3. The responsibilities for the adequate treatment and control of wastes to overcome pollution must be assumed individually and jointly by industry and local, State, and Federal Governments.

4. Basic and applied research by competent personnel must be encouraged by broad efforts to develop new knowledge that will solve water pollution problems. 5. The administration of pollution control must be firm, effective, and equitable. 6. The administration of State and interstate pollution control programs should remain in the hands of State and interstate water pollution control agencies, which must be supported by increased budgets and adequately staffed by well-trained and compensated engineers, scientists, and other personnel. The rights of State and interstate agencies to control and protect water resources must be accompanied by equal responsibilities to perform their functions effectively.

7. The federation and its members should give full support to all constructive efforts, public and private, which contribute to the control of water pollution. 8. While the primary objective of pollution control must be the protection of the public health, other objectives, such as the need for the use and reuse of surface and ground waters which receive and dilute liquid wastes, add impelling reasons for protecting the Nation's water resources.

9. Waste water represents an increasing fraction of the Nation's total water resource and is of such value that it might well be reclaimed for beneficial reuse through the restoration of an appropriate degree of quality. To this end the development of methods for waste water reclamation and criteria for such reuse should be encouraged.

10. The public must be made fully aware of the hazards of pollution and of the workable means for control so that it will sponsor and support construction and proper operation of all necessary facilities.

11. Mandatory certification or licensing of better-trained and compensated operating personnel is the best ultimate means for assuring the most effective operation and maintenance of pollution control facilities.

12. Standards for radiation hazards in water pollution control should be primarily for the protection of the public health.

13. To the maximum extent practicable, the control of toxic and exotic chemicals should be exercised at the source in order to prevent problems in water pollution control.

14. Federal, State, and local fiscal laws and practices should be devised and modified to assure the most economical and effective means for financing the construction, operation, and upgrading of waste water treatment works.

Senator BAYH. Mr. Craig Thomas of the American Farm Bureau Federation.

STATEMENT OF CRAIG L. THOMAS, ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION

Mr. THOMAS. I have a short statement, Mr. Chairman. However, I think I can make it even shorter by summarizing.

First of all, I am Craig L. Thomas, assistant legislative director of the American Farm Bureau.

We appreciate the opportunity to present farm bureau's views relating to clean river projects and pollution control. The American Farm Bureau is a general agricultural organization representing 1,677,820 families living in over 2,760 counties in 49 States and Puerto Rico.

Farmers and ranchers have a vital stake in the future of water development in general and quality control in particular. Rural use and irrigation account for about 47 percent of the annual use of water in the United States excluding waterpower.

The economic existence of communities in low rainfall areas is dependent upon the availability of water for irrigation and other uses.

In the more humid parts of the country, irrigation has been increasing rapidly in recent years. In the Eastern States, irrigated acreage has been doubling about every 5 years. Quality control measures can have a significant effect on the availability of water, the cost, and techniques of application.

The voting delegates of the American Farm Bureau Federation, in determining the policy position of the organization, have indicated a full measure of concern with the widespread problem of water quality. The current challenge, as we view it, is one of determining the most constructive approach to solving the problem within the framework of effective cooperative efforts among all levels of government and private groups, proper allocation of responsibility and reosurces, and sound overall fiscal policy.

The resolution adopted by the official voting delegates of the member State farm bureaus at the American Farm Bureau Federation convention in December 1965, reads as follows:

It is the obligation of each generation to make wise use of our natural resources with particular regard to the needs of future generations.

This can best be accomplished by emphasis on participation and responsibility of individuals, private organizations, and local and State units of government in the investigation, planning, and administration of the development and use of natural resources.

To quote further from farm bureau policy:

We oppose Federal domination of water resources development.

