This fact, we think, lends some strong justifications favorable to the proposed transfer. The Secretary of the Interior has numerous conservation responsibilities in the national parks, in the wildlife refuges, in fisheries, on the public lands, and elsewhere. Conflicts between protection of values in those areas and commercial utilization of natural resources are matters the Secretary of the Interior is required to deal with constantly.

These conflicts exist now; the alinement of interests will not be changed by the President's proposed transfer. In fact, the interests most concerned about water pollution control should find some new and additional associates and supporters even within industries most blamed for pollution.

Sixth. The fact that the Department of the Interior is basically a western, non-urban-oriented institution while the problem of water pollution is most prevalent in our highly urbanized and industrialized North and East. The problem in the East is not an insufficiency of water but an insufficiency of usable water due to the polluted nature of existing supplies.

Historically, Interior has had a western orientation but that orientation has been in process of change for a long time. Its preoccupation with western programs is shrinking, relatively, and also in the absolute sense.

It is the urban resident who is the principal constituent of many of the Department's Bureaus-National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. The research and service functions of the Geological Survey are, and for many years have been, nationwide. The Survey is involved with geological investigations in many urban areas. These have to do with stability of sites for large buildings, delineation of areas subject to flooding, and various other geological and geophysical matters.

The Secretary of the Interior, as you know, is a member of the Delaware River Basin Commission-sitting with the Governors of New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania. He is also Chairman of the Water Resources Council charged with coordination of Federal water policies under the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration and its predecessor organization have operated broad program on a nationwide basis for many years. This experience in the longstanding relationships with the States and cities would be continued and strengthened after the transfer.

Seven. The possibility that pollution control will take a back seat to the other large programs in the Department of the Interior whose missions is to promote certain activities while the pollution control mission may be in conflict with such activities. Should we combine the promoter and the regulator? An analogy would be to put FDA's food responsibility in Agriculture on the basis that the latter's prime interest is food.

Pollution control is not in opposition to major water resources programs of Interior-it is essential to many of those programs. Many fish species require higher quality water in their habitat than that which can readily be treated for direct human use. Pollution control is a vital necessity in many of Interior's programs of resource conservation and development.

Water pollution control activities will be a major activity of the Department of the Interior. Testifying before committees of the Congress, the Secretary of the Interior has given assurance that he is prepared to give a large share (20 percent) of his personal time to water pollution control matters-should the President's plan go into effect. Vigorous leadership by top administration will be the policy.

Eight. The future relationship with the States, not one to which, to my knowledge, has placed water pollution in a conservation agency but rather tend toward independent agencies or health departments. Whole new relationships will have to be worked up and established again with the possible loss of time. All of the existing relationships with States and with their water pollution control agencies would in no way be disrupted or impaired by the proposed interdepartmental transfer of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. The Department of the Interior through Bureaus such as the Geological Survey, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, and Office of Water Resources Research has extensive cooperative working relationships with all the 50 States. The parallel working relationships of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration would certainly not be strange and novel to Interior. Nine. The possibility that the basin approach which Interior advocates will actually retard pollution control activities in States and localities which want to move ahead of others in the basin.

We believe the river basin approach is basic to carrying out an ultimately effective pollution control program but we do not propose that the program be limited to the basin approach. Congress recognized the basin approach last year when it provided for establishment of water quality standards. Such standards, of necessity, must be keyed to river basins or parts thereof. It is not enough for one community to clean up a part of the river and allow the remainder of the river to be polluted. We agree, moreover, that no community willing and able to proceed with control of its own pollution should be without encouragement for so doing.

Ten. That this transfer will delay the establishment of needed water quality standards required now under law.

The President's proposed transfer should not cause any more delay than there has been to date in gearing up the new pollution control administration. Much of that delay, of course, has been due to provisions in the Water Quality Act of 1965. Separation of the pollution control function from the Public Health Service required time, the changeover from an agency partially staffed by Public Health Service commissioned personnel to an agency staffed entirely by classified civil service personnel will not be fully accomplished until June 30, 1966. Under these circumstances, a certain amount of delay cannot be avoided. The Secretary of the Interior gives his personal assurance that he would do his utmost to move the program into action, to prevent avoidable delays, and to oppose any attempts to delay the establishment of the authorized water quality standards.

