in the hope that it won't be noticed. Just applying what we now know to get more complete combustion in incinerators, power plants, and automobiles would go far to reduce air pollution. In cities, at least, the massive producers of pollution are concentrated, and we could experiment on more complete ways of collecting and concentrating residues at the source. We know many ways to transport our solid refuse besides the conventional ones-dry sewers, for example or if water is used, loading it to a maximum with wastes so that there is a minimum of dilution. A city is like a person: it does not consume much of anything except energy, especially after it has stopped growing. All kinds of material and food come into the system and are transformed and used. The converted materials and the residues must go out. The input is by rail, truck, and ship; the residue output is by garbage scow, truck, sewer, or by natural river, or wind. This means that many rail cars and trucks are loaded only one way-in. Can we not separate and package residues and use this deadheading transport to take them out? The question of where to take them has also to be answered. Should we strew all useful organic wastes on sterile desert land? Should we build mountains of scrap iron on flatlands where a hill that might be mined in the future could be an asset in the meantime? Surely we can find ways to use clean waste heat to intervene constructively in the ecology of our shore and lake waters. But there is no opportunity to experiment and test innovations on a large enough scale. The massiveness and urgency of the problem justify large-scale experiments, even in new experimental cities, or in urban redevelopment plans.

At the same time, work must be started toward the ultimate system that closes the loop from user back to resource and reuse. Our whole economy is based on taking natural resources, converting them into things that are consumer products, selling them to the consumer, and then forgetting about them. But there are no consumers—only users. The user employs the product, sometimes changes it in form, but does not consume it—he just discards it. Discard creates residues that pollute at an increasing cost to the consumer and to his community. But if we close the loop from user back to resource so as to remake the discards, we approach an ultimate solution. For example, a product such as an automobile could be designed in the first place with return to the factory for remaking and reuse in mind. Ideally, the system would be completely closed. All water would be purified and reused; all solid wastes would be sent back as resources for making more things. How can we distribute the added costs of reuse or of discards so as to provide incentives to steer manufacture toward original design for maximum reuse, or for minimum cost of discard? We could design automobiles so that the steel could be separated more easily from the other materials. We might stimulate research on degradable paper, cardboard, or other containers. Should we tax glass bottles severely, or have federal law "forbid" that they be not reused?

But, in practice there will always be certain remaining residues, hopefully smaller and smaller fractions, of the total that are unusable. These, instead of being dispersed, should be concentrated in residue mountains or caves. Residues would be separated as to site so that, in the event of discovery of a future use, they could easily be mined. The technological problems, however, are not the main ones. We need new public policies and institutional arrangements before we can attempt many of the technological innovations that are possible. Watersheds are not outlined by state or other political boundaries, yet the problem of water pollution is one common to a watershed demarked by nature. Air pollution, similarly is wafted across state and even international boundaries. It is necessary to expand and multiply such successful or promising ventures as the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission, or the Delaware River Basin Commission. These agencies, among others, point the way to defining and combining jurisdictions covering the area of a problem rather than accepting the limits of jurisdiction of individual local and state governments. It is too easy to move to the other extreme and say that, because air and water cross state lines, all criteria, standards, and enforcement with respect to pollution must be federal. In fact, all levels of government-federal, state, and local-must play appropriate roles. The federal concern is to stimulate the needed research, measurements, evaluation, and standards from which "problem-shed jurisdictions" may obtain advice on how to set their criteria. But because it is a matter of choice, and because this choice depends on the area in question, a great deal of control must be left to local authority, so that choices will reflect the desires of the local community. The role of the federal government is to make sure that such local choices are made with the fullest possible knowledge of their consequences.

The role of the federal government is very large. It is only by federal government initiative that the large-scale experimentation and demonstration models can be produced, that the advice for regional agencies and assistance can be generated, that critical data on which criteria and standards can be based can emerge, that research on legislative precedents and the role of the courts in pollution can be stimulated, and that research in engineering, biological, and ecological studies that must form the foundation of both systems development and controls can be supported. It is primarily by federal government initiative that all these can be started, and that industry can be stimulated to perceive the really large business potentials in reprocessing for reuse and other aspects of the management of residues. The fact is that pollution is everybody's business, and yet there are wide differences in desires and ambitions for the multiple uses of our environment. Because of this, it is necessary to embark on a program of public awareness that extends down to the grassroots level. Perhaps the leaders of national organizations, all the way from the Audubon Club to the National Association of Manufacturers, could be encouraged to meet together to share their views and carry back to their memberships more temperate views of "the right amount of pollution."

