We have taken the first step to place our waters in adequate condition for many uses by passing the pure waters program. This has not been done in isolation or in a vacuum. We have moved ahead on a statewide planning venture that includes all our water needsrecreational, fishing, wildlife enhancement, industrial, agricultural and municipal water use. We are looking 50 years ahead.

At the end of the last year, I initiated an accelerated water resources program. The leaders of the legislature and I made available nearly $1 million in emergency funds for studies to cover the entire State. These studies will be completed by August 1 of this year. Thus New York State is prepared to work within the philosophy of basin management of water resources as contemplated by S. 2987. Our waters are all classified under a system we believe meets the requirements of the Water Quality Act of 1965. And we are planning on the multipurpose, comprehensive basis that S. 2987 envisions. But again, we believe the vital step is to overcome the backlog of needed sewage treatment facilities, and the pure waters program is designed to do this in just 6 years. To meet our goal we cannot afford the luxury of waiting for the Federal Government to act, and by providing the funds to prefinance all or part of the proper half billion dollar Federal share, we are not waiting.

However, if additional Federal funds become available, we shall certainly want to take full advantage of them; it is vitally important that new Federal legislation not delay our program.

Although the pace of administrative implementation of the Clean Rivers Restoration Act-should it become law-cannot be predicted, the terms of the act are such that it is apparent that extended periods of time could pass in many instances before grants were made. New York is moving now, with sufficient funds immediately available for both the State and Federal shares.

It would be tragic to prolong pollution by causing New York, in the interests of its taxpayers, to hold up all or any part of its progress toward pure waters simply because such continued progress would preclude Federal participation in its cost and thus penalize New York taxpayers.

Therefore, I recommend in the interest of rapid progress and of equity, that financial aid be authorized under the Clean Rivers Restoration Act for projects begun now which eventually become eligible for grants under the act. This means a provision for eventual reimbursement similar to that contained in the subcommittee's bill, S. 2947, with regard to grants under the Water Pollution Control Act.

I further recommend these additional amendments to S. 2987 which would serve to encourage the exercise of State responsibility in this field:

(1) In regard to the Secretary's designation of planning agencies, there should be a statement of legislative intent to the effect that wherever possible, existing organizations should be utilized.

(2) Established Federal interstate bodies such as the Delaware River Basin Commission-should be delegated the power to approve water quality standards without further reference to the Secretary of the Interior.

(3) The act requires that qualifying plans must provide for a permanent organization with jurisdiction coextensive with the

river basin to enforce, review and plan, and so forth. This should be amended to read with jurisdiction at least as extensive as the river basin in order to provide more flexibility in organizational forms.

In summary it is my view that the immediate and priority goal of legislation in this field should be to provide the wherewithal to eliminate the huge backlog of needed sewage treatment facilities-priced by your subcommittee at $20 billion nationally. S. 2947-to amend the Water Pollution Control Act-is a major forward step toward this goal. Senate 2987, on the other hand, with amendments designed to encourage State responsibility, would be a worthy supplement to the basic program which would further additional purposes.

Importantly, however, the act should be amended-to provide for eventual reimbursement for construction programs already in motion-in order to assure that it encourage progress then rather than slow it.

In addition, care should be taken not to so expand and extend Federal authority in setting and enforcing water quality standards that the States and localities would be left without effective responsibility in this field. Aside from the obvious effects on our Federal system of shared responsibility to do so would needlessly lose to the Nation a tremendous resource in the fight on water pollution, a resource which should be nurtured and encouraged.

I appreciate this opportunity to present the view on this important legislation as seen from New York-where our pure waters program now underway, buttressed by a gratifying and eye opening 4-to-1 mandate from the people, promises to attain in the immediate future in our State the goal toward which it is my hope the Congress will now commit the Nation-a quick end to the pollution of our waters throughout the United States.

Thank you very much.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much, Dr. Ingraham. I have two questions I would like to ask. First, does the Governor have a position on the inclusion of navigable waters under the standards section? Dr. INGRAHAM. I beg your pardon, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. Does the Governor have a position on the administration bill, as it relates to the proposed inclusion of navigable waters under the water quality standards section of the law?

