Right now there is not an area which covers that particular phase of training. The other phase is the technician type training that you are speaking of.

Senator TYDINGS. I am interested in the former category because we have had a great deal of testimony before the subcommittee about this problem over the past several years. I can't find anything in any of the proposed legislation which covers the problem which you raise. Is that your understanding?

Mr. HARRIS. That is correct, sir. I am bringing it up as something

that we do not believe has been covered.

Senator TYDINGS. Would you go into more detail? Rather than research grant which is now available, these would in a sense be training grants which would go to undergraduates, perhaps the last 2 years in college.

Mr. HARRIS. Quite possibly that would be a good approach to it. Senator TYDINGS. It would be an incentive to get more college stu

dents into the field.

Mr. HARRIS. Into the field of water quality control. I think all of our State agencies are having a difficult time at the moment of getting graduates to go to work in their agencies because we can't compete with industry and some of the Federal agencies. If we could have a string tied to these people, maybe in their last 2 years, we might create the incentive for their entering State or interstate water pollution control work.

Senator TYDINGS. I see that you represent the National Association of Water Pollution Control Administrators. Do you think you could get together with some of your top people within the next week or two and prepare a little more definitive statement of the type of program that you think would be most helpful? We are probably going to mark up this bill shortly. As the chairman indicated, he hopes to have the bill on the floor of the Senate by June 1, or some time in that area. If you could do a little work and get something to the committee, and to me personally, it would be greatly appreciated. This is an area which certainly appeals to me and which will no doubt appeal to some of the other members of the committee. It might be that we can do something.

Mr. HARRIS. I would be most pleased to make every attempt to get it to you within 2 weeks.

Senator TYDINGS. Say 2 weeks. I think it would be very helpful to us. If you know of any States, for instance, which have such a program where it worked, it might be helpful to mention them.

In your paper, Mr. Harris, you might give a typical breakdown of the type of trained technicians you might need in a small community or large community, the type of educational background they should have and the areas where you have particular difficulties in securing them. I think perhaps some of the other professional organizations who have testified here might be of assistance to you. We certainly all have a common interest.

I have one final question, Mr. Harris. You indicate that one disturbing new legislative proposal is the inclusion of navigable waters in the water quality criteria without mention of extending the June 30, 1967, date. I wonder if you would elaborate a little more on that.

Mr. HARRIS. Yes, I would be pleased to. When the water quality Act of 1965 was passed it was indicated generally that we would have approximately 2 years in which to establish water quality criteria for interstate waters.

Subsequent to the passage of that act, as you are well aware, it was proposed that the water pollution control unit be transferred from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to Interior. This has significantly slowed down the determination of certain guidelines we need as administrators to start our water quality determinations. There are a number of unanswered questions.

Now it looks like we will, instead of having 2 years, have 1 year in which to make these determinations and in addition to the interstate waters we have navigable water to consider which, in the State of Washington and many of our coastal States, is multiplying our problem tenfold and twentyfold. We would have a relatively small amount of interstate waters but we have a tremendous amount of navigable waters when you consider Puget Sound and all our other basin areas. That is why we are concerned, not with the exclusion of navigable waters but with the deadline of about a year in which to perform this task which is quite monumental.

Senator TYDINGS. Do you have any thought on the amount of time that you think the deadline should be extended?

Mr. HARRIS. I would say conservatively a year for the simple reason that we were talking in terms of 2 years for just interstate waters, and now that has been narrowed to a year. I believe that such an extension would be extremely valuable. If we are going to establish good meaningful and useful water quality criteria we need more than 1 year in which to do this task. For a finished product 1 year is too short a time.

Senator TYDINGS. Do you feel, looking ahead, that it is desirable to have navigable waters subject to water quality control, or not?

Mr. HARRIS. I would not like to debate that at the moment or comment on it in any depth. We are not protesting the exclusion of it at all.

Senator TYDINGS. Let me say, Mr. Harris, that your testimony has been most helpful to the subcommittee. I am sure that the chairman will study it with a great deal of interest. I think you will make a great contribution if you will assemble the data and make some proposals or suggestions along the lines we discussed in our dialog about the need for training technicians in this very vital field. I certainly appreciate your time and effort in preparing the statement and being with us. I am sure that Senator Jackson and Senator Magnuson will both appreciate the fine contribution you gave us this morning. Mr. HARRIS. Thank you, sir.

