Mr. STEIN. Yes; the bulk of the St. Croix and St. John.

Senator MUSKIE. It recommended a program of aetion to clean up the St. Croix.

Mr. STEIN. Yes, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. Have any steps been taken under that program? Mr. STEIN. I think a few steps have been taken. They have just been meeting on the St. Croix, and they have another study and another report calling for action. I think the record will indicate both on the Canadian-American border and the Mexican-United States border that the pollution situations are difficult indeed to control.

The thought here was, if we get jurisdiction, certainly working within the scope of the treaty obligations, and could stimulate the States to action, that we may get a more rapid cleanup of these pollution problems. I know that you may be familiar with the St. Croix River, but you can duplicate that many, many times in pollution situations running across both our northern and southern borders. I am not sure that the mechanism we have in the International Commissions works as rapidly as our State or our Federal enforcement programs, as slow as they may be.

Senator MUSKIE. I was using the St. Croix River to undertake to pinpoint the role and authority of the International Commission in these matters. Now, as I understand it—and I would like to confirm or correct this the International Joint Commission has no enforcement authority.

Mr. STEIN. No.

Senator MUSKIE. The International Joint Commission is simply a forum created under the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 for discussion of boundary water problems as between both countries, and action by the International Joint Commission usually takes the form of report or recommendations to the respective Governments, which must be implemented by further action by the respective Governments. Mr. STEIN. That is right. I think they call them references. They make references to the respective Governments and ask us to take action to correct the matter.

When you are dealing with interstate water laws, the problem is to discuss some kind of mechanism that we have under our system of government to handle the matter. Sometimes we feel frustrated, particularly in dealing with the Canadians, who can move slowly. We can see if we have an appropriate Federal or State Government that has jurisdiction and feels that it should move. We find in something like the St. Croix River that this is not always readily apparent when we attempt to put our cleanup mechanism in the United States or in the individual States into action.

This is where the problem comes up.

Senator MUSKIE. What requests have the International Joint Commission made to the respective Governments in connection with the program on the St. Croix River?

Mr. STEIN. They put in references and ask for a cleanup of the municipalities and the industrial wastes, which are largely paper pulp

wastes.

Senator MUSKIE. So there has been a formal reference to you? Mr. STEIN. No, the reference is made, of course, to the Department of State, not to us.

62-611-66- -29

Senator MUSKIE. How does this work? The International Joint Commission studied the St. Croix River, found there was unacceptable pollution?

Mr. STEIN. Yes.

Senator MUSKIE. It developed a program which constituted their recommendations for action to the polluters involved. Now what has the International Joint Commission done or what is it in a position to do to encourage action by the established agencies in the respective governments dealing with this problem?

Mr. STEIN. They refer it to us and, of course, they urge us to take action under Federal and State law. The State Department representatives we have technical representatives on the Commissionhave urged us to do that. In dealing with the St. Croix River, we are faced with this dilemma. Under the Federal program, we cannot assume jurisdiction over the St. Croix River on our own initiative in an enforcement cleanup, since there is no interstate pollution.

Senator MUSKIE. Suppose we were to amend the law to include with interstate waters, international waters? Is this amendment proposed in the administration bill?

Mr. STEIN. I think the administration bill covering all navigable waters of the United States covers this. We would have jurisdiction. if the administration bill were enacted, under the term "navigable waters."

Senator MUSKIE. This might very well be considered in a separate category of its own.

Mr. STEIN. Yes, it very well could. So far, it has been considered in a separate category of its own.

Sentor MUSKIE. It is, in a sense. You say the Governor of Maine says the St. Croix is not under the jurisdiction of the Maine Waters Improvement Commission. It is not under your jurisdiction, because it is not an interstate water.

Mr. STEIN. No, sir. It crosses the border of Maine.

Senator MUSKIE. Does it cross the border, of two States?

Mr. STEIN. No, but it forms a part of or crosses the border of two or more States.

Senator MUSKIE. Is it in two States?

Mr. STEIN. No, it is not in two States.

Senator MUSKIE. So it is not under your jurisdiction, since it is not an interstate stream.

Mr. STEIN. But it is navigable, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. I know, but that provision is not yet in the law. I am talking about the state of the present law.

Mr. STEIN. Sir, under the present law, if a Governor asks us in, we can come in on a navigable water, whether it is interstate or not, if the Governor requests it.

Senator MUSKIE. Does that provision apply to St. Croix?

Mr. STEIN. I would say that the St. Croix is a navigable river. If the Governor asks us in and this was a U.S. water and this was a navigable water, I would have no doubt that we could go in an enforcement case on the St. Croix.

The reason we cannot go in under our own initiative now is because there is no interstate effect of the pollution. At the request of the Governor of Maine, we could go in under the present law.

Senator MUSKIE. And he has not made that request?

Mr. STEIN. No, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. Even though he does not have the authority, himself?

Mr. STEIN. He has not made the request, and the statement was that he didn't have jurisdiction; yes, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. Let us make that clear. He says, first, that Maine laws don't apply, because it is an international water?

Mr. STEIN. Yes, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. Has he been asked specifically whether or not he would request you to come in to exercise authority which he does not have?

Mr. STEIN. I have no knowledge that he has been asked that question. Senator MUSKIE. It has not been discussed?

Mr. STEIN. So far as I know, it has not.

Senator MUSKIE. You have not, in effect, said to him, "Governor, you do not have authority under your law; but if you request us to come in, we could take action, if that is your wish"? You have not put it that way?

Mr. STEIN. No, sir; we have not.

Senator MUSKIE. He has not recognized the fact that you have authority if he were to request you to come in?

