Mr. McEwEN. I am citing an institution that has existed for a long time. I am referring specifically to St. Lawrence State Hospital, a 2,000-bed hospital, which has been there for some 50 years. The State came in and put in a sewage treatment plant, which led the other communities of the district.

We have heard repeated references in this hearing today and prior hearings before this committee, to the fact that the Federal Government has failed in many, many areas, on airbases and other Federal installations, hospitals, prisons, et cetera, to provide adequate sewage treatment facilities.

The gentleman from California gave an illustration of pollution of the San Francisco Bay, caused in many instances by Federal installations.

I think it should be clear on this record, Mr. Spisiak, at least in the State of New York, the State in its own institutions has taken great strides in the treatment of sewage from those State institutions.

Mr. SPISIAK. I think it is good to mention the Governor incorporated as one of the seven points in his platform the point he is asking for authority to provide adequate sewage on any construction of State buildings, prisons, and so forth. Again, I say I do not think it is necessary to secure legislation for that. He has had the power, in fact the mandate in the law, the Water Pollution Mandate Act of 1949 provides that there shall be no construction in the State of New York and any plan submitted must adequately provide for the treatment of any sewage which will be disposed of, or the effluence, as the result of the occupants of the State structure.

(At this point, Mr. Roberts assumed the chair.)

Mr. McEwEN. Do you know of any comparable provision of Federal law of Federal installations?

Mr. SPISIAK. No, I do not.

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you.

Mr. CRAMER. What is your business, Mr. Spisiak?

Mr. SPISIAK. I am in the jewelry and real estate business.

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, sir.

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you, sir.

The next witness is Mr. Harold Wilm, commissioner of New York State Department of Conservation and chairman of the Water Resources Commission, New York State.

Mr. Wilm.

STATEMENT OF HAROLD WILM, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK, STATE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, AND CHAIRMAN, WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION, NEW YORK STATE

Mr. WILM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Harold G. Wilm. I am commissioner of the New York State Department of Conservation and chairman of the New York State Water Resources Commission.

I might ad lib at this point just a little bit to remark that New York State seems to have had quite a place in your day today and we appreciate it very much. There have been quite a variety of opinions expressed. I would like to remark that at last you are going to have

one speak for a national organization, not just New York State, even though I come from there.

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. Wilm.

Would you care to make your statement a formal statement and then comment on the other points?

Mr. WILM. Yes.

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you.

Without objection, the statement will be made a part of the record. Mr. WILM. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

Mr. WILM. What I really meant to say was I am representing a national organization, the Interstate Conference on Water Problems. Mr. ROBERTS. I understand.

Mr. WILM. I see. Thank you.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, is he through?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Wilm, do you wish to comment on your statement?

Mr. WILM. Oh, yes. I beg your pardon. I misunderstood. Mr. ROBERTS. We will file your prepared statement, but you may stress informally whatever points you may wish to.

Mr. WILM. As you doubtless know, the Interstate Conference on Water Problems is a national organization of State officials concerned with all phases of water sources, of which water pollution is one. We have been quite active and helpful, we hope, in Federal legislation, one outstanding case of which is the presently pending Water Resources Planning Act of 1965.

Our principal concern with this bill, while we, of course, are interested in building up the strength of water pollution control activities in the Nation, and naturally we feel very strongly, heartily in favor of Governor Rockefeller's New York State program, still we have chosen this time to express our concern particularly over section 5, which has been referred to a number of times today.

We do feel very strongly that the present bill really conveys powers to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, which are not intended by the declaration of the policy of the Congress in the Water Pollution Control Act, and other statutes, nor in the President's own recent message to the Congress, in which he said to improve the quality of our waters will require the fullest cooperation of our States and local governments working together. We can and will preserve and increase one of our most valuable natural resources, clean water.

Yet the standard-setting parts of the bills before this committee, which we question, would alter that declaration of congressional policy and place in the Secretary of Health. Education, and Welfare truly dictatorial powers to impose standards upon the States.

Aside from imposing standards upon the States, this same broad grant of authority would effectively displace State, local, and interstate agencies now functioning in the field of water pollution control, insofar as water quality standards are concerned. Nor is it sufficient to contend that the Secretary's action shall come only when State standards are inadequate. If this committee and the Congress intend that Federal action shall be supplemental, this intention must be made explicit in the statute, and an appropriate provision tailored to that end.

A related point we would like to make is that actually, in establishing the standards for water, health of course is important. It is vital to all of us. But there are other values for water which are also important and need to be considered. For this reason, it seems important that other people than simply the agency of the Federal Government who has power over health, education, and welfare have the authority to cooperate and participate in the establishment of standards.

I might say that the conference does not object to participation, active participation, in standards by the Federal Government; but we do object to the dictator, all-powerful role suggested under the present

bill.

One other point, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act also encourages, as a matter of policy, the use of interstate compacts to abate pollution. Yet the bills before us would establish a competing standard-setting authority to the Federal, interstate, and intrastate compacts, approved by the Congress. The one in which I am most particularly involved is the Delaware Basin compact, and I believe our commission has also filed a statement expressing a strong objection to superseding the powers of the Delaware Basin compact by the powers proposed by these bills.

The States, their local governments, and the several interstate agencies set up to control pollution all have tremendous stakes in pollution abatement and in the provisions of the legislation you are considering. They are making a major and an increasing effort to improve water quality.

I do not think I have to go further than that.

Mr. Rockefeller's proposal, I think, is a most outstanding example of responsibility and activity by a State.

