The gentleman, the conferee from Virginia, blew a gasket and wanted to know whether there was any suggestion that they were not getting the truth.

This kind of an approach is not going to sell pollution abatement. It is going to be one more hassle.

I agree with Senator Whitfield: If two lawyers or more go into court, the whole program is going to come to a stop.

It might be of interest to the committee to have a little history on the endeavor of HEW to obtain waste-load data. The original Senate bill a year ago had a provision to establish water quality and waste discharge. The committee was under the impression that standards on discharges had to be provided before standards on stream quality could be established. When they learned it unnecessaryyou can set standards on a stream which has no discharges to itthe committee ruled out standards on discharges.

The next move was a move by HEW to send out a form to be mailed out to all industries for data on discharges-the pounds of material in the effluents from the plants. This report would be directly from the companies to the HEW enforcement area. And since it was to be mailed out across the country, it required Bureau of the Budget approval. The Bureau held a hearing on it. The objections that were raised were considered valid. The approval was denied.

The next time waste-load data came to a head was on the Mahoning conference that was mentioned this morning. The conference was called on December 16. The information which caused the Secretary to call the conference was never disclosed. The regional HEW organization was asked to prepare a report to prove pollution and its endangerment to health or welfare in Pennsylvania. HEW visited the State department of health and asked for waste-load data from the companies in Ohio. Under Ohio law, the State cannot release such data unless the companies agree.

HEW did not ask the State to set up a meeting with the companies and discuss their needs, but HEW made a direct request to the industries and asked for the data. The larger companies refused. Both the companies and the State of Ohio argued that HEW, expert on water quality, could analyze the water in Pennsylvania and tell whether there was endangerment to health or welfare.

Ohio has had a monitoring program at various points along the river for the past 2 years, to measure water quality. There is a continuous monitoring line at the State line conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey. All of this data was given to the HEW, but it was not used. HEW wanted only waste-load data as a measure of pollution.

In order to get this waste-load data, HEW sent a letter to Ohio threatening Ohio with loss of Federal grants for pollution control unless the data were turned over to HEW.

Ohio's answer was that this threat of blackmail deserved congressional investigation.

HEW then argued it was outside the scope of Ohio law and should receive it anyhow. The Ohio reply said that it was a crime to break the law and questioned HEW's asking such an action.

Mr. HARSHA. Do you have any verification of this statement here, Mr. Kinney?

Mr. KINNEY. Yes.

It is a serious charge.

I have with me, and these are public documents, they were reviewed by the Ohio Water Pollution Control Board and I obtained them from one of the members. There was discussion. If the chairman desires

Mr. HARSHA. I wonder if they could be made a part of the record? Mr. CRAMER. What does the letter indicate?

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HARSHA. Sure.

Mr. CRAMER. What does the letter indicate?

Mr. KINNEY. One paragraph from the Federal letter:

We are certain that the State of Ohio wishes to meet the conditions of its State water pollution control program plan.

This is a plan that they refer to earlier as part of their comprehensive program, that the Federal agency shall collect data.

As you know, one of the specific considerations in our approval of the State plan for program grant funds is that the State agency will make available such reports as the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare may need to carry out his responsibilities under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

He has interpreted that to mean that these reports should be a party to it.

The Ohio answer is that they are required by law to keep such data confidential unless the companies provide the release.

Mr. CRAMER. Where is the following letter? Is there a following letter indicating HEW suggests they cut off water pollution control funds if this demand is not complied with?

Mr. KINNEY. The statement was in here and then the answer to

it was:

Your threat of withdrawal of program grant moneys from the Ohio Department of Health probably deserves review by congressional committees which will be considering the future of the Federal water pollution control program. Mr. CRAMER. What is the date of that letter, and who is it to and who is it from?

The letter you just read.

Mr. KINNEY. The first letter was dated January 4, from the regional health director to the director of health in Ŏhio. The second letter was dated January 6, in reply, from the health officer in Ohio to the regional health director.

Mr. CRAMER. Who were they? What are their names?

Mr. KINNEY. The health director in Ohio was Dr. Arnold; the regional director, Dr. Mangum.

Mr. CRAMER. What is the date of the letter?

