Carolina. I think the record will show that North Carolina is in the very front of the States who have set about many years ago to classify their rivers and clean them up.

I live right on a river. We have a processing plant on the river and a cotton mill, and they jumped on me a long time ago. We put in everything that the State required, and I am glad we did. So I am speaking from experience on the very fine job they have done. We believe in stream sanitation. I don't believe these gentlemen are interested in air right now, but North Carolina is interested in air. I am delighted to be on this committee where these problems do come up, because I have taken a very great interest in water conservation, water development, and water sanitation since I have been here. It is vital to the future of our Nation.

North Carolina has abundant rainfall. We are fortunate in having rainfall. We are making rapid progress in conserving our water, cleaning up our water so that we do have an abundance of good, clean, usable water. With Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Hubbard, our State has moved forward very rapidly. They are interested in this program. Mr. Chairman, we are delighted to hear from them and have them with us this morning.

Senator BOGGS (presiding). Senator Jordan, I want to express appreciation to you, too, for your continued interest in this matter and your presentation of Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Hubbard this morning.

I certainly want to compliment the State of North Carolina on the progress it has made. We are honored and grateful to have Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Hubbard here this morning.

We will be glad to hear your statement.

STATEMENT OF J. VIVIAN WHITFIELD, CHAIRMAN, NORTH CAROLINA STATE STREAM SANITATION COMMITTEE; ACCOMPANIED BY E. C. HUBBARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE STATE STREAM SANITATION COMMITTEE

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, sir. I am glad to say that we have been pounding the Halls of Congress since 1956 to have stream sanitation.

Senator BOGGS. Very good.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman and members of the special subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution Control, I am grateful for this opportunity of presenting the views of the North Carolina State Stream Sanitation Committee with reference to legislation now being considered by this committee, particularly S. 2947 and S. 2987.

At the outset, let me assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the State of North Carolina recognizes the importance of an effective water pollution abatement and control program in the interest of preserving the Nation's water resources. We believe such a program must be a truly cooperative endeavor, calling for greater efforts at all levels of government-Federal, State, and local-as well as by industries and others having responsibilities in water pollution control. We have, accordingly, established and are carrying out an effective program under which all streams of our State have been classified in keeping with an existing or contemplated "best usage" and have been

assigned water quality standards designed to provide water of suitable quality to meet present and anticipated future requirements for health, recreation, fishing, agriculture, industry, and animal life. Comprehensive pollution abatement plans have, likewise, been developed for each of the State's 16 river basins and are now being carried out.

The cooperation of our municipalities and industries throughout the State has been most gratifying. The record indicates that since the initiation of the program in 1952, just 14 years ago, permits have been issued covering the construction of more than 1,000 waste collection and treatment projects estimated to cost $191 million, and many other projects are now being planned. During the same period, the annual expenditures for waste collection and treatment facilities have risen from about $5.5 million to more than $39 million in 1965.

The above accomplishments are not recited to merely impress you with what is being done in North Carolina, but rather to assure you that our State is moving forward and is cognizant of the necessity of establishing and administering effective pollution control programs at all levels of government. We do not, therefore, appear before you today in opposition to those portions of the proposed legislation which will strengthen the Federal-State partnership in the pursuit of our ultimate goal, but rather to comment on those features which, in our opinion, would not accomplish this objective.

We concur in the principle of comprehensive pollution abatement and control programs for entire river basins as proposed in title I of S. 2987, but we believe that such programs should be developed by the State water pollution control authorities rather than by special planning or river basin commissions. The establishment of separate river basin commissions would seem to further fragmentize pollution control-let me repeat that. The establishment of separate river basin commissions would seem to further fragmentize pollution control, thus weakening the authority of both Federal and State regulatory agencies and creating confusion among those who must conform to our requirements. It would appear more appropriate for the State agencies to establish uniform water quality standards and develop comprehensive pollution abatement plans to be administered by the State water pollution control agencies or through interstate agencies, created pursuant to existing statues, for the prevention and control of water pollution in interstate waters.