We recognize water pollution as a serious nationwide problem affecting both rural and urban communities. Local and State authorities should assume the primary responsibility in development of programs to deal effectively with this problem. Cooperation among States may be essential under certain conditions. In its March 1966 revision of W. P. Publication No. 5, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration states:

The States have the basic responsibility for water pollution abatement. In another paragraph from the same publication, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration indicates that:

All 50 of our States have operating programs of water pollution control. We wholeheartedly agree with the premise that the basic responsibility for pollution control lies with the several States. The fact that all 50 States now have operating programs indicates that steps are being taken to meet this responsibility at the State level. In order to effectively carry out the responsibilities, however, there must necessarily be a high degree of intergovernmental cooperation.

The chairman of this subcommittee, Senator Muskie, has expressed concern over the level of cooperation and coordination in his recent remarks on intergovernmental relations, which appeared in the March 26 Congressional Record. In commenting on a survey conducted by his subcommittee, Mr. Muskie said:

We found substantial competing and overlapping of Federal programs, sometimes as a direct result of legislation and sometimes as a result of empire building. Similar competition and duplication were found at the State and local levels. We learned that too many Federal aid officials are not interested in, and in fact, are even hostile to coordinating programs within and between departments, and that they are reluctant to encourage coordination and planning at State and local levels. These conditions frequently and predictably result

in confusion and conflicting requirements which discourage State and local participation, and adversely affect the administrative structure and fiscal organization in these jurisdictions.

One of the factors affecting coordinated efforts is the excessive outpouring of Federal legislation before programs established by legislative action have an opportunity to become operative.

We are concerned that the Water Quality Act of 1965, which has been in effect for less than 8 months, has not had an adequate opportunity to become functional. Under the 1965 legislation, States were given until June 1967 to establish criteria for water quality and to develop plans to implement these standards. Surely State efforts will be delayed and confused should S. 2987 be enacted prior to the development of programs under the 1965 act. Sound program structures cannot be developed under the stress of rapidly and constantly changing laws.

The intergovernmental relations report also noted the problems brought about through the establishment of "too many special purpose districts and authorities conflicting with and ofttimes duplicating general-purpose governments leading to impairment of efficiency and unwise borrowing procedures."

The planning agencies and the permanent organizations established under title I of S. 2987 may fall in this conflicting category. There are now in effect at least two planning and development authorities in the area of resource use; specifically, river basin planning commissions under the Water Resource Planning Act and the regional planning approach under the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965.

There are great potentials for conflict evident within the proposed operating structure with State and local interests relegated to the position of a junior partner. We must keep in mind that the power to fix standards of water quality is the power to dictate the use of water resources whether it be for agricultural, industrial, recreational, municipal, navigational, or other purposes. This power to determine the blend of economic development of a State or of a region within the State should rest with the people and State and local governments.

The end result of pollution control efforts will hopefully be a system of rivers and streams maintained at a reasonably high level of water quality. This goal cannot be reached by simply applying legal pressures to units of government and private industries currently unable to handle adequately their waste discharges. Effective techniques, incentives, and facilities are apparently the needed ingredients. Water development and water quality control must necessarily be part and parcel of an overall water development program. The orderly development of upper watershelds is not unrelated to clean water in the lower waterways. The natural pollution caused by uneven flows, flooding, and washing of silt can be best dealt with through wise land use practices and upstream development. We question the wisdom of a reduction of emphasis on watershed development; specifically work carried out under Public Law 566, and the establishment of a crash program of great expenditure in the field of water treatment. Senator BAYI. May I say this: Unfortunately, this subcommittee does not have jurisdiction over such matters. I wish it did. I am

very much concerned about this decrease in emphasis that you pointed out this morning.

Mr. THOMAS. I recognize that your jurisdiction is not here.

The administration's budget recommendation for fiscal 1967 for the Soil Conservation Service proposed a reduction of $3,600,000 for soil surveys needed for planning and technical assistance to conservation district cooperators. The budget further proposed a reduction in the number of planning starts from 100 authorized for the current fiscal year to 50 for fiscal year 1967. The number of new construction starts was reduced from the present level of 80 to 35 for next year under the budget proposal. We feel that overall fundings for the development of clean water must be balanced among the several program needs.

With regard to S. 2947, we are not in a position to make recommendations as to specific levels of speding; however, we feel that there are several points which merit consideration in the determination of that level.