Mr. KINNEY. January 6.

Then there was another letter after that that I do not have, in which they say they are outside the scope. But I do have the answer of January 27, in which they review for them what the Ohio law is why their people cannot release such data.

Mr. CRAMER. Do I understand that it is suggested by the HEW representative that the provision of this information by the State was required by HEW regulations, regardless of the fact it was against the law of the State to so provide, and suggested the power

of HEW was to cut off funds if their regulations were not conformed to, relating to this pollution question? The funds relating to the sewage disposal plant construction money?

Mr. KINNEY. No. One-half of the State program in the State of Ohio is grant money from HEW under the program of assisting the States in their program.

The Ohio State pollution control program runs around $400,000 a year; one-half of it is Federal grants.

Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. McCarthy.

Mr. MCCARTHY. I do not understand, where is the threat of blackmail? That was not clear to me.

You made a very serious charge.

Mr. KINNEY. Right.

Mr. MCCARTHY. Could you explain where is the threat of blackmail?

Mr. KINNEY. You take one-half of the funds away from a State program and what will happen to it?

Mr. McCARTHY. Could you read it there in the letter? The threat of blackmail to which you refer.

Mr. KINNEY. Right. I read to you the statement from the Department in which they make the reference that unless the reports that they feel necessary are submitted, that they are reviewing the funds, the grant funds by which they would be supplying them for the States. Now, to get data, HEW personnel visited the State offices and asked for the data. They were told they could not release it without company approval.

The HEW representatives did not ask to meet with the companies in the State to get this straightened out. The next thing they got was a note saying that, "unless we can receive these reports, we are considering them tantamount to not complying with the requirements." Wherein, the requirement is that the State shall supply such reports as the Secretary deems necessary.

Mr. McCARTHY. Could you read that part again, please, to which you are specifically referring now? The threat of blackmail.

Mr. KINNEY. The statement of blackmail is my interpretation of what has been done here.

Mr. MCCARTHY. I see.

Mr. BLATNIK. In other words, Mr. Kinney, that is your word and your interpretation?

Mr. KINNEY. Right. What I am saying is they will pull out onehalf of the program if they do not supply something for which they are forbidden by law. And I am sure this is not what this committee wants to be going on. I am sure it is not the intent of this committee to promote that kind of thing.

Mr. CRAMER. Does the gentleman yield further?

Mr. HARSHA. Just one minute. I want to ask the witness a question. The statement you refer to from the Department of HEW contained in the letter of January 4, 1965

Mr. KINNEY. Right.

Mr. HARSHA (Continuing). To Dr. Arnold, director of health, Ohio Department of Health, signed by Clarke W. Mangun, Jr., regional

health director, reads as follows-this is the last paragraph of his letter, I believe:

We are certain that the State of Ohio wishes to meet the conditions of its State water pollution control program plan. As you know, one of the specific -considerations in our approval of the State plan for program grant funds is that the State agency will make available such reports as the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare may need to carry out his responsibilities under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

That is the part of the letter that you refer to, and I believe that Dr. Arnold referred to, as being a threat of withdrawal of program grant moneys in his subsequent letter is it not?

Mr. KINNEY. Right. I did not realize that there were copies all over. But I do know it was raised at the Ohio conference. There was discussion at the Ohio conference-not with HEW-on the Mahoning up there, there was very great concern raised by two of the members of the Ohio Pollution Control Board who were at that meeting: Barton Hall, who is one of the members, and Dr. Arnold is the other.

Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, I have a photostatic copy of that letter and photostatic copy of the answer of the State of Ohio, and I would like to offer them for the record at this point, to clarify.

Mr. BLATNIK. May I see it?

Mr. HARSHA. Certainly.
(Letters referred to follow :)

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,

E. W. ARNOLD, M.D.,

Director of Health, Ohio Department of Health,
Columbus, Ohio.

REGIONAL OFFICE,

Chicago, Ill., January 4, 1965.

DEAR DR. ARNOLD: The Public Health Service is now in the midst of completing detailed preparations for the forthcoming Februray 16, 1965, interstate enforcement conference on the Mahoning River.