The rest of this report is a general summary of the Committee's findings, conclusions, and recommendations. It is based on a series of detailed papers covering a number of specific aspects of the pollution problem. These were prepared by Committee members and panels and, for the most part, are included as appendixes to this report.

One of the most significant findings of the National Academy of SciencesNational Research Council report on waste management is that "practically no research is being carried out on the systems or management aspects of waste handling and disposal." It is this need which the Waste Management Research Act is intended to meet. The Act would insure that Federal research work in water and air pollution, and solid waste disposal, was conducted as a unified and comprehensive waste management research program, and that the most advanced scientific and engineering capabilities available would be employed to solve waste management problems. A national inventory of waste management needs and methods would provide direction to this research. The research program and the national inventory would serve as a foundation for a comprehensive national program to meet present and future waste management needs.

Senator HARRIS. The committee will be pleased to hear from Dr. Spencer M. Smith, Jr., Secretary, Citizens Committee on Natural Resources.

STATEMENT OF DR. SPENCER M. SMITH, JR., SECRETARY, CITIZENS COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

Dr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am Spencer M. Smith, Secretary of the Citizens Committee on Natural Resources, a national conservation organization with offices in Washington, D.C.

The task to which the committee has been devoting its attention for some time is a difficult and formidable one. It would be impossible to examine the details of or the differences between all the measures now before the subcommittee.

Prior to asking the committee's attention to specific parts of the proposed legislation, we should like to indicate as a point of reference certain aspects of the road we have traveled, since the inception of the Federal antipollution program.

Most of the studies that attempted to describe the dimensions of the water antipollution problem before the country in 1955-56 were looked upon by many critics as exaggerated and some were unkind enough to suggest that such studies were motivated by empire building within the Federal Government.

Almost without exception, however, these studies greatly underestimated both the problem and the cost of dealing with it. In fact, we have heard yearly of the increase in the magnitude of the problem. Also, the cost to the Nation in ameliorating the difficulties we now face has increased accordingly.

Perhaps members of this committee will recall, when the original act was being discussed in 1956, the pointed criticism leveled at the concept of matching grants. It was even suggested that the use of the Federal Government's incentive payments might cause a diminution in local activities, since the programs of the local governments would be forestalled until Federal help was available.

Since the program was operational in 1957, however, some 6,500 projects have been undertaken at a total cost of about $3.5 billion. Of that amount, the Federal Government expended roughly threequarters of $1 billion-making the ratio of $4 of local funds to $1 of Federal funds. Over 50,000 miles of streams have been benefited and improved by these projects.

Yet, great as this effort has been and marked as its recent acceleration, the task ahead appears even more ominous. Part of the concern for the future is because we know now more of the problems we face. We should appreciate, therefore, that we also possess increased knowledge and the collateral tools of experience.

All man can do is to evaluate his history, the present state of the arts, and his best judgment as to what the future might bring. There is much evidence, however, to cause us all to believe that the proposals, which the committee is now considering, are probably on the conservative side.

In many respects, we do not know the exact nature of increased pollutants from greater and more intense urbanization. Pollutant factors may become more resistant, increase at geometric rates, or result in similar imponderables. Neither do we know what magic technology has in store for us in our continuing industrial expansion. The elements of our future economic progress may be of a composition that will present new and highly difficult problems for water pollution abatement.

It is not our task to disparage present efforts or paint the future as unfathomable and unyielding in solutions. We offer these observations only to indicate that, though necessary, our projections are based on our past experience and perhaps do not adjust sufficiently, nor would it be possible to do so, to unknown variables at this time. Such a concern seems pertinent and all the more reason why we should not be swayed from the expenditure that is necessary to clear up the pollution backlog and concomitantly to plan, as best we can, for our population expansion and economic growth.

I think we have erred consistently, always on the low side. We have underestimated both the problem and we have underestimated the cost. I know of no way that we can relive the thing over, given the same posture that we were in at that time, and have done it much differently.

I simply suggest, because there have been criticisms of the measures before the committee that they cost too much money, the old adage of a stitch in time was never more appropriate than when applied to water pollution control. Had we made certain kinds of expenditures,

62-611-66- -26

and some people are farsighted enough to urge such action some 10 years ago, our situation today would have been different, since the backlog has a tendency to increase and the cost of reducing that backlog becomes more and more formidable as time goes along.