Dr. INGRAHAM. The Governor did not make any statement regarding this in his written report here. I think it is the view of the Governor's administration that this would be most undesirable, that the present limit of Federal jurisdiction to interstate waters is quite adequate for the Federal Government to undertake whatever needs to be done to clean up the waters of the United States without the further extension of direct Federal responsibility which really does not seem to be needed.

I know that the Governor's view is that nothing should be done in legislation which will in any way discourage the States in undertaking their responsibility for cleaning up pollution.

Certainly the bill that is being discussed here, S. 2987 would seem to go a long way in choking off local and State initiative unless amended. I think that is one of the parts that definitely should be considered.

Senator MUSKIE. Let me ask you this. There is another area that I think is still a little hazy under current law. That is the question of coastal waters, estuarial waters. Do you think those waters might be properly included under Federal authority under the water quality standards legislation?

Dr. INGRAHAM. I would like to study that one because I must admit I was under the impression they were included at this time. But I am afraid I shall have to plead ignorance on that subject.1

Senator MUSKIE. I think the reason for the question is that it has never really been covered very adequately in the legislative history of the 1961 act or the 1965 act. I think we ought to settle it one way or another while we are involved in this legislation.

I have one other question. In the Governor's statement, your third point was that the administration bill would make the Federal Government the principal initiator for and endorser. I would like to call your attention to section 104 (2) (4) of the bill on page 6.

Dr. INGRAHAM. This is S. 2987?

Senator MUSKIE. Yes; page 5, line 6. This provides for the establishment of a permanent organization with jurisdiction coextensive with the area covered by the plan. That permanent organization would have enforcement authority at a level lower than the Federal Government.

Now I ask this question simply to get your reaction to it, to help me with respect to it. Would not this tend to provide for greater State and local control rather than less State and local control?

Dr. INGRAHAM. It is sometimes difficult when reading legislation to get the full picture of just what is possible under it, but it seems to me that this bill provides for organization which should be left at the discretion of the States as to whether there is something intermediate.

In New York State we do have a variety of interstate organizations. We also have the water resources commission which has general jurisdiction over multiple water planning. If the bill were amended to include organizations already in existence, I think this would be adequate.

But it seems as if this bill is setting up a rather rigid requirement organizationally and administratively which may not be right for every State. One thing in particular mentioned here is that municipalities are required to issue revenue bonds. This is not permitted by our State constitution. We would have to amend the constitution to comply.

I think this is an example of many of the things that are occurring in the State.

Senator TYDINGS. Does the New York Port Authority issue bonds? Dr. INGRAHAM. Authorities can issue bonds, yes, but not municipalities.

Senator TYDINGS. We are talking about a regional organization with jurisdiction over river basins. If you can set up a port authority with New Jersey and issue bonds having to do with the economy of the port or the flow of materials in and out of the area, I don't see why you could not

1 Dr. Ingraham subsequently submitted information pertaining to this subject. See letter, dated May 5, 1966, on p. 237.

Dr. INGRAHAM. We can indeed set up authorities, but the municipalities themselves which are now building treatment works and financing them with State and Federal assistance cannot themselves issue revenue bonds.

Senator MUSKIE. In other words, your position is, and I think this is indicated quite clearly in the Governor's statement, that although you believe the river basin approach could well be used and perhaps should well be used, it is not necessarily the best approach in all instances.

Dr. INGRAHAM. That is correct. I think we are more and more approaching the idea that water pollution problems and water_resources problems must be considered on a river basin approach. But that does not mean that this is something that should be mandated. We would like to have a little flexibility in dealing with problems as we know them locally.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much, Doctor.

Senator Tydings?

Senator TYDINGS. I have no more questions.

Senator MUSKIE. I appreciate your statement. It gives us important support at a timely point in this morning's hearing.

Dr. ÎNGRAHAM. Thank you very much indeed. It is a pleasure to be here. We appreciate the assistance you have been giving us. Senator MUSKIE. Thank you, sir.

I would like to call our next witness, Mr. James Doherty, legislative representative of the AFL-CIO who I understand is accompanied by Mr. George Taylor, economist, research department of the AFL-CIO.