We urge that the bill reported by this committee contain provisions insuring that the question of the necessity for Federal standards be determined objectively. We urge that such standards be fixed in a way which takes account of the interests of the several classes of water

users.

Mr. Chairman, we have prepared amendments to your bill, which we would like to submit to you. They are attached to my statement. Mr. ROBERTS Thank, you, sir.

May I ask one question, sir. All 50 States are members of your interstate conference, are they not.

Mr. WILM. Yes.

Mr. ROBERTS. So you do have access to your attorneys general and the official statement of each State?

Mr. WILM. Yes.

Mr. ROBERTS. Who usually make or write the agreement

Mr. WILM. There is not any particular pattern of the membership. Every State has a responsible water sources person, a person like me, or an administrator or legislator, who is primarily interested in this kind of problem. So we do generally speak responsively before a State.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Cramer.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Wilm, you have made a very interesting statement, pointing out the shortcomings I feel exist in this proposal.

I have been trying to find out for 2 years now what the origination of this legislation was. Who is asking for it, do you know?

Are any State water conservation departments, water jurisdiction agencies within the States demanding this legislation setting standards, that you know of?

Mr. WILM. As to the actual genesis of the bill, I cannot say definitely. But I believe it was prepared either as a department bill or at the President's request originally.

Mr. CRAMER. I am talking about last year. Last year it was not. Last year it was the Muskie bill.

Mr. WILM. Yes, that is true.

Mr. CRAMER. This year, to some extent, in some instances, the adminisration has indicated it favored it. But the States-and you are representing the Interstate Conference on Water Problems; do you know of any State in your conference that are asking for this legislation?

Mr. WILM. Not for this legislation, I do not know of any; no. The conservation organizations within the States are generally, of course-as all of us are strongly in favor of water pollution abatement, and I think there has been quite a little sentiment expressed in favor of these bills simply because they do provide for stepping up water pollution abatement.

Mr. CRAMER. Of course, you pointed out the principal problem involved, and that is the Federal Government setting standards. We are likely to get a "Steve Nelson" case situation, with the Federal Government preempting now some State functions by virtue of passing that Federal standard. You see that problem developing; do you not?

Mr. WILM. That concerns us very deeply indeed.

Mr. CRAMER. I am very interested in your proposed substitute section, the last two pages following your statement, in which you suggest that, inconsistent with your statement, in glancing over it, that. there be established a Federal-State partnership in the business of setting standards in the first instance. That is the impact of your proposal; is it not?

Mr. WILM. Yes.

Mr. CRAMER. And that this proposal was carefully drafted by this interstate conference? It was given careful consideration, was it? Mr. WILM. Very much so.

Mr. CRAMER. And this is their recommendation as to a method of State-Federal cooperation in determining standards?

Mr. WILM. Yes.

Mr. CRAMER. And taking into cognizance existing standards?
Mr. WILM. Right.

Mr. CRAMER. And providing for proper enforcement of the standards agreed upon. And, as I understand it, this is the recommendation of the respective States making up the Interstate Conference on Water Problems?

Mr. WILM. In compliance with the resolution passed 2 years in a row by the 50-State conference.

Mr. CRAMER. Resolution to what effect?

Mr. WILM. To the effect, primarily, that the conference is opposed to the interjection of the Federal Government in establishing and promulgating and enforcing standards, and that we participate or help in any way we can in establishing legislation which would provide a broader base of responsibility.

Mr. CRAMER. State-Federal partnership approach?

Mr. WILM. Yes.

Mr. CRAMER. So this is the recommendation, your organization would be in support of that section relating to standards if it were drafted in this Federal-State partnership manner?

Mr. WILM. Yes. Standards are needed more strongly, of course. Our only question is who should establish them?

Mr. CRAMER. I would just comment I would hope the members of the committee would give some serious consideration to this proposal, because it may open the door in the way to accomplishing what everybody wants to accomplish, but without doing complete violence to the State-Federal relationship.

Thank you.

Mr. McCARTHY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CRAMER. Yes, I will be glad to yield.

Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Cramer asked who is asking for this legislation.

I might say, in the case of people of western New York, where we have had much allusion to the acute problem of Lake Erie, that the people are asking for this strong Federal legislation.

I recently polled 100,000 homes in my district. We have had 16,000 of these returned to date, these questionnaires. And overwhelmingly, in about 19 cases out of every 20, when faced with the choice of a strong Federal program, a State program, or only a local program— the respondents were Republicans, Democrats, liberals, leftwing, rightwing, what have you, across all ideologies-checked off a strong Federal program.

In talking with people I represent, I asked them why they checked that off. They cited some of the factors alluded to by Mr. Spisiak in your own State.

1

So I would suggest that certainly, in my own personal experience, the people of the country are asking for this program.

Mr. WILM. May I comment on this, Mr. Cramer?

In contrast to that, I would like to remark to Mr. McCarthy that your own region, western New York State, has taken leadership in our State in establishing a regional water resources planning board, which is headed up by a local board. They are making plans for water resources development with assistance of the State of New York, and are very definitely carrying on this program without the Federal Government excepting we are asking the Federal Government to help them.

I think this is the highest expression of responsibility in government, and your region is to be greatly complimented for it. So it seems just a little-almost anomalous to me, paradoxical, the people in the same region would be demanding a strong water pollution control program and carrying the reins in their own hands when

Mr. MCCARTHY. It is, but when the people who live right on Lake Erie have to buy bottled water, I think you can understand that they would want some relief. And, granted that there has been some initiative, I think it has been pretty late in the whole story, and certainly, in my own experience, in response to these questionnaires, they are asking for this legislation.