to keep them clean if they are fortunate to possess, in their communities, rivers and lakes and shorelines that are still reasonably unpolluted. The National Audubon Society urges the Congress of the United States to take the tide at its flood. If we can get the action now, this nation can succeed in lifting itself out of the danger of dismal deterioration in a poisoned environment with failing water supplies. Our recommendation to this Subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, is that you take the best and strongest parts of the various bills before you and combine them into a single piece of legislation. I believe Congress will pass it, and the people will support it. We like all of S. 2947, which grew out of the thorough studies made by this Subcommittee. It proposes "no little plans." This is not a time for dabbling with half-way measures. S. 2947 would take the tide at its crest and ride it to success. Add to S. 2947 the provisions of Title III of S. 2987 that would strengthen the enforcement powers of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, including the extension to navigable waters of the water quality standards provisions of the Act of 1965, and also add Title IV of the latter bill. Citizens whose property is damaged by the polluters of interstate and navigable waters should have the right to seek injunctive relief in the District Courts of the United States. In view of the actions taken in the State of New York, and approved in good faith by the people of that state in the bond-issue vote of last November, we recommend also that the provisions of S. 2636 (Mr. Javits and co-sponsors) be written into the new legislation. Further, we endorse the provisions of three bills introduced by Senator Tydings: S. 3225, pertaining to pollution caused by boats and marinas; S. 3226, to authorize federal assistance in carrying out short term training programs in the operation and maintenance of treatment works; and S. 3240 (with Senator Brewster) to authorize studies of estuaries and estuarine zones. These measures, or their objectives, should be incorporated in the new legislation. The river basin approach as proposed in Title I of S. 2987 is theoretically good, and this can perhaps be included in a permissive basis as a part of the new legislation. What worries me about this plan is that it offers the opportunity for prolonged delay and inaction while bureaucracy proliferates at a new level of government-somewhere in between the state and the federal government. It could take years before a comprehensive plan is worked out for an interstate river basin, reviewed all up and down the line by all the agencies that are supposed to pass upon it, the necessary state legislation passed, and the whole business finally approved for action. Each River Basin Commission, as proposed in S. 2987, would have to be staffed by people competent in the many technologies involved in water quality analysis and planning. Where would the trained people come from? There are not enough now to man the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration and the existing State water agencies. Can we get good river basin planning on an interestate basis without stealing personnel from the programs that are ready to go? I hope I am unduly apprehensive, but it seems to me that Title I of S. 2987 proposes a planners' paradise but little prospect for the action that the public is demanding and expecting now. Senator MUSKIE. Our next statement is by Mr. Joseph W. Penfold, conservation director of the Izaak Walton League of America. Mr. Penfold, I understand there was some doubt as to whether you would be present this morning. I am delighted you were able to come. STATEMENT OF JOSEPH W. PENFOLD, CONSERVATION DIRECTOR, IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA Mr. PENFOLD. So am I, sir. I wanted to hear the press conference in which the Secretary of the Interior announced that the pollution control program had been transferred to the Department of the Interior. Senator MUSKIE. Yes; I understand that today is the day that the transfer takes effect. Perhaps we ought to note this for the record of this morning. Mr. PENFOLD. Mr. Chairman, I am J. W. Penfold, conservation director of the Izaak Walton League of America. The league is a nationwide organization of citizens with a primary interest in enhancing America's water resources for all the purposes they must serve. Indeed, the league was established with a central objective of bringing a halt to water pollution. We appreciate the opportunity of commenting today on S. 2947 and other legislation before this committee. Mr. Chairman, the Izaak Walton League fully endorses S. 2947. To support our position, we need look no further than the excellent January 1966 report of this subcommittee, entitled "Steps Toward Clean Water." That document clearly demonstrates why Federal pollution control expenditures must be substantially increased, and why greater flexibility is required in the administration of Federal assistance programs. It also underscores the responsibilities of the States in preventing and controlling water pollution. The league commends the subcommittee for its vigorous leadership in developing the facts and in presenting to the American people the case for clean water. The chairman has already commented on it, so I would like to emphasize our thanks to the subcommittee for its emphasis of the need for an incentive program to industry. I might comment that the Izaak Walton League has supported this in principle for a good many years. We urge enactment of S. 2947. The league supports the intent of S. 3227 to assure that the States apply water quality standards now being developed to pollution from vessels and marinas. However, we have assumed that such pollution has been covered by the Water Quality Act of 1965. The league urges enactment of S. 3226 which would authorize a special 3-year program of Federal grants to States and municipalities for training of treatment plant operators. We recognize that in the long run such training is the responsibility of State and local governments, and should be funded at those levels. However, the record seems clear that the Nation faces today a serious problem of inefficient operation of treatment plants. We regard S. 3226 as a "crash program" to help initiate a permanent program to solve this problem. We urge enactment of S. 3240 to provide for a 3-year study of estuarine pollution. Izaak Walton chapters all along the U.S. coastline are struggling with estuarine problems, and find an abysmal lack of knowledge about them. In conducting this study, we urge further that November 1965, Recommendation A-11 of the Environmental Pollution Panel of the President's Science Advisory Committee-that "the filling in of shallow waters essential in life cycles of fishes and shellfish be regarded as an important kind of pollution"-be fully reeognized and implemented. The study, of course, should not be taken as an excuse to postpone dealing with existing estuarine and coastal pollution from sources which are controllable now with existing technical know-how. Mr. Chairman, the Izaak Walton League cannot state at this time at categorical position with respect to S. 2987. This is simply because the legislation proposes what may be a fundamental change in the approach to water pollution abatement and control. Such a change, not precisely covered in existing policies of the league, will require consideration by the league's own legislative body-the annual