Eleven. The lack of any regional organization in Interior which might hamper efforts.

We see no reason to think that the regionalized operations of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration would, in any way, be compatible with Interior's. Eight of Interior's bureaus are administered through regional or area offices. Six of these eight bureau programs are nationwide in scope and include: Geological Survey, National Park Service. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Bureau of Mines, and Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. Each of these bureaus has a regional headquarters and regional boundaries judged to be best suited to its particular mission. The same principle would apply to the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.

For the purposes of coordination, communication, policy guidance, and departmental representation on regional or interdepartmental studies or programs, the Department of the Interior has established eight regional headquarters each occupied by a regional coordinator who is a staff member of the Office of the Secretary.

Sincerely yours,

STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary of the Interior,

Senator MUSKIE. We have several Senators. I hope those who have just arrived will appreciate my departure from the seniority rule to recognize Senator Javits who has been waiting some time this morning. Senator, we welcome your presence this morning. Senator Javits is a sponsor of one of the bills pending before us, S. 1092, and cosponsor of S. 2947.

We welcome your presence and your testimony.

STATEMENT OF HON. JACOB J. JAVITS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Senator JAVITS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To square myself with my colleagues may I say I was informed there was a list and I was next on the list. I will be very quick to yield to my colleagues. Mr. Chairman, my State has an unique interest in this legislation to expand the Federal role in controlling water pollution because we have embarked on what is probably the most ambitious program of any State in the Nation on this subject.

The voters of New York have approved a bond issue designed to raise the State's share of funds for a $1.7 billion water pollution control program. Now the Federal legislation already enacted provides $150 million a year for construction grants, $20 million for demonstration projects for the whole Nation.

Using this formula New York can get only $9,888,000 as its share of Federal funds, which is very far short of a 30-percent contribution in any kind of appreciable program.

Also the formula of the act places a ceiling of $1.2 million on single projects. I think for us and other States with important concentrations of business in big cities that is a figure that is completely impractical.

So, New York, realizing that the Federal Government can't appropriate money as quickly as we could use it, makes the following proposal:

First, we think there should be a substantial increase in the aggregate of the funds authorized.

Second, we think the single project dollar limitation is unwise because it makes really impossible large projects. We hope the ceiling will be lifted.

Third, extremely important to us, we hope you will give us the prefinancing provision that is contemplated by S. 2636. That would allow reimbursement in the future of money already spent for water pollution programs. That simply means that we in New York can go forward as fast as we possibly can and use State money for the purpose in anticipation of ultimate reimbursement.

I might point out that this is very important to us. We took a terrible beating in New York on the New York State Thruway because we acted without Federal help.

I hope that the gentlemen on the committee and Senator Ribicoff and other Senators like him will agree with us that the States that can move and want to move should not be inhibited from doing so because they feel that they would be putting up more than their share.

I would like to tell the committee one little story and then I shall be through. Yesterday I was up in my State doing what all Senators do-speaking, touring, meeting my constituents. I took a 43-mile drive along what I will hazard to be one of the most beautiful lakes in the world, Lake Seneca-42 miles from Geneva to Elmira.

The lake is surrounded on both sides by broad sloping hills, and some of the most magnificent farms in the world. And Lake Seneca is completely polluted. It is just a tragedy to see this unbelievably beautiful sparking finger of water, one of the great Finger Lakes in south-central New York, polluted.

If you needed any emotional inspiration to move on this thing, that is it. Our country should do it because it is an invaluable natural resource. You are only adding to our total assets. I don't consider this feeding inflation or wasting money or anything but the most constructive enterprise.

I hope that for us and other States which are in our position, without in any way disadvantaging the other States which may not be in that position, you will enable us, by allowing prefinancing to move forward with the greatest urgency and greatest rapidity just

as our voters and our legislature have already shown by voting this enormous bond issue.

Thank you.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you, Senator. I recall a year ago January when the Senate was considering the bill, S. 4, which ultimately resulted in the Water Quality Act, you and I had a discussion of these points that you have raised this morning.

