(d) Statistical data, reports and other information submitted in support of statements, views and positions expressed at the hearing, including those provided by the State or States holding the hearing.

When necessary to the Secretary's determination that the State criteria and plan are consistent with the purposes of the Act, a full transcript of the hearing and supporting data will be requested.

In the review of the hearing record to determine whether the State criteria and plan are consistent with the purposes of the Act, attention will be given to the extent to which there was expression of views by conservation, civic, recreation, agricultural, industrial and planning interests, as well as by Federal, State, interstate and local agencies. Particular attention will be given to the extent to which there was opportunity for participation by interests downstream or adjacent States which would be affected by the standards.

10. State standards will be reviewed in terms of their consistency and comparability with those for affected waters of downstream or adjacent States. Coordination is encouraged among States to assure such consistency.

11. The use or uses of the waters concerned, the water quality criteria to provide for such use or uses, and the plan for implementing the water quality criteria should be in conformity with any comprehensive water pollution control program developed pursuant to Section 3 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended; should encompass any remedial program recommended by the Secretary as a result of an enforcement action taken under Section 10 of the Act; and should be revised to reflect any recommendations resulting as such programs and actions develop.

12. To meet the goals established by the Act, water quality standards must be adequate to protect and upgrade water quality in the face of population and industrial growth, urbanization, and technological change. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, it is anticipated that after the initial setting of standards, periodic review and revision will be required to take into account changing technology of waste production and waste removal and advances in knowledge of water quality requirements developed through research.

WATERS TO WHICH STANDARDS PROVISIONS APPLY

Water quality standards, under Section 10 (c) (1) of the Act are to be established for, and made applicable to, interstate waters or portions thereof within the State.

1. The term "interstate waters," as defined in Section 13 (e) of the Act, means all rivers, lakes, and other waters that flow across or form a part of State boundaries, including coastal waters.

2. Within this definition, waters that flow across or form a part of State boundaries are subject to the provisions of Section 10 (c) (1) of the Act.

3. Waters that flow across or form a part of the international boundary between a State and a foreign country are interstate waters within the meaning of the definition provided in Section 13 (e) of the Act and similarly subject to the provisions of Section 10 (c) (1) of the Act.

4. Coastal waters subject to the provisions of Section 10(c) (1) of the Act are the ocean waters along straight coasts, the waters along indented coasts which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tides, and the waters of the Great Lakes.

5. As noted above, the definition of "interstate waters" is in terms of water bodies-"rivers," "lakes" and "other waters"-and is not limited to only those portions of these water bodies at the point at which they flow across or form a part of State boundaries. In effect, therefore, water quality standards are to be etsablished for and made applicable to the entire stretch of the interstate waters within a State.

6. Tributaries of interstate waters, which are not in themselves interstate waters, are not subject to the requirements of subsection 10 (c) (1) of the Act. However, it is important to note that the discharge of any matter into such tributaries which reaches interstate waters and reduces the quality of such interstate waters below the established water quality standards is subject to abatement under Section 10 (c) (5) of the Act.

COOPERATIVE ASSISTANCE

Within the limits of its resources, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration will assist the States in developing their water quality criteria and plans upon request.

1. Requests for technical assistance and other information should be directed to the appropriate Regional Director of the Administration.

2. In addition, the Administration will establish national technical committees, one for each major water use defined in the Act, to review scientific findings on water quality requirements for each specific use and to advise the Secretary concerning this. Persons scientifically and technically qualified will be invited to serve. The technical committees will review and update these reports periodically to reflect new information. The findings of these committees, subject to review and approval by the Secretary, will serve as guides for approving water quality criteria and subsequent revisions thereof. These findings will be provided to the States as they become available.

3. The Administration has long-term water quality requirements research underway, and this will be accelerated. The results of this research will be made available as standards are revised, enforcement actions are taken, and programs of water quality enhancement progress.

4. The Administration encourages and will support cooperative State-Federal activities in connection with any State water quality standards implementation and enforcement plan. Initial discussions should be with the appropriate Regional Director.

TRANSFER OF FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION TO
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR IS EFFECTED

Responsibility for the administration of the Federal Water Pollution Control program was transferred today to the Department of the Interior from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Secretary of the Interior Stewart L. Udall began immediately to exercise his new authority by issuing guidelines to the States for the setting of water quality standards on the Nation's interstate waters.

Under the Federal Water Quality Act of 1965 Congress required the States to set quality standards on interstate waters by June 30, 1967. If a State fails to set adequate standards, they will be set by the Secretary of the Interior. To date 27 States have indicated their intention to meet the '67 deadline.