convention. Opportunity for this will not occur until the end of June. As a result, at this time I can only propound a few questions about S. 2987 which I know league membership will consider in depth in reaching a policy position with respect to the legislation. First of all, we do not have blind faith in interstate compacts as the ultimate effective instrument for accomplishing an objective. The history of compacts would demonstrate that they are usually years in the making and we can afford no further delays in moving aggressively against all known sources of pollution. We suggest also that there is a vast difference between compact negotiations among States as to proportionate sharing of river basin water, for example, and compact negotiations as to quality standards controlling effluent discharges into a common river. In the latter we can almost assume that the lowest quality standards will tend to be controlling. Secondly, it is an elementary fact that river basins do not cause pollution. People cause pollution, communities cause pollution; industrial plants, agricultural operations, construction practices all cause pollution. Each such source is specific, can be located on a map, falls within the jurisdiction of an individual, political subdivision of an individual State. An it is there and only there that the pollution can be abated and controlled. And the initial and primary responsibility for action to abate and control that pollution is right there also. We would question whether the insertion of a third level of government-the interstate compact, which at best must always be in the throes of negotiation and renegotiation-between the State level of primary responsibility and the Federal level of ultimate responsibility in interstate waters, can possibly expedite abatement and control of pollution. And there is another basic question. It has been but a few months since the Water Quality Act of 1965 was enacted. Its basic purpose to establish water quality standards to enhance America's waters is not yet accomplished. There is a real question whether or not it can be accomplished by the June 30, 1967 deadline. It is a terribly complex and difficult job. Further, the act provided for a separate Water Pollution Control Administration. Formally, this has been accomplished; but one can hardly say that the new Administration has completed its "shakedown cruise" and gone into high gear. And still further, Reorganization Plan No. 2 would transfer or has now transferred the Administration to a new home in the Interior Department. How long will it be before the relationships and difficulties associated with such a radical move will have been worked out and the program have settled down for the long hard task ahead of it? I believe we must question very seriously whether throwing the river basin approach into a program already in such a series of changes and adjustments will not adversely affect the primary goal of abating and controlling pollution at each source. We must ask whether or not almost inevitably river basin thinking will dominate over the more grueling and difficult task of attacking pollution at its source. tions 103 and 102 of S. 2987 illustrate this question, we believe, as they specifically call for pollution abatement and control to be part of comprehensive river basin water and land resources planning. I believe membership of the Izaak Walton League will, with a singleness of purpose, contend that if we move aggressively and relentlessly to abate and control pollution that the opportunities for sound and comprehensive river basin planning will have been enormously enhanced. The reverse of this just may not be the case. The Department of Interior now has rather broad authorities in river basin planning, and these authorities under the Water Resources Planning Act are yet to be fully tested. We supported the purposes of that act, and still do. Let it move forward. But let us ponder seriously and deeply whether it would be wise at this time to merge the Federal pollution program, which must be precise because each source of pollution is a precise source, with river basin planning with all its uncertainties, including those associated with interstate compact negotiations. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we restate our belief that S. 2947 will strengthen and broaden the national fight for clean water and we urge its enactment. The privilege of presenting our views is greatly appreciated. Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much, Mr. Penfold, for your continuing support. We will need it. Mr. PENFOLD. You will continue to have it, sir. Senator MUSKIE. I would like to put in the record several letters which have been handed to me by Senator Tydings on the question of estuarine pollution. (The letters follow:) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, Washington, D.C., April 22, 1966. Hon. JOSEPH D. TYDINGS, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR TYDINGS: We have studied with great interest the enclosure contained in Mr. Finn's letter of April 1, to Mr. Hendricks, Acting Chief of our Water Resources Division, describing the items and ideas you propose to include in a bill authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a comprehensive review of estuarine environments. We agree that in view of the importance of estuaries in our economic and social life, a serious gap does, indeed, exist in our knowledge of the reactions between man and this environment. In reviewing this problem, we were impressed by the magnitude of the problems involved in the management of the estuarial water resources and the geographical extent of the problem. Estuaries, as well as other large bodies of water such as the Great Lakes, have escaped broad inquiry and study because we lack suitable and economically feasible methods for making comprehensive synoptic studies of these environments. Your bill would establish the framework within which to push ahead with the application of modern data collection methods to support the social and legal studies recommended in the proposed draft. In the Geological Survey, we are on the threshold of developing suitable techniques for collecting large amounts of basic data on the water, mineral and related resources of large bodies of water through use of aerial photography and infrared sensing techniques. Recently we tried these techniques out in Maumee Bay in western Lake Erie and along the Potomac River. Within a matter of days, significant information was available on flow patterns, waste discharge flow patterns, and water temperatures. We recommend that any proposed legislation give strong endorsement to utilization of new techniques for the collection of basic data from estuary systems. Also, we would like to see additional emphasis placed on providing at one central location a source of data on estuarial systems. Recent studies of our Office of Water Data Coordination on the sources of data on estuaries have uncovered large and significant blocks of data in some unlikely places. We are enclosing for your use a tabulation of principal estuaries in the United States prepared by U.S. Public Health Service for the Office of Water Data Coordination. We would be pleased to have specialists of the Geological Survey review these ideas in detail with your staff if you should desire to have additional assistance. Sincerely yours, W. T. PECORA, Director. LIST OF ESTUARIES FOR COMPILATION OF PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL DATA |