It is my considered conviction that the enactment of these two provisions is mandatory if we are to prevent the permanent defilement of our country's water supply, and the unforgivable tragedy of a nation undermined through its own thoughtlessness.

Later in this statement I shall submit additional information in support of my contention that we cannot afford to permit water pollution abatement activities to continue in the current manner and at the present rate.

Before taking up several suggested amendments to this essentially sound Senate act, I wish to make two further points relating to the above-mentioned provisions. First, the establishment of a new Water Pollution Control Administration, to replace the present Public Health Service Division, does not imply a perfunctory mass transfer of present Public Health Service personnel to the new Administration. To insure the effectiveness of that new body, only those who have shown themselves to be not only capable and efficient, but qualified by experience and training, ought to be transferred. It would be wrong to strip the Public Health Service of its informed personnel. They have other important responsibilities.

Secondly, the section of the act granting the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare authority to "prepare regulations setting forth standards of water quality to be applicable to interstate waters" is not to be interpreted as a license to pollute presently pure water to a given level of contamination. The exclusive purpose of the standards authority is to upgrade the quality of currently polluted lakes, rivers, and streams, and to prevent pollution in relatively clean waters from becoming serious and expensive to abate.

I would now like to urge upon the committee the following amendments to S. 4, or, Mr. Chairman, in the alternative, to urge the committee consider H.R. 3988 or H.R. 4482, which are later drafts, and which I believe more fully would carry out the purposes that all of us want in securing clean water for ourselves and for coming gen

erations.

1. As contained in both the Honorable John Blatnik's bill and my own bill, a grant of authority to the Secretary, permitting him to issue subpenas to compel the presence of witnesses and the production of pertinent evidence, in the furtherance of his duty, as outlined in S. 4, to determine whether interstate waters are substandard with regard to pollution. This would enable the Secretary to complete an accurate assessment of given interstate waters within a reasonable amount of time.

I want to point out this is particularly important because of the fact, first of all, tracing pollution is extremely difficult. Pollution originating as far north as the headwaters of the Mississippi can be found at the mouth of the Mississippi better than 800 miles to the south.

In addition to this, the cost of making the kind of investigations that the Secretary has to make to determine whether or not pollution is interstate in nature is staggering. A recent proceeding of the Detroit River, or rather now pending on the Detroit River, has probably cost the taxpayers in excess of $1 million, and will probably cost more before it is completed.

If we are going to do the Nation's business with regard to the cleanup of waters as efficiently as possible, it is my honest belief there is no way we can expedite this better than by affording the Secretary subpena power. This will expedite the conduct of this kind of contract and reduce the cost.

2. As contained in both the Honorable John Blatnik's bill and my own, an increase in the maximum amount of any single grant for an individual project from $600,000 to $2 million; and also, an increase in the maximum amount of any single grant for a multimunicipal project from $2,400,000 to $6 million. This is required because under the present grant ceiling level, many abatement projects are forced to operate below their full capabilities. This results in inefficiency, wasted money, and a lengthening of the abatement period.

Frankly, we are finding the cost of construction this kind of project now is becoming so large that the original ceilings actually preclude construction of efficient facilities, and also have the effect, the practical effect, of not affording the kind of stimulus that we want for construction and the kind of Federal participation that, frankly, I think is needed in projects of this kind.

3. And finally, as contained in my own bill, H.R. 4482, an increase in the total annual pollution appropriation from $100 to $200 million, begining with the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, and continuing for each fiscal year thereafter.

The reasons for this recommendation are twofold. First, raising the ceiling on the size of individual abatement grants will reduce by about $10 million the amount available for initiating new abatement programs. Thus, unless more money is appropriated, we will end up with less project starts than before. Although they will be larger project starts, this will have the practical effect, Mr. Chairman, if we do not increase the amount of money, of shifting the project construction stimulus from the smaller communities to the larger communities, and this is something I do not think that the committee really wants to do, although I think that the change is desirable if we put the additional money in. Because this will mean again an expanding supply of money for the smaller communities and also for the larger communities.