I regret that I have to go to another hearing, an executive session, but I want to say I appreciate your being here, I appreciate your testimony which I have already scanned. I will try to get back to this hearing but in the meantime I did want to express my appreciation, not only to you but to Mr. Gallagher, who will be here for NAM, Mr. Beck who is here for the New England council and Mr. Thompson who is here for the Mississippi Board of Water Commissioners. I am most grateful to all you witnesses for making the effort and taking the time to come here and give important support and education and enlightenment on the legislation which is pending before us. Senator TYDINGS (presiding). We are delighted to have you, Mr. Doherty. You may proceed, sir.

STATEMENT OF JAMES DOHERTY, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AFL-CIO; ACCOMPANIED BY GEORGE TAYLOR, ECONOMIST

Mr. DOHERTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, my name is James F. Doherty. I am a legislative representative of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations. I am accompanied this morning by Mr. George Taylor, an economist for the AFL-CIO and also secretary of the AFL-CIO staff subcommittee on atomic energy and natural re

sources.

I appreciate this opportunity to present the position of organized labor on the very important legislation dealing with the problem of water pollution.

62-611-66- -17

With your permission I would like to summarize my statement and ask that it be made a part of the record of this hearing.

Senator TYDINGS. It is so ordered.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Doherty is as follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES F. DOHERTY, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. Chairman, my name is James F. Doherty. I am a legislative representative of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations.

I appreciate this opportunity to present the position of organized labor on the very important legislation dealing with the problem of water pollution. We strongly support S. 2947 as a major effort to provide the financial resources for a significant attack on present and projected sewage treatment needs of America's towns and cities, particularly the larger cities where the water pollution problem is most serious. However, we do have some additional recommendations for improvements which will appear later in this statement.

The AFL-CIO has for many years supported expanded efforts to clean up America's waters. Our chief concern with what has been done thus far is that, although some progress has been made, it falls woefully short of the professed goal. All past and present water pollution control programs are simply not geared to the awesome dimensions of the nationwide water pollution problem. Labor's interest in adequate supplies of clean water for the people of this Nation is that of workers, taxpayers, and citizens, who look with increasing concern and dismay at noisome and unhealthy streams, rivers, lakes, and estuaries. These waters should be a source of enjoyment and recreation for workers and their families as well as serving the useful purposes of a highly urbanized and highly industrialized society.

In the AFL-CIO policy statement on conservation of natural resources, adopted at our 1965 constitutional convention, we say:

"The Federal grants-in-aid program to assist municipalities under the Water Pollution Control and Community Facilities Acts, to construct sewage treatment and disposal works, should be substantially increased and the ceilings on grants to the larger communities should be raised.

"More adequate preventive measures against industrial pollution are needed at all levels of government.

"Federal compliance and enforcement procedures must be broadened, strengthened and streamlined. Water and air pollutions from Federal installations must be rapidly abated."

The most comprehensive bills to deal with control of water pollution are S. 2947, introduced by Senator Muskie with 47 cosponsors, both Democratic and Republican, only 3 votes short of an absolute Senate majority, and the administration bill, S. 2987, also introduced by Senator Muskie.

This subcommittee has before it the legislative proposals upon which Congress will make its decision with regard to amending the Water Pollution Control Act. In particular it will be providing the basis upon which the Federal grantsin-aid program, which expires on June 30, 1967, for construction of municipal sewage treatment facilities, will proceed. It will authorize extension of Federal grants to the State for program support which ends under the present act on June 30, 1968.

Extension and expanded scope of the Federal grants program for research, development and demonstration of advanced waste treatment and water purification techniques, and of solving the problem of controlling waste from sewers which carry storm water or storm water and wastes, will also be provided for in the instant legislation.

Legislative proposals to establish development of coordinated pollution control programs in selected river basins and the tightening and streamlining for Federal enforcement procedures will be acted upon.

Six years ago, a former Surgeon General of the U.S. Public Health Service, Dr. Leroy E. Burney declared:

"The condition of our waters is a national disgrace. It is tragic for the world's richest and most technologically advanced nation to foul its own nest, limit its growth and threaten the health of its people."