maybe could be considered as rushing it. I would like to say that if a cold banker sat down to figure out what was the cheapest way to meet this problem, I think they would find that to borrow the money at 314 percent or 3% with State tax-exempt bonds and to do the job now would be cheaper than meeting this 4-percent increase in construction costs and doing it over a period of 20 or 30 years. So that we do it for everybody; everybody gets the job done at the same time, everybody shares in the cost, and the public benefits with clean water. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. McEwen.

Mr. McEwEN. Mr. Chairman, I would commend the Governor on his presentation. And I would say this, Governor, that I believe your proposal for the State of New York did more than anything really recently to focus attention not only on the problem, but the magnitude of it.

Governor ROCKEFELLER. Surely.

Mr. McEwEN. When one State proposes over a billion dollars to tackle this problem.

Governor, I feel like you had singled out the districts of Mr. Grover and myself in New York when you talked about ducks and papermills, because I think he has a good many of the ducks and I have a good many of the papermills.

One matter that is of concern to my district, a matter which I mentioned to the chairman the other day, is that all the streams through the 31st Congressional District flow into eastern Lake Ontario or the St. Lawrence, which are all boundary waters, part of the Great LakesSt. Lawrence system. The waters that Mr. Sweeney has mentioned are Lake Erie, and those mentioned by Mr. McCarthy, are part of the Great Lakes. I think to all of us on the Great Lakes it is important that we give a good deal of attention to this reference to the Joint Commission. While we can do a great deal in Ohio and New York and so on, on this problem, and particularly with Federal assistance, we have all of these industries and communities on the Canadian side of this water that present a problem.

Mr. Chairman, again I commend the Governor not only on his presentation here today, but this program that he has presented for New York State.

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Schmidhauser.

Mr. SCHMIDHAUSER. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I, too, like the other members of this committee, would like to commend Governor Rockefeller on the boldness of his definition of the problem. I would like to be candid, though, in tossing around these compliments.

I find-and this is not a criticism but recognition of the facts of life-that the boldness of definition turns into delicacy of description when you get down to the hard problem of what you do with existing industries and municipalities that are presently polluting the streams of your State. And again this is not limited to New York; it is something that I think has been characteristic in much of the testimony here since we have begun the hearings.

Now, one problem that is crucial in this matter is the question of the Federal role. And I certainly compliment my colleagues on thet minority side for their sincere interest in this problem. I share this with them.

I think the crucial aspect to the definition of the problem is the question of the integrity of State authority, both in any State's treatment of the problem of water pollution and the other problem that is always lurking in the background, and that is the competitive situation that States always find themselves in with respect to industry. Now, I would like to get to the heart of this and get your remarks on this proposition.

As I look at it, in the historic development of our constitutional system, we have had periods in our history in which great Governors and I would include among them Teddy Roosevelt of your party, and his neighbor from New Jersey Woodrow Wilson-both of these great Governors went on to the Presidency, and they both addressed themselves to a problem that was typical of their time: the competition between States for industry, which often revolved around a tragic problem of the period, the existence or nonexistence of laws at the State level controlling child labor.

Now, in our modern era, happily we have taken cognizance of this problem nationally, and thereby have contributed to the integrity of State efforts at industrial development by taking this kind of competition out of our constitutional byplay.

And I would like to suggest and see what your reaction to this might be, that the development of at least minimum national standards concerned with water pollution might be a contribution to the integrity of each State's effort at developing their own industry and keeping what they have, and ask you whether this kind of development of minimum national standards may not encourage your State and I would hope others to look a little more forcefully upon the industries that are presently-and the municipalities as well as industries; I think they are related-that are presently still polluting streams. Because, basically, if we do not clear up the backlog of these problems, we are sort of kidding ourselves in terms of what we are going to do now.

Governor ROCKEFELLER. I think that is a very fair statement, Mr. Congressman. While we have mentioned industrial pollution here, and I mentioned particularly the paper industry and the duck farms, which are the two major areas left, they are not really large percentagewise in the problem as far as the State's concern. And I should have given more stress to those industries which have complied with the law and the spirit of the law. And it has been tremendous.

