provisions of these standards are going to be before we take action on this legislation?

Secretary UDALL. Well, Congressman, I never attempt to tell committees how to handle their business. It seems to me, particularly since this legislation has been around for well over a year and has already passed both committees, that the committees could do it either way, really. I see no reason why the committees need to await the recommendations on the other facet of this problem. It seems to me that it could be done with two bills just as readily as putting it all together in one. But that is a matter for the committee to decide, not

for me.

Mr. CRAMER. I notice also on page 8, next to the last paragraph, that you indicate:

The President has also recommended that the water quality standards should be applicable to navigable as well as interstate waters.

Now, do I understand that if we take action on this legislation limiting it to interstate waters, then the President is going to come up and ask that it be made applicable to all navigable waters, be they interstate or otherwise?

Secretary UDALL. I am not at liberty, because I do not think final decision has been made, to tell you what the scope of it will be; but this obviously is a separate subject and can be considered separately by the committee, because you have your existing framework, and I think this legislation is addressed to strengthening the existing framework. So that the committee can certainly, in my judgment, handle it either way very readily.

Mr. CRAMER. Let me just make this comment, then I will conclude. It appears to me that if we have knowledge of the fact the President is going to make recommendations, as you indicate in your statement, as to what the effects of these standards shall be in relation to, No. 1, all waters, the present proposal as it came over from the other body limits it to interstate.

Secondly, if we are going to speed up the enforcement provisions, again relating to standards, it just seems to me that the logical approach would be, in order to make sure we know what we are doing in relation to what we are doing now, we would have to go to those questions in the future. They are obviously interrelated.

What we should do is find out what the administration's recommendations are going to be and consider them at the same time. Otherwise, we are likely to get very broad, mandatory standards and then find out that, having set those standards, we perhaps do not want to have such fast enforcement, because it might deprive States of their responsibilities.

It just seems to me that we should be considering all these questions relating to water pollution at the same time and not piecemeal. Mr. BLATNIK. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CRAMER. Yes.

Mr. BLATNIK. The points the gentleman raises are very pertinent. Will the gentleman consider delaying them until the next witness? Enforcement is administered in the Public Health Service, as you know.

Mr. CRAMER. The only reason I mentioned it is because he mentioned it in his statement.

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Sweeney.

Mr. SWEENEY. My question, Mr. Secretary, does relate in part to enforcement, and we will defer part of it for now.

I wish to congratulate you on the conciseness and clarity with which you have presented your case here today. I am interested, however, to find out whether or not the Interior Department has conducted any recent surveys insofar as this provision dealing with effective water standards is concerned.

I come from the State of Ohio. We adjoin Lake Erie, as you know, and we regard water pollution as the primary and critical problem of our area. We watch industry and the community grow side by side destroying the recreation potential of one of the greatest natural resources the country has.

It seems to me, Mr. Secretary, there should be somewhere in the Federal Government some report as the acceleration of the water quality. Are you aware of any such studies or surveys in the last 4 years or so?

Secretary UDALL. My people, because of our interest in both commercial and sports fishing, primarily have been involved in several studies involving Lake Erie which, in my judgment, from all I have seen, is in very serious trouble, as you point out. I think that this is the very type of problem that cries out for action. If we do not get it, some fear that you are going to end up with a lake, a Great Lake, which could be like some of the rivers in some parts of our country where all life has been killed as a result of, in this instance, acid mine drainage in the Appalachian region.

So I think the quicker we get at it, the better; the more studies that are made, the better.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Secretary, are you familiar with any studies that do indicate there is support for the medical contention there is a health hazard present today insofar as water purification is concerned?

Secretary UDALL. I would like to provide you with something on that. I think both the Public Health people and my own people have been involved in various studies. I think we could bring you right up to date on what is going on in regard to your region.

Mr. SWEENEY. Under the Water Pollution Control Act at present, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, under the enforcement provisions, seems to have authority to institute injunctive actions in the Federal district courts to abate water pollution. Is that correct? Secretary UDALL. I would rather, really, you ask Secretary Quigley about this, because it is his program he administers rather than I. Mr. SWEENEY. Could you tell me whether or not you are aware of any instance in recent years where the Federal Government has commenced an action by way of injunctive relief, asking for injunctive relief in a Federal district court against any community or industry to desist from the practice of polluting streams? Are you aware of any such actions?

Secretary UDALL. I have not noticed, I have not observed any. There may be there have been some instances of this.

Mr. SWEENEY. Is there a great community of contact between the Department of Interior Water Resources Division and Mr. Quigley's division over in HEW on this problem?

Secretary UDALL. Considerable. In fact, there is constant communication. This was the subject of a hearing by this committee last year as to how well we were getting along because our responsibilities do overlap and need to be meshed together.

I think we are working together better than we have. I think there is probably still room for improvement.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Secretary, you mentioned Governor Rockefeller's proposal. I quite agree with you, from a bipartisan point of view, it is a dramatic and fresh new proposal. I have had the pleasure of reading it.

Has your Department ever had, or has the administration, the opportunity of estimating the cost to gear the Rockefeller proposal and have a national attack upon water pollution?

Secretary UDALL. Well, this is the thing that to me would be rather exciting. Of course, what the Governor proposes to do, as I recall his proposal, it has a big $1.7 billion price tag-he was not afraid of the cost of it-is in effect to implement a program immediately and under a bond financing, and to pay it off over a period of years. I think this is a sound way to do it.