Secondly, the pollution program requires considerable acceleration if we are to make meaningful advances. It has been estimated by the 1964 Conference of State Sanitary Engineers that construction to eliminate the backlog of communities lacking adequate treatment facilities would cost $267 million a year; that replacement of obsolescent facilities would require another $232 million a year; and engineering and related costs, $86 million a year-a total expenditure of $800 million a year to check pollution.

I would point out present construction, under Public Law 660, as amended, is running at the rate of about $400 to $500 million a year. Because of the presence of accelerated public works grants during the past year, that has been increased by something on the order of $80 to $100 million a year. But we are going to find that with the vanishing of the accelerated public works program and the funds that used to be provided by that program, that it is going to be much more difficult to maintain the rate of construction which we have been maintaining for the past few years.

And I would point out that that rate of construction is far below that which is needed actually to begin not just catching up on back pollution, but providing for the needs of what we must face in the future.

Seen in this light, an increased appropriation of $100 million a year is clearly a moderate request. Present expenditure for construction is at the rate of $600 million a year.

In summary, the reason for inserting more teeth in the Senate act can be illustrated best by the following progress report on the water pollution abatement program over the last year.

When I testified before this committee more than 14 months ago, I had in my possession a list of 90 serious cases of interstate pollution on which no Federal enforcement action had been initiated. This list was made available to me by the Secretary himself. Several days ago, in preparation for these hearings, I again requested a list of polluted rivers on which no Federal action had been taken, and this time I again was proferred a list of 89 rivers. While less than overjoyed at the prospects of saving the Nation's waters at the aggregate advance rate of one river per annum, further investigation revealed that even this pathetic measure of progress was delusory. In face, the list of 89 rivers actually included some 102 waterways. Rivers that had been recorded separately on the first list were, for some reason, combined under one heading on the second list.

Of the 90 rivers that had appeared on the list of more than a year ago, 33 had received Federal attention during 1964, while 57 had received none. In addition, 45 rivers on which no Federal action had been taken became seriously enough polluted to demand inclusion on the current list.

Thus, after yet another year with the pollution program under the dead hand of the Public Health Service, and $100 million in Federal expenditure later, we have fallen 12 rivers deeper on the debit side. Let no one accuse our pollution program of staggering; it is moving quite determinedly in the wrong direction.

Further support for this conclusion is to be found in the President's recent message on natural beauty, where it was conceded that "water pollution is spreading." Based on his own studies, President Johnson recommened legislation similar to that being urged before this committee today. Among other things, the President proposed "the setting of effective water quality standards, combined with a swift and effective enforcement procedure to prevent water pollution at its source rather than attempting to cure pollution after it occurs" and for an increase in project grant ceilings and "additional incentives for multimunicipal projects."

There is no longer any need, as in the past, to marshal all of the detailed facts and population projections before this committee. Its learned members are quite familiar with the pressing need to preserve and cleanse our precious water resources. What remains to be done is act, lest we be a desert tomorrow.

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

Any questions?

Mr. BALDWIN. No questions, Mr. Chairman, except to say that I know of Mr. Dingell's longtime interest in the subject, and I congratulate him for continuing his interest with such diligence.

Mr. DINGELL. I thank my good friend.

I had the privilege, as many of the members will recall, of serving on this committee some 10 years ago and had the pleasure of working with many of my colleagues here on the first public water pollution bill. Public Law 660.

Mr. JONES. And you showed bad judgment in leaving us, too. [Laughter.]

Mr. DINGELL. There are times, Mr. Chairman, when I thoroughly agree with that statement. [Laughter.]

Mr. JONES. Thank you very much.

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. JONES. Our next witness is the Honorable John P. Saylor, our associate from Pennsylvania.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN P. SAYLOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, my purpose in appearing here today is to advocate inclusion of the provisions of H.R. 896 in the legislation to be reported out by the Public Works Committee for the purpose of reducing water pollution.