I am confident that when we have the means of financing the correction of this problem that we will have no problem in getting the strengthening of the law which is necessary to get very rapid action. Mr. BLATNIK. Any other questions?

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Sweeney.

Mr. SWEENEY. Governor, I too want to join in the compliments of the morning. I think you have got the greatest product since colored television, I think, in this country. And I think your attack upon the problem of pollution has received very merited comment and praise from everyone.

Governor ROCKEFELLER. Thank you.

Mr. SWEENEY. This morning I flew over our Cuyahoga River, and I might say it was about zero, and the river was running a mahogany

color, and down there was Republic Steel and J. & L. and Alcoa and Grazelli and all of the great giants of American industry. And they are pouring forth their wastes as they have been doing for the last 40 years, and unabated by any governmental authority, and adding materially to the destruction of Lake Erie. And complementing their work of assisting in this destruction of this great lake are all of those communities that you have pointed out that have fanned out beyond the intercity and have failed necessarily to live up to standards of our State board of health.

Now, I do not think that we, certainly, in attacking pollution and the problem and the discussion, care to drive Republic or Alcoa or Grazelli out of our community. They are too important to us as our local employers. But we have seen in Cleveland and in Pittsburgh an effective attack on air pollution in the last 10 years. We have seen Pittsburgh, that was one of the worst examples of industrial air pollution, clean its city. We have seen Cleveland, Ohio, do the same thing.

And I commend you for the approach that you are using insofar as building into your suggestions these tax incentives for industry to comply, because in those incentives we found a more receptive spirit on the part of industry to come along and to join in the attack on pollution. And I think we need to liberalize, as you have pointed out, these laws with respect to industrial write-offs insofar as industrial compliance.

Now, the question I want to ask is primarily directed to your head of health. You have mentioned about the procedures insofar as enforcement that are in effect in New York State, which indicate that you have a hearing and then a waiting period of a year. And then a Water Pollution Resources Commission hearing and a wait of 5 years. And then, subsequent to that, you have possible additional periods of waiting depending upon court order. Now, you have said that there is presently pending in your State legislature amendments to these enforcement provisions. What period of waiting and what reduction in time as to the lapse between these hearings are you incorporating into this new legislation?

Dr. INGRAHAM. We are asking for power to enjoin existing pollution promptly.

Mr. SWEENEY. What hearings are you affording affected industries and communities so they would have a fair hearing and an objective study be made and a fair period in order to get into compliance, depending upon their financial ability to do that?

Dr. INGRAHAM. At the present time, in the last 3 years, under Governor Rockefeller's program, as mentioned, money is available from the State to the extent of 100 percent to make engineering studies for municipalities to join together in determining what their sewage needs-treatment needs-are for the present and for the foreseeable

future.

This is underway at the present time. There has been expended approximately $32 million for engineering studies in the State so far. In the Governor's budget there is a request for $5 million for this purpose for next year. This is an opportunity whereby the municipalities and the industries in them can see precisely what the needs are and how they can be abated.

So that this in itself is a very forward step by which the problem is known to the municipalities, and they are taking advantage of it, as I say, to a very considerable extent; and it is expected that essentially all of the communities in the State will have these studies made. So this in itself takes care of most of this question of airing what is needed, and understanding, and expert recommendations from a qualified engineering firm as to steps to proceed.

So that what we are suggesting to the legislature is that where this is known and where pollution is obvious, that we ask for immediate steps to move ahead.

Mr. SWEENEY. Yes.

Dr. INGRAHAM. Now, I would like to point out that, in enforcement throughout the years that we have relied very, very largely on voluntary cooperation, and industry has, in most instances, complied and gone ahead with recommendations. The Associated Industries, for instance, of New York State has been very much in the forefront in shaping the laws and in assisting it in getting industry to go along with us.

Another reason for delay that I did not mention earlier was that, before we hold hearings we have to have the area surveyed and classified. And it is only this year that all the State will be classified. We have reached the point in New York State where we do have the State entirely surveyed and we do have it classified this year. We have money available directly from the State, 100 percent for engineering studies to determine what needs to be done.