S. 2947 is a significant effort directed toward removing the pollution backlog that continues to plague municipalities. Section 6(a) of the present statute which now authorizes the Secretary to make grants to local and State governments in order to demonstrate new techniques of pollution abatement where waste and storm sewers are combined is amended to include any project demonstrating advanced waste treatment and waste purification or compatible joint treatment systems for municipal and industrial waste.

These additions would also be applicable to the limitations to Federal grants that exist in section 6(b) of the present statute. S. 2947 would also increase the amount authorized to be appropriated from $20 million per fiscal year as now provided in section 6(c) to $25 mil lion for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, and for the next 4 succeeding fiscal years.

Section 7(a) which provides for Federal grants to States and interstate agencies on a 50-50 basis for purposes of planning, administering the State plan, and training personnel would be increased from the present $5 million for each fiscal year to $10 million beginning with fiscal year 1968 through June 30, 1972.

Subsection (b) of section 8 is amended in a fashion to encourage the participation by States in assisting municipalities. The present law provides for Federal grants of 30 percent of any project of $1,200,000, whichever is the smaller, and $4,800,000 wherever a project serves more than one community with no limitation if the State agrees to match equally all Federal grants made for projects in such State.

In superseding this section, it is provided that the Federal grants would be limited to projects approved by the State water pollution control agency or agencies and by the Secretary and that such projects must be included in a comprehensive program. Additionally, no Federal grant should exceed 30 percent of the project unless the State agrees to match not less than 30 percent in which case the Federal grant may be 40 percent provided that the grantee agrees to pay the remaining cost.

Section 8(e), which now provides for the Secretary to allocate all Federal funds over $100 million to States on the basis of population without exceptions, would be modified to authorize any project on which construction was initiated after June 30, 1966, and which qualified for assistance could be reimbursed as if the project had been approved pursuant to the section and adequate funds had been available. The same provision would apply if the project had been initiated after June 30, 1966, and was assisted by a lesser percentage because of the unavailability of funds.

The appropriation authorized under section 8(d) of the present law is $150 million for fiscal year ending June 30, 1967. The present proposal would maintain the same appropriation authorization for fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, but would increase the amounts to $600 million for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $1 billion for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, $1,250 million for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, $1,500 million for the fiscal year ending June 30,

1971, and $1,500 million for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, or a total of $6 billion beginning with appropriations for the fiscal year June 30, 1967, and ending June 30, 1972.

We strongly support this procedure and this method of increasing the funds. Once again, though $6 billion is in excess of previous expenditures, it is probably insufficient if the intention is to clean up the backlog. I suspect to even suggest any amount in addition to the $6 billion would hardly be politic at the moment, since the administration has cast some doubt as to whether this amount will be supported. The problem of cleaning up the backlog in terms of what we know now from the information supplied by municipal governments, county officials, State agencies, and university studies indicates that the dimensions of this problem, in all probability, will exceed $6 billion.

I suggest again to the committee, at the risk of being redundant, that the longer we delay this, the greater economic burden we place on ourselves.

I would like to call attention to one aspect in the last paragraph of page 4 of my testimony in which I comment on the new provisions in section 8 which does allow some aid to those States that cannot meet the requirement of the matching grant. We have a somewhat ironic situation that certain areas of our country which have the greatest need often have the least ability to meet this need. We should not find such a situation unusual. The limitations of bonded indebtedness and the certainty that State or local boundaries were never drawn with the idea that we would somehow equate the various economic resources have occasioned some areas to be depressed while others thrive. Unfortunately this economic inability affects adversely others, especially when they may be established on a river that flows through several States.

This is a notable and important area of concern which resulted from the hearings that this committee held in the last session.

I do want to turn my attention to another bill, which I think is generally referred to as the administration bill, and that we are in a quandary as to how we can aid the committee in analyzing this legislation because we appear to have more questions than interpretations. Senator HARRIS. You are talking about S. 2987 ?

Dr. SMITH. Yes.

In listening to the Secretary of the Interior discuss the proposal, certainly the aims and goals of the Secretary's program are at no variance with our own but the vehicle of S. 2987 to achieve these goals is not understood completely by us.

We are not certain as to whether the river basin approach suggested here is to be a permanent addition to the present program or whether the existing programs will be phased out and the river basin organization substituted.

If there is likelihood, however, of the rived basin program resulting in the final administrative structure for antipollution activities, then we are concerned about two features of the administration's proposal. The first is the utilization of an interstate compact or a river basin commission as the apparent modus operandi to administer the program as far as matching grants and enforcement actions are concerned.