H.R. 896, which I introduced on January 4, would amend the Federal Water Pollution Act to provide for the sealing off of certain abandoned coal mines so as to prevent the pollution of waterways, and for other purposes. It would authorize appropriation to the Department of the Interior the sum of $5 million to be allotted equitably and paid to the States for expenditures by or under the direction of their State water pollution control agencies for sealing off abandoned drift and shaft-type coal mines which are located in any of the several States.

At this point, I should like to give the chairman a copy of H.R. 896 which I hope he will place in the record of this hearing.

Mr. Chairman, I am frank to say that my recommendations are not the complete answer to the acid mine drainage problem, yet they will contribute importantly to reducing the amount of acid that pollutes our streams and rivers. Reduce but not prevent, but I am convinced that the resulting decrease will more than justify the investment.

There was a time when it was generally believed that sealing off of abandoned mines was the answer to the problem of acid mine drainage originating in underground workings. But subsequent research and experimentation have largely negated this assumption. In the first place, it has been found that sealing of abandoned drift mines is ineffective in reducing the quantity of acid discharged when the coal seam is above drainage level. Thus, until further information is accumulated with respect to treatment of abandoned mines in that category, it apparently would prove to no avail if those mines were sealed. Where sealing must take place with all practical speed is in abandoned deep mines, so many of which are located in the Appalachian area.

Again let me say that there is no assurance that some seepage will not take place even in workings far below drainage level, for anyone familiar with artesian wells or oil gushers is aware that pressure from within the earth is capable of creating an upward flow wherever a break, hole, or crevice occurs. Nature sometimes has a way of defying

man's most exhaustive efforts, and for this reason it would be folly for me to contend that sealing off mines will entirely terminate their release of acid waters.

If, then, H.R. 986 is to be considered stopgap legislation, at least be assured that it is essential to a water pollution control program until a better method of reducing acid mine drainage is found. What all of us must come to recognize is that there was a time not too long ago when we could live comfortably with the acid water that was a part of the coal mining operation. As more mines were worked out over the years and more pits were abandoned, the problem grew in intensity. All the while a growing populace added greater volumes of sewage to our streams and rivers, which also were required to carry off progressively greater amounts of other industrial wastes.

With these accumulations, we have come to a point where something must be done and done quickly about water pollution. I am confident that science and research are going to solve the problem eventually, but experiment and application takes more time than we can afford to make available under prevailing circumstances. For this reason we are going to have to utilize whatever stopgap measures are feasible and practical, and I have no doubt but that mine sealing is one of the wisest investments that can be made in this regard.

Now that we are alerted to the consequences of water pollution, we are going to make encouraging progress. We have no alternative. What solutions will be developed within the next few years may not be visualized at the present time. Perhaps we shall discover that pollution of streams and rivers cannot effectively be prevented in a highly industrialized civilization, that giant purification plants must be erected and placed at strategic points along our waterways. I have for some time recommended a stepped-up program of research to remove impurities from brackish water.

Gentlemen, you may be interested to know that last fall I arranged for the secretary of mines, of the State of Pennsylvania, Dr. Charmburg, and a team of experts from Westinghouse Corp. of Pennsylvania to visit Guantanamo for a firsthand look at our desalting plant at the naval base in the hopes of applying its techniques to our polluted

streams.

As a consequence of this visit, the Pennsylvania Coal Research Board awarded a contract to Westinghouse to make a determination as to whether proven salt water conversion processes can be adapted to the mine drainage program. It is not inconceivable that plants which dwarf those I have envisioned will be placed in use before the end of another decade.

Whatever the decision, this committee is doing an outstanding service in its attempt to determine the most effective methods now available for water pollution control. I am confident that H.R. 896 can become a highly important ingredient of your worthy program.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. JONES. Our next witness is the Honorable Richard L. Ottinger, of New York. We are pleased to have you with us, Mr. Ottinger. You may proceed.