But certainly if it is going to cost New York $1.7 billion, it is obvious the national task is a pretty big figure. But we might as well, in my judgment, begin thinking in big terms if we really want to lick this problem. Otherwise, we would be just pecking away at the fringes and continue to have the losses to our country that are occasioned by damage from this source.

Mr. SWEENEY. Thank you.

Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. BLATNIK. We are running rather late. Is it something pertinent to the Department of the Interior?

Mr. HARSHA. I think it is.

Mr. BLATNIK. We are running behind right now. Unless it is a direct question

Mr. HARSHA. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I have not contributed to this fact, although I was here at 10 o'clock and waited

Mr. BLATNIK. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized.

Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Secretary, I want to commend you for what I know is your active interest in the elimination of pollution of navigable waters and also your expert control of pollution.

In view of your particular interest in the propagation of our fish and wildlife, I would like to ask you this question: On page 7 of the bill, section 5, on line 24, it states:

(3) Such standards of quality shall be such as to protect the public health and welfare and serve the purposes of this Act. In establishing standards designed to enhance the quality of such waters, the Secretary shall take into consideration their use and value for public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational purposes, and agricultural, industrial, and other legitimate uses.

I believe that comes within your jurisdiction?
Secretary UDALL. Yes.

Mr. HARSHA. Now I wanted to ask you if you would agree that the release of water during low flow periods in dry weather is a legitimate use of water stored by our Government dams?

Secretary UDALL. Yes, I think this is, and naturally the problem we have in managing rivers is to manage them if we can in such a way that we protect and enhance all of our resources, providing water supply, protecting fish, wildlife, and so on.

Mr. HARSHA. I have one other question, Mr. Secretary; that is this: Water released from our Government hydroelectric dams is at times without dissolved oxygen.

Now, this water, coming from our Government storage dams, could in itself be a source of pollution of our streams, could it not?

Secretary UDALL. Well, it can, if the water itself is not of proper quality, yes.

Mr. HARSHA. Do you know of any movement on the part of any of the Government agencies to correct this sort of situation or offer some suggestions as to how it might be met?

Secretary UDALL. Well, I know it is a matter of very deep concern to us in any places where such a situation exists, and I think that we ought to take, and are taking, whatever steps are possible to cure this situation.

Mr. HARSHA. I believe it was your position that the Federal Government should be the leader in this field and eliminate itself pollution of our streams as well as require others to eliminate their activities. Secretary UDALL. Yes, sir. I think this is the only position we can

take.

Mr. HARSHA. Thank you. That is all.

Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

The next witness, Mr. James M. Quigley, Assistant Secretary of HEW.

Mr. Quigley, a former colleague and friend of ours appeared at the previous hearings on the same subject matter. We welcome you to this hearing. I believe you are accompanied by Dean Coston, Deputy Assistant Secretary.

STATEMENT OF JAMES M. QUIGLEY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY; ACCOMPANIED BY DEAN COSTON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a prepared statement. It is relatively short and I would prefer to read it, and then attempt to answer, as best I can, any questions that the members of the committee might have.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Cramer.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, before the Secretary commences, may I say probably he is the most important witness we will have; before he starts his testimony, giving the position of the administration on the legislation, may I say now we have the budget of the committee up before the whole House Administration and, of course, someone on our side should be there. Of course the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota is going to be there.

Mr. BLATNIK. I have to be there.

Mr. CRAMER. I feel I do, too.

I would strongly recommend-I have no desire to delay anything, but I would strongly recommend that Mr. Quigley be asked to testify when we return and that the Governor, whoever is the next witness,

be called at this time; because I have some questions I would like to ask Mr. Quigley. I want to get an understanding as to what the administration's position on this legislation is.

I would strongly recommend that.

Mr. BLATNIK. The Chair would concur.

But may I just check Mr. Secretary, do you have any scheduled appointments for other appearances?

Mr. QUIGLEY. I have two commitments in the other body, but I think they are flexible. The general understanding was when I was through testifying, I would meet with several Senators on another matter. But I think this is kind of flexible, because I did not know how long I was going to be testifying.

Mr. BLATNIK. Would you be able then to wait for the short time it will take us to go to the House Administration and allow the other witnesses to precede you?

Mr. QUIGLEY. Yes, indeed.

Mr. BLATNIK. We apologize for changing the order of witnesses. Mr. QUIGLEY. As a former member, I am familiar with the routine and the difficult part is to stay on time.

Mr. BLATNIK. Governor Sanders had hoped to be here. He is tied up, however, and hopes to be able to be with us tomorrow morning. We will next proceed with the Members of the House who have sponsored legislation or are interested in this program. Mr. John Dingell, our colleague from Michigan. (At this point, Mr. Jones assumed the chair.) Mr. JONES. Are you ready to proceed, Mr. Dingell?

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, for the record, my name is John D. Dingell. I am a Member of Congress from the 16th District of Michigan. I come before you today to strongly endorse S. 4 and to urge certain amendments to that act based on provisions contained in H.R. 3988 and H.R. 4482, measures sponsored by the Honorable John Blatnik and myself, respectively.

Without recounting all of the features of the Senate act, I would like to touch briefly upon two which I regard of special significance. I refer to the provisions dealing with the creation of a Water Pollution Control Administration, and the establishment by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare of standards governing the pollution and contamination of interstate waters. Based on evidence offered and documented before this committee at previous hearings, and which I hereby resubmit for the record-and I do have the previous statement which I submitted to this committee, Mr. Chairman, which I would like to have made a part of the record.

Mr. JONES. The papers you prepared and submitted to the committee last year?

Mr. DINGELL. Yes.

Mr. JONES. Without objection, the statements will be received by reference.

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.