In a letter addressed to the 50 Governors, Secretary Udall urged a FederalState partnership approach aimed at assuring the Nation the supply of clean water necessary for its continuous growth. Secretary Udall enclosed copies of the guidelines developed by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. The guidelines require that economic, health, conservation, and aesthetic values be considered in determining the most appropriate use of a stream. They also require that the States hold public hearings before setting quality standards. In issuing the guidelines, Secretary Udall said, "President Johnson has made it clear that 'no one has the right to use America's rivers and America's waterways that belong to all the people as a sewer.'"

"The standard of purity we are asking the States to provide for our rivers constitutes one of our best tools for upgrading our waters, and for drawing the line aginst any further abuse of our water resources," Udall said.

Hon. GOVERNOR OF ———————

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, D.C., May 9, 1966.

DEAR GOVERNOR: Today, under the provisions of the President's Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1966, the responsibility for administering the Federal Water Pollution Control program was transferred to my Department from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

In assuming this new responsibility, my first task is to work with the States to assure establishment of satisfactory water quality criteria for interstate waters as required by the Water Quality Act of 1965. Sound water quality standards will lay the groundwork for effective Federal-State water pollution control programs. Standards will provide a means for preventing further pollution and set a goal for cleaning up existing pollution.

The Water Quality Act of 1965 gives the 50 states an opportunity to establish water quality criteria for their waters. In the event a state does not act within the specified time period, the Federal Government is empowered to set the criteria. In any case, standards submitted by a state must be approved by the Secretary

of the Interior consistent with the purposes of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

It is my hope that you will personally exercise strong leadership to insure that your state establishes effective standards. The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration will afford you all possible support and assistance-and the enclosed Guidelines should be useful in preparing the standards of your state. These guidelines delineate factors which I will consider in reviewing standards submitted by the several states. Copies are enclosed for your personal scrutiny. Copies are also being sent to your state water pollution control agency.

Looking beyond establishment of the standards, it is equally important to consider how they will be implemented. I believe that this will require entirely new patterns of state-Federal cooperation. It is my conviction that the pace of progress will rest more on the degree of leadership provided by the governors of the states than any other major factor. With this in mind, I want you to know that I stand ready to spend whatever time is necessary to work personally with you, to move this vital program forward in your state.

Last week the governors of the Middle Atlantic States and I met together as members of the Delaware River Basin Commission. We discussed the need to adopt water quality standards for the Delaware and a plan of action to meet those standards. As a result of our discussions, the governors decided to hold a water quality conference later this summer to explore these points. This is the kind of direct action that should produce quick results in this region.

Among the principal items to be considered will be ways of moving ahead under the proposed Clean Rivers Restoration Act of 1966, which is currently before the Congress. This Act would provide additional Federal funds and support for those river basins which organize themselves to do an effective basinwide job of pollution control. This Act emphasizes the important principle of state and local leadership, working in concert with the Federal government. Please pick up the telephone and call me any time you feel our mutual efforts can advance the cause of pollution abatement in your state.

Sincerely yours,

STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary of the Interior.

STATEMENT OF MURRAY STEIN, CHIEF, ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM, FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. STEIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here today as a member of the Department of the Interior. My statement is principally addressed to the administration bill, S. 2987, as it relates to the regulatory activities conducted under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

The existing act provides for such activities to be carried on in cooperation with States and local authorities to abate pollution which endangers the health or welfare of any person. Federal enforcement jurisdiction extends to the navigable or interstate waters of the Nation. Federal authority to initiate such action, however, is restricted to instances of interstate pollution. This means that we are allowed to bring Federal authority into play where pollution originating in one State is endangering the health or welfare of persons in another State. Senator MUSKIE. Mr. Stein, I will ask if you will excuse me for maybe 10 minutes. As is so often the case, I am required to be in attendance at more than one subcommittee session at a time. I did want to go up one floor to say a few words on an appointment that is pending before the Banking and Currency Committee. I will try to come back right away.

(Recess.)

Senator MUSKIE. It is not often you get an opportunity to make a second entrance for the same speech.

Mr. STEIN. In addition to proceeding on our own initiative in interstate cases, the act also directs that our enforcement procedures be applied in instances of interstate pollution at the request of a Governor or of a State water pollution control agency, or-with the concurrence of the Governor and of the State agency-a municipality.

Senator MUSKIE. Have you had any occasion to use that authority? Mr. STEIN. The last one? No, sir.