So we have reached the point over many years of effort whereby it is possible with some help to take vigorous action in enforcement that has not been possible for a variety of reasons in the past.

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Howard.

Mr. HOWARD. As a Representative from New Jersey, which is just downstream and down-ocean from the great State of New York, I am very happy to hear the statement from the Governor this morning. I want to thank you for being with us, and I hope that my own State will launch a similar project in the near future.

Thank you, Governor.

Governor ROCKEFELLER. Thank you.

Mr. BLATNIK. I thank the gentleman for his very pertinent, yet brief and considered, remarks.

Mr. Dyal, of California.

Mr. DYAL. Just in brief, Governor, a few moments ago you commented about the absence of my colleague from California in relation to the amount of money that our State expends. As you know, our project on Feather River is $134 billion-plus.

Governor ROCKEFELLER. That is right.

Mr. DYAL. Going into this program. And our great concern is that, of course, if we go to the Snake or Columbia, or even farther north for sources, at the present time both the Snake and Columbia have tremendous pollution problems.

Governor ROCKEFELLER. That is right.

Mr. DYAL. So if we bring down polluted water, we are not much further ahead. I thought I would answer your question in that regard, and say to you that I appreciate your comments on the ceiling, especially the population factor that you indicated, since we have a friendly contest with you in regard to who is No. 1 State.

Governor ROCKEFELLER. Which you have won.

Mr. DYAL. Thank you.

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Martin from Alabama.

Mr. MARTIN. Well, I would also like to express our appreciation to the Governor for his comments. I am a new member of this committee, and I have a lot to learn about it, and you have added to that knowledge. And I express my appreciation to you and Dr. Ingraham for giving this information to us.

Governor ROCKEFELLER. Thank you very much.

Mr. BLATNIK. Governor, again we thank you, on behalf of the entire committee, for a very thought-provoking, very fine proposal; certainly the boldest proposal yet offered by any State. In our concept of a joint Federal-State-local partnership attack on this national problem, the greatest problem is the failure of so many States to participate actively. Municipalities have done extremely well, commendably so. With just a little assistance, they have exerted tremendous effort, more than their share, and carried the burden of this whole problem.

Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. BLATNIK. Dr. Ingraham.

Dr. INGRAHAM. I have a statement here which, among other things, does answer in somewhat general terms the question which Congressman Harsha asked, if I might submit this.

Mr. BLATNIK. Without objection, so ordered.

(The prepared statement of Dr. Ingraham follows :)

STATEMENT BY DR. HOLLIS S. INGRAHAM

I am Dr. Hollis S. Ingraham, Commissioner of Health of the State of New York. I am speaking to you today on behalf of the New York State Health Department and the New York State Water Resources Commission, of which I am a member.

At the risk of referring to the obvious, I direct the attention of the members of this honorable body to citizen impatience with continued pollution of our Nation's waters. Both Federal and State Government's should respond to this public demand by using their superior revenue-raising powers to fund immediately a decisive program to abate pollution.

We in New York State believe that State, Federal, and local governments share the responsibility to ease the present burden of water pollution-a burden increasing with each delay.

Water pollution and neglect of our Nation's water resources have created a major national problem-a problem which penetrates and sours our most deep felt aspirations for a clean, healthy, aesthetically satisfying environment and a decent place to live and work.

Present dimensions of the problem call for abandonment of ideological and sectional differences as to who is responsible for the mess, and the cleanup and creation of a program responsible to the Nation's needs.

First, we should see the problem as it is. Clearly and unequivocally, it is a problem of our urban concentrations of population-a problem which the New York Times has pointed out editorially is, next to improved education, "The most important and urgent area for largescale investment the people of the United States can make."

Second, we should give voice to what we all know-that the rescue of our water resources can only be met by revenues derived from the superior taxing powers of the Federal Government and the States; local government acting alone is not equal to the task. The present Federal-aid program stints on Federal fiscal commitment.

In spite of the uncontested fact that our backlog need for new and improved waste and sewage facilities lies in our urbanized areas, the present Federal