We believe there is a demonstrated need for greater research activities to develop new and improved techniques and methods for treating wastes. We therefore support the proposed provisions of both S. 2947 and S. 2987, which would provide additional appropriations for this necessary and important purpose. The bills propose to authorize appropriations up to $25 million annually for a period of 5 years; however, it is quite possible that it would be more appropriate to omit the limitations on such authorizations so that required funds could be made available annually as circumstances justify.

Both S. 2947 and S. 2987 provide for additional funds to support State programs. Increased program grants are necessary to enable the States to strengthen and expand their efforts in administering effective programs. We, accordingly, concur in the proposal to in

crease program grants to at least $10 million annually beginning in fiscal year 1967 and recommend that such funds be allocated in keeping with existing provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act rather than in the manner prescribed in S. 2987.

The value of the construction grant program has been well proven in the past. The availability of Federal financial assistance has greatly stimulated the construction of municipal waste treatment works throughout the Nation. We are, therefore, glad to see that both S. 2947 and S. 2987 provide for extending the program through fiscal year 1972. We suggest, however, that the authorization be increased from $150 to at least $250 million in fiscal year 1967, instead of relying upon the reimbursement provisions set forth in the proposed legislation. In North Carolina-and I suspect this is true in other States-contracts for the construction of public works may not be awarded until and unless funds are available to cover the full cost of the project. This would delay many of the projects now pending in North Carolina until grant funds are actually available. In this connection, we now have 40 grant applications pending which request grants totaling $9.6 million covering projects costing an estimated $38.4 million. With adequate grant funds all of these projects would be able to go forward immediately.

We agree that State matching funds for construction are quite desirable and would most certainly stimulate waste treatment works construction. On the other hand, many States are unable to provide the State aid required by S. 2947; therefore, we do not believe the cause of pollution control will be enhanced by depriving those States which cannot offer State matching grants from receiving all of the additional benefits. In the final analysis, the source of the non-Federal funds should not matter so long as they are made available and pollution abatement is accomplished.

We are also in disagreement with the provision in S. 2947 which would remove the requirement for State approval and certification of projects should States not be able to offer at least 30 percent matching grants. We think that would be a very big mistake. This would deprive those States of the right to determine which projects should receive grants on the basis of financial and pollution abatement needs. The past procedure has proven quite effective and should, by all means, be retained.

The Water Quality Act of 1965, now in the process of being implemented, provides for the establishment of water quality standards on all interstate waters prior to June 30, 1967. Based on our experience in North Carolina, this is a tremendous task to be accomplished within the short time permitted. A provision of S. 2987 would extend the standard-setting requirement to include both "interstate and navigable" waters. We do not believe such a provision should be included at this time, nor do we consider it necessary to the preservation of the Federal interest in protecting the quality of interstate waters. In any event, the requirement should be postponed until the Federal and State agencies have had more experience in carrying out the provisions of the Water Quality Act of 1965.

Let me pause here just a minute on that. It is going to take at least 2 years, maybe 3 years, for the new agency to get adequate personnel.

The 1965 act has not even been implemented yet. Just moving into another department of Government. So I think we should go slow on that. We think we should go slow on that, because it is going to take us several years. That is understandable. There is certainly nothing unusual about that. It is a tremendous job, and an agency covers so much territory and management that you can't get adequate personnel. You see in the press, yourself, a lot of these Public Health people are not going to go over to the new agency. It is going to take time to get them, get the right men, and that is what you should have.

Finally, we do not concur in the provision of S. 2987 which would make it mandatory for all municipalities, industries, and others to give written notice to the Secretary concerning waste discharges to interstate and navigable waters. It would seem that such information, if actually necessary, should be obtained through a cooperative approach rather than under the threat of penalty.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the privilege of appearing before your subcommittee. We recognize the Federal Government's responsibility in the water pollution control program, and we believe that its responsibilities may be most effectively achieved through the development of a truly cooperative program with the States working in full partnership with the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. Our objectives are compatible, therefore, by working as partners, with the Federal Government providing leadership, research, long-range planning, and financial assistance to the States and municipalities in carrying out their responsibilities, we should and, in fact, must achieve our ultimate goal of clean waters for all essential

uses.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words in addition to our official statement.

