Senator TYDINGS. If Secretary Udall were here this morning, would you have specific proposals as to how the line of communication should be formalized, say today or beginning next Monday? Has your thinking gone that far?

Mr. TUCHTAN. No, Senator, the council has not fully developed a position on the question. What views I would express would have to be personal ones rather than views of our board of directors.

Senator TYDINGS. As long as we are on the Potomac River I wonder if you would care to comment on some of the positive steps which are being taken to clean up the Potomac, particularly disposal and discharge.

Mr. TUCHTAN. The local governments in this metropolitan area have the secondary treatment facilities as you know. The Potomac is relatively clean in that sense. We do have a serious sedimentation problem. Additionally, there is a problem if storm drainage pollution that affects the river. Programs along that line, of course, have been-all the improvements have taken place in the burgeoning and growing suburban communities where a lot of these facilities have been constructed as a part of the growth process and requirement by the local jurisdictions.

Aside from that, I don't know that I could present any further position. Do you have anything else?

Mr. BOSLEY. I might add that I think the Council of Governments has been instrumental in bringing to the attention of the local governments in the region the necessity for secondary treatment. Of course, the pollution control requirements of the States have also been very influential. I think the local governments, by acting in concert, have been a tremendous influence in the cleanup of waste water to the extent that now over 95 percent of the effluent discharge in the river is secondarily treated.

In addition, I think Mr. Tuchtan pointed out that one of the more significant pollution problems in the Potomac is storm water runoff. There has been apparently some projections that it would cost several billions of dollars just to develop a separate storm sewer operation in the District of Columbia. The council has applied to the Federal Water Pollution Control Agency to undertake a study, to look into alternate methods of abating pollution caused by storm water runoff. We expect to have an affimative answer from that Agency in a few weeks, and the council will be able to go forward with this project. Senator TYDINGS. I have no further questions.

Senator MUSKIE. Senator Boggs?

Senator BOGGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just wanted to fix in my mind the Potomac Basin Authority, the commission approach. As I understand it, the Governor of Maryland participates in that Authority, the Governor of Virginia, the Governor of West Virginia, and General Duke, one of the Commissioners, and the Secretary of the Interior.

Mr. TUCHTAN. Yes.

Senator BOGGS. Your suggestion is that all the authorities along the river, the local governments, should also be sitting on that Au thority?

Mr. TUCHTAN. No, sir. My concern is with the jurisdictions in the Metropolitan Washington area. This would, of course, then include Loudoun County, Montgomery County, Fairfax County, Arlington County, Prince Georges County, and so on. These are the constituents of the Council of Governments.

The problem is to have this metropolitan region represented. Therefore, it becomes a very specific problem to the local government in this region.

Senator BOGGS. For example, you are from Maryland, but do you have the opportunity or make the opportunity to submit your views from your area through your representatives who would be the Governor of your State on this authority?

Mr. TUCHTAN. Yes, we have that opportunity because the members of the State legislatures are also members of the Council of Governments, those who represent the metropolitan area. Also, of course, we have our representation in Congress. We feel that these representatives also concern themselves with our problems. So we have direct contacts to that degree.

Senator BOGGS. But you feel that your proposal is that there should be a specific representative other than General Duke as Commissioner or the Governor?

Mr. TUCHTAN. Yes, the point being, Senator, that General Duke represents the District of Columbia which is one of the jurisdictions. in the council. It is also the largest, but there are many other local governments in this metropolitan area who have a stake in this planning as well.

Therefore, there should be a Council of Governments representa

tion.

Senator BOGGS. Thank you. I agree with what Senator Bayh said that we all share pride in this being the Nation's Capital area and the cleanup of the Potomac River and the preservation of it is essential, and I certainly want to encourage you in your work. I know you must be making a great contribution.

Thank you for appearing.

Senator MUSKIE. Mr. Tuchtan, I am sorry that I was not here to hear your testimony. I glanced over it and I am very much interested in the problem which you have apparently explored quite thoroughly with the Senators who were here. We do want to probe the proposition encompassed in the administration's bill with respect to the management of river basins. It may very well be that the Potomac, because of the nature of the District of Columbia, is a peculiar situation.

On the other hand, it might be a situation that might be repeated elsewhere in the country. Your problem, as I see it, is that you have four States, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, and Maryland, who in a basinwide arrangement would be represented by Governors with the political force that they could muster, whereas the Washington metropolitan area does not have any such political instrumentality to use in that kind of arrangement.

Is that not your problem?

Mr. TUCHTAN. Yes, sir; it is.

Senator MUSKIE. In other words, how can the Washington metropolitan area muster the political force to uphold its interests in such a river basin wide arrangement? That is your problem.

Mr. TUCHTAN. This is a part of the problem; and it means more of a potential in the force because of its association in the Council of Governments where the adjoining jurisdictions, who are features of the States doing their part, can recruit that kind of influence to help the District as well as help each other.

Senator MUSKIE. You think the Council of Governments is the proper instrumentality?

Mr. TUCHTAN. Not for the entire basin but it is for the representation of the Washington metropolitan area interest.

Senator MUSKIE. Would a mayor be a better instrumentality? Mr. TUCHTAN. We do not have a mayor, as such.

Senator MUSKIE. As long as that issue is pending perhaps we ought to consider its impact on this problem as well as other problems. Senator TYDINGS. We have mayors who are members of the council. Mr. TUCHTAN. Yes; we do.

Senator TYDINGS. In all of the communities that are involved?

Mr. TUCHTAN. Yes, we have mayors who are members of the council. We have councilmen who are members of the council but they represent their jurisdiction by selection by the jurisdiction.

Senator MUSKIE. I notice you do not think that communities will ever be in a position to pick up all this load.