Senator TYDINGS. The subcommittee stands recessed until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the committee was recessed, to be reconvened at 10 a.m., Thursday, April 28, 1966.)

WATER POLLUTION CONTROL-1966

THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 1966

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AIR AND WATER POLLUTION,

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, and Tydings.

Senator MUSKIE. The committee will be in order. Our first witness this morning, representing Governor Rockefeller, of New York, is Dr. Hollis Ingraham, commissioner of health, State of New York. Dr. Ingraham, will you come forward, please?

We appreciate your appearance. Won't you proceed, sir?

STATEMENT OF DR. HOLLIS INGRAHAM, COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH, THE STATE OF NEW YORK, ON BEHALF OF GOV. NELSON ROCKEFELLER

Dr. INGRAHAM. Senator Muskie, we are deeply appreciative of this opportunity to appear here and to read a statement by Governor Rockefeller regarding the bills under consideration this morning.

Senator MUSKIE. I would be particularly interested in getting your comments on a statement which will be offered later in the morning by the National Association of Manufacturers to the effect that the money provided in the committee bill is unrealistically high.

Dr. INGRAHAM. Do you wish me to read this statement, sir?
Senator MUSKIE. Yes, if you will, please.

If there are any parts of it that you think might just as well be highlighted, I leave that to you, but we are here to hear the whole testimony.

Dr. INGRAHAM. It is relatively brief. I think I can read the entire thing.

This past year has been one of momentous events; 1965 stands out as a year of awakening to the shocking state of this Nation's waters and as a time of action to rescue this precious resource. The simple existence of the bills before you and their sponsorship are ample evidence of this new awareness.

Let me also say with perhaps too much pride, but with great justification that the boldest stroke against water pollution yet taken in this Nation and one which made its contribution to the new national awareness—was made by New York State in 1965: our pure waters

program to end water pollution throughout the State in just 6 years. This program that has met the main barrier to pollution abatement head on. That barrier is the staggering expense of overcoming the huge backlog of needed sewage treatment works-$1.7 billion in New York alone, and according to your subcommittee, $20 billion for the Nation as a whole.

Yet when the question was put to New York's voters, “Will you spend $1 billion in State money to rescue your waters from pollution?" the answer was a thunderous "Yes." The pure waters program, which had already been unanimously approved by the legislature, won a sweeping 4-to-1 victory in a public referendum last November.

As a result we have in New York the authority and capacity to provide our localities-right now-60 percent of the cost of overcoming the backlog, just as quickly as the works can be planned and construction contracts let. With our $1 billion bond authorization, we are providing without arbitrary limitation of any kind and as the funds are needed-30 percent of the cost as the State's share plus another 30 percent prefinancing of what we believe is the proper Federal share.

We are also providing State aid to cover one-third of the cost of operating public sewage treatment plants. In addition, we are allowing industry generous tax incentives to encourage waste treatment facility construction.

Water quality standards have been established for all of the State's waters. And we now have swift moving, streamlined enforcement powers.

Senator MUSKIE. May I interject and I do so because I may have to leave to go to another hearing, and I wanted to emphasize certain points in your statement or in the Governor's statement as you go along.

This effort that New York is making is a tremendous one. It means an extraordinary exertion, effort and will by the people of the State of New York. I can say that and you certainly can acknowledge it. Yet despite this enormous exertion by the people of the State of New York, it still rests upon a Federal basis of support, does it not?

In other words, notwithstanding this tremendous exertion by New York, it must be accompanied by a tremendous exertion on the part of the Federal Government in your judgment in this if it is to succeed? Dr. INGRAHAM. Yes, we certainly hope that there will be a similar exertion on the part of the Federal Government. We will suffer grievously if we do not receive Federal aid. However, the people of New York have expressed their will and the Governor is prepared to proceed with this program even if no Federal aid is forthcoming.

Senator MUSKIE. I understand. So this is going to cost the voters of the State of New York $1.7 billion. Is that the figure?

Dr. INGRAHAM. That is the figure indeed, unless we receive the 30 percent Federal aid we are asking for. This of course is in addition to the money that must be spent by the localities which will not receive either State or Federal aid for collecting systems.

Senator MUSKIE. Then this tremendous State cost must be matched by an equal amount of Federal dollars?