Where pollution originates in a single State and is harmful to the health or welfare of persons only within that State, Federal enforcement assistance may be provided to rectify such a situation only at the express request of the Governor of that State. Among the important changes which the administration proposes in S. 2987 is to lift this restriction and allow Federal enforcement measures to be taken without such a request from the Governor.

Federal concern and responsibility in water pollution control extends to all navigable waters, whether interstate or intrastate, and provisions of the act apply to all such waters, except in this instance. We believe that the Federal enforcement authority should have the same scope as that applied to other authorities provided in the act. Since 1961, when authority for Federal enforcement assistance in intrastate pollution cases were provided, we have been asked to render such assistance in five instances:

Puget Sound (Wash.);

The Detroit River (Mich.);
South Platte River (Colo.);

The Merrimack River (Mass.); and

The Upper Mississippi River (Minn. and Wis.).

As the Chair can appreciate, all of these have been very, very tough cases. That is why we were asked in; and just within the last week or so, Detroit has announced that it was going along with secondary treatment after opposition against that for many, many years and even during the enforcement action. This just happened within the last week or two. This is probably the biggest victory we have had all year in pollution control, because, as you know, Detroit was a key problem in the Lake Erie situation as well as the national situation, being one of the few large cities that still was going to primary treatment. But now they are committed to secondary treatment. The last two intrastate cases, being the Merrimack River and the Upper Mississippi River, were also interstate actions, the Merrimack case involving New Hampshire as well as Massachusetts.

By reason of their fortuitous location on interstate waters, we are able to bring action to abate pollution adversely affecting persons in such areas as New York City, Chicago, St. Louis, and others, whereas we may not provide enforcement assistance to abate pollution of San Francisco Bay or Denver, Colo., except upon the request of the Governor. Additionally, substantial savings in the expenditure of Federal funds and staff resources now necessarily devoted to the difficult and often time-consuming task of tracing pollution across State lines would accrue.

Senator MUSKIE. Let me ask you this question about San Francisco Bay. Do I take it from this you do not now, for your purposes, interpret coastal waters as being interstate waters?

Mr. STEIN. Yes; we interpret coastal waters as being interstate waters. This would include San Francisco Bay. However, the pol

lution in San Francsico Bay originates in California and affects people in California. Unless there is an interstate effect, we cannot move to abate that pollution on our own initiative. We have to await a request from the Governor.

Senator MUSKIE. So the difference is this: You consider waters interstate?

Mr. STEIN. Yes, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. But the source of pollution, intrastate.

Mr. STEIN. Yes. The source and the effect; yes, sir. There have to be two conditions satisfied before we can move on our own. One, the waters must be interstate or navigable; and two, the pollution must originate in one State and endanger health and welfare of persons in another State. It is that second condition which is lacking in San Francisco Bay.

Senator MUSKIE. Which provision in S. 2987 will correct that?

Mr. STEIN. It is the provision which will authorize the Secretary of the Interior to initiate enforcement actions on pollution endangering health or welfare of persons on any navigable water or interstate water without the restriction that it has to be in another State.

The waters shared by the United States and Canada, and by the United States and Mexico, comprise a kind of no man's land in rapid, effective water pollution abatement. The administration bill reflects concern at this kind of situation, wherein pollution originating in one of our States may be impairing the health or welfare of persons in one of our neighboring countries. Although representations may be made through our Department of State, there is no mechanism for requiring the State to take the necessary action.

In some cases, as a matter of fact, the State may well disavow jurisdiction over the waters concerned. For example, a present source of concern between the United States and Canada is the St. Croix River bordering the State of Maine and the Province of New Brunswick in Canada. The Governor of Maine is on record that the State does not have jurisdiction over this stream. S. 2987 will provide authority to deal with international pollution situations.

By the way, Senator, I might say this is not an unusual case, even in the interstate situations. Often where we have had a large city near a State line and the pollution affects people in another State, while it may affect the discharging State for the first 2 or 3 miles, the Governor and the State authorities in the offending State have often felt they really didn't have appropriate jurisdiction because there had to be an effect on the people in their own State. Actually, the pollution did not affect the people in their own State; it affected people in another State. That was cured by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, when we moved into these situations.

So this was a problem indigenous to pollution control problems. I think we still have a little hiatus when we are dealing with interstate waters in trying to get that gap in jurisdiction closed.

Senator MUSKIE. In the case of the St. Croix River, Maine, that river under the jurisdiction of the International Joint Commission? Mr. STEIN. Yes, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. And the International Joint Commission, I think in the midfifties or thereabouts, announced the results of a survey of the pollution on the St. Croix River, did it not?