Senator RANDOLPH. You mean, Mr. Secretary, that you do not take the responsibility for your presentation.

Senator MUSKIE. He has not got his hammer and nails.

Senator RANDOLPH. I remember reading some strong words you wrote one time concerning your view that we were developing in this country a system of staff people who brought ideas into being and laid plans but were not involved in assuming the responsibility.

You said we needed people that would not only have the plans, the ideas, but who would also take the responsibility for executing the plans. Are you now implying that you have not testified on your own views?

Secretary GARDNER. I thought that I covered that in my initial statement concerning the fact that I have engaged less and less in conversations on the future of this program. To the extent that I am involved, I am prepared to take full responsibility.

It is an accident of the transition that I have been less and less involved. So until, literally until we began to talk this morning I had not thought of the kinds of revisions that might be worked out with respect to this bill.

Senator Muskie pointed out that conversations have been held, I have not been a party to those conversations. I just wanted to clarify it.

Secretary UDALL. We are a bit like the relay runners. Each of us has a hand on the baton. We are in the process of transition here. Senator MUSKIE. I hope the baton has not been dropped. Secretary UDALL. Touché.

Senator RANDOLPH. I have heard that in the line of bullfighting, the critics, row on row, in the crowds are screaming "fight the bull" but there is only one man who really knows when and how, and he is the man who fights the bull. So I do think that there will be criticism. of this program. You will have to come with positive leadership. It will not be easy, will it, Mr. Secretary?

Secretary GARDNER. That is right.

Senator MUSKIE. In other words, there is the place where we fight the bull.

Secretary GARDNER. Yes, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

We will proceed.

Secretary GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF HON. STEWART UDALL, SECRETARY OF THE

INTERIOR

Secretary UDALL. I understand, Senator, that some of us who have to appear day by day tend to feel sometimes that we are the bull. Mr. Chairman, I have a prepared statement. I should like it to appear in the record. I will read most of it. I wanted to make one or two preliminary comments before I begin, however, to read.

The one thing that I think came clear to us a few months ago in preparing the administration's new proposed legislation, and that I think our whole conversation this morning underscores, is the fact that although we are all agreed additional research is necessary and

technology can be improved and we have to make a bigger effort in this field, the really big problem we have is a political problem.

It is a problem of how we organize. Here is a big national problem. It centers on the cities and on the industry, it is true, but what is the right relationship between the city governments involved?

Who should do what? This is essentially what this committee must sort out in its deliberations. I think that some have been quite correct in saying that water pollution is a problem that is one part water and one part politics.

I see the politics looming very large in this. I think we are essentially trying to frame new institutions to deal with the problems. That is the reason we regard this as foundation legislation.

I think if the committee does its job right we might very well find 25 or 50 years from now that this country is using the institutions that you have established to solve a major national problem. Senator Muskie and I were in West Germany 6 weeks ago. We found there on the Ruhr, which is one of the most heavily industrialized areas in the world with large water requirements, a 50-year-old organization that functions very well, managing the limited water supplies in the basin.

I feel that this is a historic moment and a historic opportunity for this committee to write legislation establishing the institutions we need to manage our water supplies in a way that we have not contemplated in the past.

Senator TYDINGS. Mr. Chairman, before Secretary Udall starts to read I have been advised that my presence is needed for a quorum in executive session in Judiciary. As soon as I make the quorum I will try to return.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you, Senator Tydings.

Secretary UDALL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the pollution of our rivers is a national disgrace. It has done more to erode the quality of life in our country than any other conservation failure of our time.

Vital steps have already been taken-the most notable of which was the Water Quality Control Act of 1965-to combat water pollution. Further action is now needed to lay the foundations for a systematic, sustained effort that will enable the American people to clean up their rivers and keep them clean.

In my judgment what the administration is proposing today is "foundation" legislation. I would add that the committee bill is also a part of this foundation that should enable us to organize new action partnership between the Federal Government, the States and the cities to attack and conquer the sources of pollution wherever they are found. Ours is a prosperous society. We daily boast of the growth of our GNP and increases in our standard of living. The question at issue before this committee today is whether the United States can also be a clean country which manages its resources with an eye on the future and a determination that man will achieve the optimum use of his water supplies.

Before 1948, national concern about pollution was almost nonexistent. There was the Refuse Act of 1899, Oil Pollution Act of 1944, and Public Health Service Act revisions of 1944; none of these dealt directly with pollution control.

The Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 was the first comprehensive Federal effort of this kind. It was, however, a limited effort-a 5-year program, later extended to 1956. It declared that pollution of interstate waters was a nuisance, subject to abatement, and authorized an appropriation of $22.5 million a year for loans to States and municipalities for construction of waste treatment works.

In 1956 Congress replaced and improved that earlier law in three significant ways: first, by intensifying pollution research effort; second, by providing grants rather than loans for the construction of waste treatment plants-$50 million a year was authorized; and third, by strengthening enforcement procedures.

In his 1961 message on natural resources, the President urged legislation "for a more effective water pollution control program. Congress responded, by strengthening the procedures for abating pollution, by increasing the authorization for construction grants to $100 million a year, and by increased research efforts.

In 1963, when Senator McNamara established this Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution and gave its leadership to Senator Muskie with the other members of this subcommittee a new and important. force entered the battle against water pollution.

The subcommittee had specific instructions to make a comprehensive study of the water pollution problems of our Nation. Its staff report. "A Study of Pollution-Water," issued in June of 1963, pointed out

that

Our basic national water quality control program is not keeping pace with our population increase and the growing urbanization of America.

After deliberations, extending through sessions of the 88th and 89th Congress, further benchmark legislation was enacted-the Water Quality Act of 1965.