It is

As a part of these preparations, we are most anxious to obtain and evaluate any basic data or other information pertinent to the enforcement area. our desire to have the most successful conference possible. Toward this end, Public Health Service representatives have attempted to obtain meaningful data and information from the Ohio water pollution control agency, but have so far met with limited success.

Several times during 1962 and at least once during the early part of 1963, quantitative estimates of industrial discharges were requested. Most recently, on December 29, 1964, our Mr. Todd Cayer requested raw stream monitoring data and quantitative and qualitative industrial outfall data. On December 30, 1964, it is our understanding that Mr. Hayse Black, of the sanitary engineering center, requested the addresses of industries, among other information, in the enforcement area. None of the above requests was fulfilled by your agency.

We are certain that the State of Ohio wishes to meet the conditions of its State water pollution control program plan. As you know, one of the specific considerations in our approval of the State plan for program grant funds is that the State agency will make available such reports as the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare may need to carry out his responsibilities under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

In view of the proximity of the conference, your early reply and cooperation in furnishing the necessary information is most important to insure a successful conference.

Sincerely yours,

CLARKE W. MANGUN, Jr., M.D.,
Regional Health Director.

CLARKE W. MANGUN, Jr., M.D.,

STATE OF OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
Columbus, Ohio, January 6, 1965.

Regional Health Director, Public Health Service,

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Chicago, Ill.

DEAR DR. MANGUN: Your letter of January 4 with respect to the proposed conference on the Mahoning River is most confusing and disturbing.

Your threat of withdrawal of program grant moneys from the Ohio Department of Health probably deserves review by congressional committees which will be considering the future of the Federal water pollution control program. The calling of an enforcement conference by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare implies under the law that he has sufficient reports, surveys, and studies to justify calling such a conference. Now that it has been called, we cannot understand why you are trying to gather such information at this late date.

Our department has regularly supplied the Public Health Service with required and necessary information about the water pollution control program in Ohio. We shall continue to do this.

The Secretary of HEW called the February 16 conference on short notice and without consulting us (as proposed in the Federal law). Therefore, at the preseut time, our staff is heavily occupied in preparing materials for the conference. We hope to have this information ready by the conference date on February 16. This is an extra burden on our staff.

The Public Health Service has requested certain information on industrial effluents which our department cannot reveal under Ohio law. We have supplied and will continue to supply information on stream conditions, which, after all, is the real goal of a water pollution control program.

We shall continue to cooperate with the Public Health Service under the laws of Ohio and within the requirements of Federal laws.

Sincerely yours,

E. W. ARNOLD, M.D., Director of Health.

CLARKE W. MANGUN, M.D.,

STATE OF OHIO, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
Columbus, Ohio, January 27, 1965.

Regional Health Director, Public Health Service, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Chicago, Ill.

(Attention of Mr. H. W. Poston).

DEAR DR. MANGUN: Your letter of January 18, 1965, to E. W. Arnold, M.D., director of health, has been referred to this office for consideration and reply. Thank you for commending this department on the operation of the stream monitoring stations which we have in operation on the Mahoning River. This is but one example of the continuing interest and activity of the State of Ohio with regard to water pollution abatement and control in the Mahoning River Basin.

In your letter you state that you do not believe an agency of the Federal Government is included in the term "public" as used in the last sentence of 6111.05 of the revised code, which provides as follows:

"The board may make copies of such records, but if such records pertain to a private disposal system, such copies may not be made available to the public without express permission of the owner."

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion with regard to this matter but as has been stated previously we must disagree. The obvious intent and purpose of this provision of law is to make such records confidential for the exclusive use of the Ohio Water Pollution Control Board and its authorized representatives in the administration and enforcement of Ohio's water pollution control law (secs. 6111.01 to 6111.08, inclusive, of the revised code).

In good conscience I could not suggest that any such records be released to the Federal Government or any other agency of Government in view of the very serious consequences which could ensue as a result of such action. Section 6111.07 of the revised code provides in pertinent part as follows:

"(A) No person shall violate or fail to perform any duty imposed by, sections 6111.01 to 6111.08, inclusive, of the revised code, or violate any order of the water pollution control board promulgated pursuant to such sections." ** Section 6111.99 of the revised code provides in pertinent part as follows:

*