I assured you that the subcommittee would conduct hearings with a view to resolving these points. We have done that.

We have produced S. 2947 which you cosponsor and I think incorporates every one of the points you raised. So that the prefinancing provision of S. 2636 is found in similar form in S. 2947.

It is one that I support, the subcommittee supports. I am not sure we will get the administration support as yet. As a matter of fact I think it is an economy provision, because if we can enable the States like New York, which are in a position to do so, to press ahead with construction early with this prefinancing measure, they will build plants at lower cost than those who have to build them later.

I think we will save money.

Senator JAVITS. And you will be able to stretch out the appropriations further because the big States, no matter how you slice it, will take a large share of the money because we will be raising money on the strength of the Federal commitment. If you raise it for 20 years you can raise it for 30 years or even 40 years for a purpose like this.

Senator MUSKIE. That is very good.

Thank you, Senator Javits.

Senator Boggs.

Senator BOGGS. I want to thank Senator Javits for his appearance this morning, your testimony not only of today but your interest in the past has been of great help to this committee.

Senator JAVITS. Thank you, Senator.

Senator MUSKIE. Senator Moss.

Senator Moss. I have no questions. I am delighted to hear the Senator's testimony.

Senator MUSKIE. Senator Cooper.

Senator COOPER. I think Senator Javits knows I am always interested in everything he says, particularly when you bring to Members of the Senate from rural States like mine the knowledge and information that your State has on these problems.

I am very much interested in the trip up through New York.
Senator JAVITS. For many reasons.

Senator MUSKIE. Senator Tydings.

Senator TYDINGS. No comment.
Senator MUSKIE. Senator Murphy.
Senator MURPHY. No comments.

I congratulate the Senator.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you, Senator Javits.

Now it is a pleasure to welcome my good friend from North Carolina, Senator Ervin, who has been waiting patiently. We appreciate your coming, Senator.

STATEMENT OF HON. SAM J. ERVIN, JR., A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

Senator ERVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

At the outset, I wish to commend the chairman of the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution for leadership in a field that has many problems and no easy solutions.

For pollution comes from man's carelessness in the changing of what the Eternal Creator put here on earth in a more beautiful and pure form. Since man is basically at fault when we talk of pollution, we immediately run into all sorts of problems when we attempt to eradi cate the contamination of water or air.

I support S. 2947, a pending measure before this subcommittee, as one of its sponsors. I do so for a very practical reason. Several years ago, the Senate Select Committee on National Water Resources found that our water supply is shrinking rapidly in relation to our growing national needs.

The select committee found that population and industrial growth will double our water needs by 1980 and triple these needs by the year 2000. Assuming the accuracy of this statistical basis, this means that in the not too distant future our demand for water will be more than the available supply, and water will have to be used over and over again to meet our needs.

A multipurpose national water program becomes a vital necessity with the growth of waste and the lack of standards for its disposal. Control of water pollution stands at the apex of any effective water management program.

Pollution, as the late Senator Kerr used to say when he discussed pure water, is never a very pleasant subject. But it exists and it becomes a greater problem where areas experience massive population growth. The Potomac River is a prime illustration of the problem and the futility of hoping that the problem will go away. It does not. It grows worse unless effective governmental action is taken to prevent filth from going into the streams and rivers and lakes.

Pollution is not a new subject for congressional action. Last year we passed the Water Quality Act of 1965. In 1948, Congress passed the first Water Pollution Control Act. As far back as 1886, Congress passed an antidumping bill to aid navigation in New York Harbor.

The importance of S. 2947 is that it seeks to take effective steps within the framework of the federal system of government to improve the existing water program while there is yet time.

Industrialization, urbanization, population growth represent gradual changes. Upgrading of water quality should move along to meet the need. The disagreements that once raged over the entrance of Government into the field of pollution control have now largely abated into fights over the proper role of local, State, and Federal Governments in such activities.

It seems to me that S. 2947 represents a balanced approach to the implementation of Federal control and aid in this important field. S. 2947 represents neither a crash approach nor an approach destined to maintain the status quo.

It attempts to bring about what is most needed: good steady progress within the framework of the federal system. For this reason, I