I think benchmark legislation is exactly what that act can be called, because for the first time in the water pollution control history of this Government, the concept of enhancing the quality of entire streams was adopted by requiring water quality standards for interstate

waters.

Congress, as the result of efforts of this committee and its House counterpart, recognized the need for attacking the problem on an entire river basis, as well as on a city-by-city basis.

But even with all this legislation, we still have not got rolling so far as effective control of water pollution is concerned. We still have this unanswered problem of political organization. Our urban and industrial economy continues to generate pollution at an increasing rate. And with new forms of pollution. In many places conditions continue to get worse; in others we are barely holding our own. Instances of real cleanup with firm prospects of staying clean are quite rare.

President Johnson, in signing the Water Quality Act of 1965, said that "additional bolder legislation will be needed in the years ahead." I think the bills being considered today then by this committee. represent that approach then to the water pollution problems facing this Nation. I would say in an aside, Senator, I think the committee. bill and the administration bill, although there are important differences, they are not as we see it seriously incompatible.

It is our hope that their provisions and their philosophies can be adjusted and put together.

S. 2987, the clean rivers restoration bill, is designed to carry out the President's primary objective "to clean all of America's rivers." It is a logical advance in our approach to the pollution problem.

Most of our major cities have been established on or near rivers or lakes or coastal waters. Many industries are dependent on these waters and use such water for various purposes. People use such waters for drinking, for swimming, and for boating.

Our sport and commercial fisheries are dependent on such waters. The desires and rights of the great majority of our people who want relatively clean rivers, lakes, and estuaries can no longer be discounted. A program that "means business" is what they are insisting upon.

Each city or municipality is different-no doubt about that. Each has its own pollution problems. Some communities are more advanced in pollution control than others. But all cities or municipalities on a particular river or lake are polluting these waters in some

manner.

Some are discharging raw sewage. Some are discharging inadequately treated sewage. The effluents, even from our best sewage treatment plants, contain phosphates, nitrates, and other nutrients which cause undue growth of algae in receiving waters.

In some instances, great quantities of industrial wastes or pesticides or acid mine runoff or detergents are even getting into these waters, and, in some instances, the major problem is thermal pollution.

We are convinced the river basic approach is sound and will pay dividends in the years to come. It is designed, as the President stated, to "unite all the pollution control activities in a single river basin" and "to achieve high standards of water quality throughout the basin." It is intended to eliminate the backlog of waste treatment works that need to be constructed in the basin. Once these activities are unified in a coordinated attack, water quality standards are adopted and the backlog of needed construction eliminated, we envision that States and the local communities in the basin will be able to assume the full financial responsibility for perpetuating a relatively clean river without further Federal grants.

This effort to get pollution control onto a financially self-sustaining basis is one of the essential features of the administration's legislative recommendations.

Indeed this is the heart of our philosophy. Title I of the clean rivers restoration bill (S. 2987) has two major elements: (1) preparation and approval of comprehensive pollution control and abatement plan, and (2) grants for the construction of waste treatment works pursuant to an approved plan. The plan is the key to strategy that should work in a more effective way than we have been able to do so far.

The bill provides for designation of a planning agency for a selected river basin. In most cases, that planning agency will be a river basin commission established pursuant to the Water Resources Planning Act. In others, however, we may want to establish a commission such as the Delaware River Basin Commission-or to work with and through some other type of agency.

I want to underscore the fact that in our view it is important that we have a flexible program and one that is adapted to the different

types of situations, politically and otherwise, that occur in the country. The term "river basin" is intended to apply to parts of a basin or an area-such as Boston or Atlanta or Portland, Maine, or San Diego: It also would apply to a lake, such as one of our Great Lakes, or to coastal waters. The bill is flexible and should be flexible in this regard and we believe that is desirable.

Planning can be initiated by one or more Governors requesting the establishment of a planning agency or by the Secretary.

The plan (which I have called the key to the river basin approach) will contain the following major elements:

First, appropriate water quality standards must be promulgated and in force throughout the entire river basin or area covered by the plan. Such standards will be developed and promulgated in accordance with the Water Quality Act of 1955

We will build on that foundation.

Second, adequate enforcement authority will be obtained by all State and interstate agencies concerned, to assure maintenance of the approved water quality standards.

Third, a permanent organization with basin or areawide jurisdiction to carry out the plan, to update it when that becomes desirable, and to enforce water quality standards will be established.

Fourth, these local or interstate bodies will be authorized to raise adequate revenues to build these works and facilities; to levy adequate water and sewer and sewage collection, treatment and disposal charges: to adopt a metering system; and to adopt financial programs to assure (without further Federal grants) replacement of-and to the extent practicable, expansion of-works and facilities needed in the future.

The plan will be reviewed by appropriate State Governors and their State pollution control agencies, by the Water Resources Council, and by any Federal agencies, or regional or international commissions that are directly concerned or involved.

The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, will review it for the health aspects of the plan. The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development will review it for its effect on metropolitan planning.

The Secretary of the Interior will then review the proposed plan and approve it if it meets the criteria I have just mentioned. Once a plan is approved, local municipalities or similar bodies can apply for and receive up to a 30 percent Federal grant for the construction of waste treatment works-provided, of course, that these works substantially conform with the plan and the approved water quality standards in force $50 million is authorized in fiscal 1967 to begin this new approach to pollution control.

Title II of S. 2987 amends the present ongoing Federal waste treatment construction grant program by authorizing the Secretary to waive the dollar limitations of $1.2 million and $4.8 million on grants: (1) If the local community adopts an adequate financial program to assure the maintenance of water quality and to assure future selffinanced replacement and expansion of waste treatment works, and (2) if a State adopts adequate statewide water quality standards and adequate measures to enforce them and matches the Federal grant.

This title would make the whole $150 million appropriation authorized for fiscal year 1967 available for such grants under these condi