(1) We must insure that stepped-up capital investment is resulting in the development of facilities which incorporate the proper technical know-how. The expenditure of billions of dollars on facilities which might become technologically obsolete and inadequate within a short time would be an exercise we can ill afford.

2. Expenditures authorized for any domestic programs must surely be considered as to their effect on present inflationary pressure. Water pollution control will not be achieved as the result of a shortrange effort. We must plan an orderly and continuous program of pollution abatement. Crash programs of expenditures do not lend themselves to this kind of an approach.

In summary, we oppose the enactment of S. 2987 for the following

reasons:

1. The 1965 Water Quality Act should be given an opportunity to become functional.

2. The structure created in the bill would cause duplication and conflict.

3. The role of the States in water pollution control should not be that of a junior partner as outlined in this proposal.

4. The strong enforcement measures authorized in the bill would not result in clean water until facilities for handling waste are developed.

In light of the inflationary pressures and the vast expenditures being made by the Federal Government, we believe that the authorization provided in S. 2947 is excessive. We hope this committee will review very carefully this whole situation before any action is taken.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee on this important matter.

Senator BAYH. Certainly as one who has spent much of his life on a farm, I venture to say that the farmers of America have a significant stake in seeing that this pollution is cleaned up. As you pointed out, your organization has adopted a resolution. You can rest assured that this committee will go very carefully into this whole program to see that we accomplish this goal. We may very well want to ask you some questions later on.

Senator Boggs?

Senator BOGGS. I have no questions. Thank you.

Senator BAYH. Mr. David A. Groh, chairman of the Fleet Engineers Committee, Lake Carriers' Association, Cleveland, Ohio.

We are glad to have you with us this morning.

STATEMENT OF DAVID A. GROH, CHAIRMAN, FLEET ENGINEERS COMMITTEE, ACCOMPANIED BY SCOTT ELDER, LEGAL COUNSEL, LAKE CARRIERS' ASSOCIATION, CLEVELAND, OHIO

Mr. GROH. It is nice to be with you. I would like to introduce Mr. Scott Elder, legal counsel for the Lakes Carriers' Association.

My paper is rather brief; therefore, I would like to use the comments that we have made as a format.

Senator BOGGS. You may put your entire statement in the record. Senator BAYH. We will include the entire statement in the record. Mr. GROн. By and large, I would like to go through it in the order in which it has been presented and then supply additional background material. Probably my greatest experience in the matter of pollution so far as the lake steamers are concerned is that I live close to it and I could explain the special problems as they exist for a lake vessel operator. As we go through this, I will try to describe some of these problems.

My name is David A. Groh. I am a graduate naval architect and marine engineer, and am employed as associate marine manager of Picklands Mather & Co., operators of the Interlake Steamship Co., of Cleveland, Ohio. I have been employed by this company for 18 years in connection with all types of vessel construction and engineering. Currently, I am chairman of the Lake Carriers' Association's fleet engineers committee and it is in this latter capacity that I appear here.

Lake Carriers' Association is an organization consisting of 24 managements operating 212 American-flag Great Lakes cargo vessels. At the present time, the association represents in its membership 95 percent of all United States vessels engaged in the transportation of bulk commodities on the Great Lakes. Since the opening of the seaway we have many other vessels as well.

The operators of American-flag Great Lakes vessels have been particularly conscious of the pollution problem. They live in the lakes area and drink lake water, as do the crews of the vessels. I myself live on the shores of Lake Erie, approximately 20 miles from Cleveland.

Because of this consciousness, the Great Lakes vessel industry has made significant strides toward eliminating the emission of pollutants by vessels.

Every new vessel constructed on the Great Lakes since 1950 and nearly every major conversion since that time has included some type of sewage treatment facility. The original type of unit first installed on vessels was based on the septic tank principle with chlorination in the final stage. By 1960 the Bio-Gest system, through private research and at considerable expense, had been developed by the American Ship Building Co.

This system is based on a bacteriological and oxygen process and actually digests wastes. A Bio-Gest tank is about 10' by 8' by 4′ and