authority for carrying out the recommendations of the IJC remain with the state and provincial governments. STATE LEGISLATION AND ADMINISTRATION Most of the responsibility for pollution control-the setting of water quality standards, administration, and enforcement proceedings-rests with the state governments. When early pollution control statutes were adopted, the problem was primarily viewed as a health problem for the connection between water pollution and devastating epidemics was close. For this reason, authority to enforce laws regulating pollution was lodged in the department of health. As conditions have changed and it has been apparent that other considerations are involved, multi-departmental boards or commissions have been set up which are the policy-making bodies for the states' water pollution control programs. Each of the five states in the Lake Erie Basin has such a policy-making body, on which the head of the Health Department is represented and is sometimes chairman. The name and make-up of the board for each of the states is: Michigan.-Water Resources Commission (7 members). Director of Agriculture, Director of Conservation, State Health Commissioner, State Highway Commissioner, and representatives of municipalities, conservation organizations, and industrial management. Indiana. Stream Pollution Control Board (7 members). Secretary of State Board of Health, Director of Department of Conservation, Lieutenant Governor, and 4 members appointed by the Governor. Ohio.-Water Pollution Control Board (5 members). Directors of Departments of Health, Commerce, Natural Resources, and two appointed to represent municipalities and industries. Pennsylvania.-Sanitary Water Board (8 members). Representatives of Departments of Health, Mines and Mineral Industries, Forests and Waters, Commerce, Fish Commission, plus 3 public members. New York.-Water Resources Commission (7 members). Representatives from Departments of Agriculture and Markets, Commerce, Conservation, Health, Public Works, the Attorney General's Office, and Commissioner of the Office for Local Government. In general, these bodies set the water quality standards, coordinate pollution abatement programs, hold hearing to enforce pollution laws, and process applications for federal grants. In all the states of the basin, the State Health Agencies are the agents of the policy making bodies for administering and carrying out the programs. In several states, other departments are concerned with some phases of the pollution abatement program. For instance, in Ohio, the Division of Wildlife in the Department of Natural Resources, and in Pennsylvania and Indiana, the Fish Commissions develop programs for the protection of wildlife. In Michigan, the Division of Engineering in the Department of Health regulates municipal disposal plants, while the Chief Engineer of the Water Resources Commission is responsible for industrial waste treatment. QUALITY STANDARDS-ENFORCEMENT A successful program to attain clean water depends greatly on setting sufficiently high objectives for purity and then seeing that the goals are obtained by enforcing the law. Each state has approached the problem in a slightly different manner, but the object in each has been to determine the desired use of the water and the degree of purity necessary for that use. New York and Pensylvania both have a comprehensive and detailed classification system to indicate the quality standard for each waterway. The classification was arrived at after surveys of the waterways were made and hearings held in various localities throughout the state. The nature of the stream and the area through which it flows, together with the most appropriate use of the 67-442-66-pt. 3- -24 water are taken into account. Both states then set the degree of treatment necessary for wastes going into designated sections of each waterway depending on their classification. Primary treatment is the minimum required in both states, and requirements range to advanced treatment with chlorination for some waters. The other states are not as yet as systematic in setting quality standards. The degree of waste treatment necessary for each type of waterway is determined, and muncipalities and industries are required to limit the kind and amount of waste they discharge so as not to cause a polluted condition. In the absence of use classification for waterways, it is difficult to define a polluted condition. As a result of the agreements reached at the 1965 Federal Enforcement Conference, all municipal wastes discharged into Lake Erie Basin waters are to be given secondary treatment. The 1965 amendment to the Federal Water Pollution Control law makes it mandatory that within a year a state must file a letter of intent that it will by June 30, 1967, adopt (A) water quality criteria applicable to interstate waters within the state, and (B) a plan for the implementation and enforcement of the water quality criteria adopted. If the state does not do this or its program is not acceptable, the Secretary of Interior, shall put into effect standards which are determined to be appropriate. Each state is able to take legal action against anyone not complying with state pollution control regulations. Court orders, hearings, fines, and even imprisonment can result if the state's orders are not followed. In practice, the policy has been one of education and persuasion rather than strict enforcement. This has often resulted in delays and outright noncompliance. Some extremely undesirable practices have been permitted to continue while conditions grow worse year after year. RELATED NEW AND PROPOSED LEGISLATION New legislation is constantly being suggested to overcome some of the difficulties in carrying forward state programs. Below are some illustrations or proposals that either are in effect in some states or have been under consideration: Industrial Tax Exemptions and Tax Relief: Exemption from real and personal property tax, corporation franchise tax, sales tax, and state income tax on new waste treatment facilities. Help for industry in obtaining low cost financing for waste treatment facilities. State payment toward operation and maintenance of sewage plants. Low interest loans or full payment for cost of planning collection and treatment facilities. Automatic monitoring to check quality of water. Requirement for sanitary facilities on pleasure craft. Fees for industries and municipalities that discharge waste (effluent tax). DECISIONS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL The implementation of the state programs is influenced by many decisions concerning water management that are made at the local levels of governmentcounty, city, township, or village. In general, the state agency does not have enough personnel in the field to carry out the details of the program, but relies on various local officials, such as county and city health and sanitation personnel, fish wardens, and drain commissioners. Local budgets support the staff which carries out much of the leg work for state programs, including testing of water quality, inspection of land and plans for septic tanks, and supervision of the laying of sewer lines. These budgets also provide for the operation and maintenance of treatment facilities. (In Pennsylvania and New York, the state furnishes a part of the cost of operation and maintenance.) It is the municipality which puts before the voters the plans for waste disposal systems and which must raise a large part of the money to finance the systems. When sewer bonds are subject to referendum, it is the local voter and taxpayer who decides their passage or failure at the polls. The functions of planning and zoning which lie within the jurisdiction of city, town, and county governments have a significant bearing on water quality man |