Mr. TUCHTAN. No, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. The record will reveal I am undertaking to get that kind of expression from as many witnesses as possible.

Mr. TUCHTAN. Having here the earlier testimony with reference to the 90-10 program on highways, I think that was very well put as it relates to Federal aid for water treatment and pollution facilities. I would like to propose that it be seriously considered. It is vital and necessary. The local jurisdictions cannot do it alone. I support many of the views expressed heretofore by the people representing the League of Cities and others. Local governments' sources of revenue became harder and harder to come by. Beyond a certain point, Federal assistance is needed.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much, gentlemen. We appreciate your testimony.

Mr. TUCHTAN. Thank you, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. Our last witness this morning is Mr. James F. Wright, executive director of the Delaware River Basin Commission.

STATEMENT OF JAMES F. WRIGHT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION

Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is James F. Wright. I am executive director of the Delaware River Basin Commission. The Commission has asked me to testify before your committee today so that some of our recent experience may be brought to the attention of the Congress. We believe this experience points up a way in which the proposed Clean Rivers Restoration Act, S. 2987, may be improved.

The Delaware River Basin Commission has been in existence now for about 4 years. It is a regional water management agency of the Federal Government and the four Delaware Basin States of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and Delaware. The Commission's legal authority encompasses all aspects of water resources, and its territorial jurisdiction extends throughout all parts of the basin.

Certain unique regulatory powers are vested in the Commission along with the more conventional authorities to plan, construct, and manage water resource projects and facilities. It may issue revenue bonds and levy special charges and assessments. It may set and enforce standards relating to the use of the waters of the basin.

Central to the Commission's effectiveness is its ability to maintain and keep up to date a comprehensive water resources plan for the basin, and to maintain the integrity of that plan by screening water resource projects proposed by other public or private agencies to make sure they do not conflict with the plan. From this brief sketch of the Commission's structure and responsibilities, it can be seen as very close to the kind of river management organization contemplated by the proposed Clean Rivers Restoration Act now before you.

It is apparent that as a matter of general policy the administration and the Congress wish to encourage the creation of new river basin agencies. Title II of the Water Resources Planning Act has this objective even though the commissions created thereunder would be empowered only to plan. The legislation now before this committee would add further incentive for the creation of new institutional approaches to regional water resource management. This trend. toward decentralized administration of water resources development and control through regional agencies is desirable. It makes sense from the point of view of the resource itself. And I believe it will lead to more flexible and efficient administration.

We hope to be among the first to get substantial help to improve the viability of this concept.

The improvement in the proposed Clean Rivers Restoration Act that I am recommending on behalf of the Delaware River Basin Commission has to do with the comprehensive planning process and project review function. Specifically, we recommend that, whenever and wherever there is created a river basin agency through which the Federal interest and responsibility can be effectively expressed, the responsibility for approval of the comprehensive plan, section 106 (F), and project conformance review, section 107(a) (2) and section 108, be placed with the basin agency itself rather than with the Secretary of the Interior. I believe this change will make for more efficient administration of regional waste management programs. This belief is based upon our own experience in the Delaware.

Senator MUSKIE. Is it your concept, Mr. Wright, that the Secretary of the Interior would have no authority whatsoever with reference to the project conformance review? Suppose it were inadequate. Mr. WRIGHT. In our organization, this is already exercised through Federal representation in that the Federal representative-and incidentally he is the Secretary of the Interior although this would not necessarily be true in some perhaps, but he is in ours. Any amend

ment to the comprehensive plan, if it is to be effective and binding upon the Federal Establishment, must be affirmatively voted by the Federal member.

This is not equally true for the State members so that the Federal member in the question of any amendment to the comprehensive plan or change therein has a more equal vote.

Senator MUSKIE. If I understand your description accurately, the effect of that is to give the Secretary of the Interior the same kind of authority or veto power as he has under the current bill?

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, sir. I would like to give my reasoning for this. We already have this procedure built into our statute and into our regulation. We are amending the comprehensive plan at almost every meeting of the Commission. Any time that the comprehensive plan is amended it requires that there be a public hearing and that in the process of doing this the Federal member coordinates fully with all of the various Federal agencies that have an interest.

So, this procedure is already required of us and we would be doing it in any event. Now, our point here is that since we go through this procedure once and must do so for any amendment to the comprehensive plan that it would be redundant to require, as the bill does, the same Federal review procedure over again after a commission competently organized has already performed this act.

Senator MUSKIE. So that if other commissions were organized in the same way, and went through the same procedures, the same redundancy would be involved, as you see it?

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. But if other commissions are not organized in the same way and do not give a comparable opportunity to the Secretary of the Interior to influence the shape of the plan, then your recommendation would not be pertinent?

Mr. WRIGHT. That is right.

We have learned in the Delaware that river basin planning, like city planning, is a continuous process and not at one-shot effort made in response to some physical crisis. This is a very fundamental lesson, and it stands in contradiction to the conventional assumption that seems to say "If we could just get a nice plan that everyone agrees to, then all our problems would be solved."

The Delaware River Basin Commission now revises its comprehensive plan almost every month. To a large extent it has come to rely upon the process of plan amendment as an instrument of administration.

Senator MUSKIE. May I ask if you can give us, without exhaustive detail, some illustrations of the kind of revisions which would indicate why the plan needs to be amended or revised that often?

Mr. WRIGHT. Let me just arbitrarily say there are two kinds of revisions. One might be considered the kinds of revisions of policy or standards which would not be as frequent. These would be the sort of things where, as we have, river quality standards are adopted or where standards are adopted for the tributary streams or where policies are enunciated that in our case have expressed the determination of the Commission to be the participating and underwriting agency for Federal water supply projects rather than require the Federal Govern