North Carolina has been in this game for a long time. The 1945 General Assembly of North Carolina passed a law to set up a water pollution study commission. It did not take us long to discover just how polluted our streams were. So, the commission had a bill ready for the 1947 general assembly. It fell to my lot as a member of the house of representatives to introduce that bill. We were naive enough to think there would be no trouble about that, but we could not get a committee to handle it. We came back in 1949. I introduced that one, and we did get it out of committee. We got it out of the committee and it was defeated on the floor of the house by eight votes. I came back with it again in 1951. Public opinion was swinging behind us. It passed the house 98 to 14. But we had a terrific battle in the senate. It passed the senate by one vote.

Then we set up the present stream sanitation committee. We spent the whole year 1951 learning our trade, getting together our staff, and we are proud of our staff. Our first task was to classify and give quality standards and best usage to every mile of every river basin in North Carolina. We knew it was a 10-year job. It took 11 years. We started classifying the streams in May of 1945. We finished in 1963, June of 1963.

Every river basin in North Carolina has been assigned a best usage in all segments of its streams as quality standards, and we have classified them A, B, C, and D. A is for the water supply of towns and cities. We look out for the water supply of towns and cities. B is

for bathing. C is for fishing. D is for agriculture. We have some streams that were so polluted, because you know we invited industry down and gave them choice sites, paid no attention to what they were putting in there, that is a very small amount. To have them clean it up at once would bankrupt some of them, although we do not have much of that. Of course, they are gradually doing it.

So, if we can get the money, we have 44 towns and cities that could start tomorrow. They have had their bond issues. They have had a site selected and approved by the stream sanitation committee. We have a formula that we go by, the priorities by which we issue the Federal grant. We just don't have the money. They are waiting for their 30 percent. Now two or three of those towns could do it all, but most of them can't.

Senator BOGGS. What size towns are they, Mr. Whitfield?

Mr. WHITFIELD. Most of them that could not do it all would be 2,000 or 3,000, up to 10,000 or 15,000.

Senator BAYH. On that specific point you mentioned that you do not believe that the 30 percent requirement could be met by some States and localities.

However, unless we maintain some specific requirement concerning State participation, how can we guarantee that each State will make the maximum effort to abate pollution?

Mr. WHITFIELD. I am glad you asked that question, because we in North Carolina are going to ask the General Assembly for a million dollars each year for the next biennium, 2 million dollars. I think we will get it all right. But then comes another point of education. How much money is the Federal Government giving to these different projects, giving billions of dollars, that some of us question?

Senator BAYH. You have done a tremendous job in North Carolina, and we are grateful for that. I might add we have done a good job in Indiana. However, I am concerned about other States that may not have been so inspired and do not have the type of leadership our two States have.

Can you suggest some guidelines that will insure that each State will make the maximum contribution to our pollution control program? Although the Federal Government has a definite role in efforts to clean up our streams, I believe the States must retain a great deal of power and responsibility in this area.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I agree with you. The States are in a position now that the Federal Government has to intervene because of their own refusal to act. They have made no effort. By 1971, 1972, we will have every river basin in North Carolina in tiptop shape, if we get the money. It is a question of education. It is much easier for us now than it was when we first started. It is so easy for people to say "What is good enough for grandpappy is good enough for me."

We told them, "If grandpappy were living, he would have a Cadillac, too, if he could afford it."

Senator BAYH. Senator Jordan, do you have some questions? We should have recognized you first, since you are the distinguished senior Senator from North Carolina.

Senator JORDAN. I don't have any particular questions. I am familiar with the work going on. I am interested in two or three ob