TABLE I.-Cities of the United States with a population increase of 60 percent or more in the decade 1950-60

TABLE II. Outstanding bonded indebtedness and credit ratings (according to Moody's Municipals)—32 rapid growth cities of the United States

1 Assessed valuation as of 1965 or 1964, whichever data were the latest available.

2 Aaa-gilt edge; Aa-high grade; A=higher medium; Baa=medium. Lower ratings are Ba, B, Caa, Ca, and C. In this rating system, the general obligation bonds of all 32 cities are in the 4 highest of Moody's 9 credit-rating categories.

3 In Anderson, S.C., assessed valuation was reported to be about 10 percent of market value.

WATER POLLUTION CONTROL-1966

TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 1966

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AIR AND WATER POLLUTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 4200, Senate Office Building, Senator Edmund S. Muskie (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Muskie, Randolph, Bayh, Tydings, Boggs, and Fong.

Senator MUSKIE. The committee will be in order.

As our first witness this morning we are happy to welcome the distinguished junior Senator from Massachusetts, who has had a longstanding interest in this field. His region, which I share, has had a longstanding problem in this field. We are delighted to welcome you, Senator Kennedy, this morning.

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD M. KENNEDY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

This

Senator KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate this opportunity to testify today on the legislation which is before your subcommittee dealing with the problems of our Nation's waters. subcommittee has been a source of inspiration and many concrete proposals in this important area. The studies prepared by the subcommittee staff and the legislative proposals made by the subcommittee, culminating most recently in the passage of the Water Quality Act of 1965, have provided the impetus for the institution of a nationwide program to cleanse our rivers of the wastes which now corrupt them. We are all aware of the magnitude of the problem of pollution. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has held over 37 enforcement conferences on this matter since 1957. Forty-one States have been involved. Over 1,000 municipalities have been directed to take immediate steps to clean up the rivers and lakes which they use. President Johnson's conservation message to the Congress on February 25 clearly outlined the threat posed by pollution to the quality of our environment. We have all witnessed the damage caused by pollution of our rivers and lakes. Our streams teem with pollution, our rivers run high with waste, our lakes can support less life with each passing day. Our cities are denied adequate water supplies that are vital to their very existence. Sport and commercial fishing is depleted. Our scenic recreation areas are damaged. And the deterioration con

tinues to increase in direct proportion to population growth and technological advance.

This deterioration is having a subtle but profound effect on our Nation. The water shortage confronting so many of our States would not exist if our rivers could be used safely. Nor would we face the dangers that pollution brings to animal life, nor the denial of recreational opportunity, nor the odors and sights and dangers to health. I believe as a Nation we now recognize the harm that is being done. We have begun to take action at all levels of government to restore and preserve the quality of our water resources. But we will not win our battle against pollution until we develop a program of Government support which mobilizes resources sufficient to complete the enormous task before us.

In that respect, as your recent subcommittee report, and bill, S. 2947, and my own legislative proposal, S. 2851, all recognize, our present Federal program provides only a fraction of the enormous amount of effort and money that is necessary to undo the damage which our past neglect has caused.

It was with this in mind that I proposed that we increase the amount of Federal assistance offered each year for pollution abatement, from $150 million to $500 million; that the present project dollar ceiling be removed; that the Federal Government finance a full 30 percent of all projects regardless of total costs, and 40 percent for those projects where the State has provided 30 percent of the project cost; and, in order to encourage greater State participation, that half the total appropriation be alloted to States, outside the basic formula, on a State-matching basis for local projects not otherwise fundable.

I concluded that these changes in our national pollution program were necessary after surveying the progress of our efforts throughout the country and in my own State of Massachusetts. I was pleased to see that this subcommittee, with one exception, reached the same conclusions as I did about what changes and what added Federal assistance were necessary.

Under S. 2947, $6 billion would be authorized over the next 6 years for grants to municipalities, whereas, under my bill, only about half that amount would be authorized. I agree the need is so great that the larger authorization could be put to good use. I chose the smaller figures as the realistic minimum contribution which the Federal Government must make. And to augment that amount, I sought to design a device to gain greater participation by our State governments a device to encourage the States to join with the Federal Government in sharing the cost burdens.

In essence, then, S. 2947 and my bill, S. 2851, consistently reflect the same conclusions as to what changes in existing laws are necessary. In support of those conclusions, I should like to describe for the subcommittee the conditions in my own State of Massachusetts which prompted me to suggest the changes contained in my bill.

The task confronting Massachusetts is enormous and urgent. All three of the main interstate river systems that flow through Massachusetts have been subject to enforcement action by the Department

of Health, Education, and Welfare. These rivers are the Merrimack, the Connecticut, and the Blackstone Rivers and their tributaries.

Twenty-eight Massachusetts towns are involved in the pollution. of the Merrimack; it is estimated that it will cost $80 million for these towns to construct the treatment plants necessary to clean this river. Twenty-six Massachusetts towns are involved in the pollution of the Connecticut River; it is estimated that it will cost $20 million for these towns to build the necessary projects. Thirteen Massachusetts towns are involved in the pollution of the Blackstone River; it is estimated that it will cost $35 million for these towns to construct pollution abatement facilities.

These facilities are desperately needed. We are not seeking some theoretical standard of water purity. These rivers are seriously contaminated. Each of them has been designed by the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission as having a water quality equivalent to class D. These classifications have been adopted by this commission to help assess the relative quality of different

rivers.

Class D is defined as "suitable for transportation of sewage and industrial wastes without nuisance, and for power, navigation, and certain industrial uses." This is the present state of those_rivers. They are not class A, suitable for any use; they are not class B, suitable for recreation or for purification; and they are not class C, suitable for boating or for industrial cooling processes.

No, they are suitable only for the transportation of sewage and industrial waste. Let me quote from the summary of the Federal Enforcement Conference on the Connecticut River:

Suspended solids from sewage and industrial waste [are] *** interfering with fish spawning and the development of aquatic life. Sludge deposits have damaged the esthetic quality of the river * *

I submit that we can no longer tolerate the existence of rivers which are so polluted that they not only have lost their beauty but they even interfere with the existence of life itself.

As you can see, a great amount of money must be found to meet the urgent needs which exist just in my own State of Massachusetts. A national survey by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has recently disclosed that our 100 largest cities need $1.3 billion immediately for pollution abatement projects. The Department has also estimated that $850 million will be needed annually through 1970 to finance construction of the necessary pollution abatement plants to clean our rivers.

This is a vast need requiring a massive Federal effort on a far greater scale than our present involvement.

It is clear that the local communities lack the resources to carry the burden by themselves. As the Federal Enforcement Conference on the Merrimack River found:

Remedial measures presently being taken are not adequate to abate pollution. The delays in taking appropriate remedial measures are caused by a lack of finances and the burden that would be placed on municipalities and industries in the conference area.

This finding demonstrates that progress in cleaning our Nation's waters will come too slowly so long as prime reliance is placed upon