Mr. STEIN. I don't think he has. But, Senator, we rarely talk that way to any Governor on any case.

Senator MUSKIE. Let me start back a couple of steps. The International Joint Commission, in the mid-1950's, surveyed the St. Croix, made certain recommendations which constituted a program for cleaning up the St. Croix.

Mr. STEIN. Yes, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. The International Joint Commission does not have an operating or enforcement mechanism or authority of its own. Mr. STEIN. That is correct.

Senator MUSKIE. So it made representations through the State Department to the appropriate agencies in both countries dealing with the problem. Those representations came to your attention, so you are now under a request, you are the subject of a request from the International Joint Commission to implement its recommendation.

Now, you cannot do so, unless the Governor requests it. Now isn't it appropriate, then, for you, responding to the representations from the International Joint Commission, to bring them to the attention of the Governor of Maine, outlining the law that would make it possible for him to utilize your services to respond to the program suggested by the International Joint Commission? I would not consider this to be impertinent or discourteous or unfriendly in any way. It would simply be a discharge of what I understand to be the appropriate response to an international agency's recommendation.

Now, has this course of action been followed?

Mr. STEIN. This course of action has not been followed, sir; but I think your suggestion is very well taken, and I will recommend that it be followed.

Senator MUSKIE. Then we have achieved something this morning. Mr. STEIN. I don't know what kind of reception we will get from the Governor, but I will be delighted to follow it.

Senator MUSKIE. This is not unfriendly questioning, as you know, Mr. Stein. But we are considering what needs to be done to improve our legislation to deal with this no-man's land. There is a reciprocity provision, but I think there is also a jurisdictional one that might be one way of clarifying the existing state of the law. I simply wanted to probe all the possible alternatives that are available to us.

Mr. STEIN. Yes, sir. In deference to the possible Maine positionand this generally is true in other international cases-I think the report indicates that there are substantial pollution sources on the other side of the international boundary, too.

I think a Governor has to be under the notion, when he asks us in, whether we are just going to be able to clear up the sources on his side and whether he is going to be faced with that situation on the other side of the international boundary, also, and really whether he is going to clean up the stream.

I know this was in Governor Swainson's mind when we were asked into the Detroit River. There the question was whether the Canadians were polluting the river as much as we were, particularly in several parts of Canada.

I think it wasn't until Governor Swainson satisfied himself that the current in the Detroit River was so strong that the Canadian pollution stayed on the Canadian side-incidentally, it is about a tenth of what ours is and the American pollution stayed on the American side, that he decided to make the request.

But this is very much, I think, in the mind of the Governor in considering this problem; because, as with all the international problems it creates thorny aspects that we don't have in just a domestic problem. Senator MUSKIE. I would certainly think that is a reasonable position for the Governor to take. If there is a contribution to the pollution problem on both sides of the international stream, it is only fair and reasonable to suggest that the action should be international and not simply unilateral.

Mr. STEIN. Right.

Senator MUSKIE. But it would be helpful, I think, in getting an international program on the St. Croix if we would have a commitment from the State to make its contribution to such a program, conditioned upon similar action by the Canadian authorities.

Mr. STEIN. Yes.

Senator MUSKIE. I think what we need is an initiative on both sides. If we could have it from our side, then we would be in a better position to go to the other side and say, "We are ready. When are you going to be?"

Mr. STEIN. Yes, sir.

The Secretary would act whenever he has reason to believe that such pollution, originating in our country and endangering the health or welfare of persons in a foreign country, is occurring, and the Secretary of State requests that he take such action. This proposed authority is consistent with the treaty obligations in boundary waters and would assist in implementing our responsibiliies under these agreements.

Congress provided for the enforcement authority to be applied in three progressive stages. The first step is the holding of an informal conference. The State and Federal parties (and the interstate water

pollution control agency, if any) are the conferees. They meet to evaluate the pollution situation, to determine what delays are being encountered, and to agree as to what remedial steps are required to be taken. Depending on the complexity of the pollution situation, more than one session of the conference may be necessary before all of these objectives are met.

When agreement on the necessary remedial action is reached and a schedule for taking such actions is established, an opportunity is given to the States to follow up the matter under their own authority. A stipulated minimum 6-month period is provided, during which the Secretary must be shown that progress in implementing the remedial schedules will be made. If such progress is not forthcoming, the Secretary is directed to go to the second stage of the enforcement procedures.

He then calls a public hearing, appoints a hearing board of five or more members, comprised of representatives of the States involved, the Department of Commerce, and others.

At the public hearing stage, for the first time, the alleged polluters are directly involved. Sworn testimony is taken. Unlike the conference, the hearing is a formal procedure. The Board makes findings and recommendations based on the testimony and evidence submitted to it.

The Secretary sends the Board's findings and recommendations to the specific polluters, together with a notice specifying a reasonable time for abatement of the pollution. The act currently stipulates another minimum 6-month waiting period for the Secretary to determine that progress is being made before he takes the steps leading to the final stage of the enforcement process. S. 2987 will eliminate both of these 6-month intervals and will give the Secretary discretion to fix a shorter time period.

Last year we were assisted in revising the Suggested State Water Pollution Control Act by a committee of the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators appointed from among their own members. We have issued this revised suggested State water pollution control act with a recommendation that the States consider its provisions so as to give their agencies requisite. authority in water pollution control. Approximately three-fourths of the States have enacted laws based to greater or lesser extent on the suggested act.

I might indicate this is a second edition. We have had this act out since 1950. I don't want to imply that three-quarters of the States have acted in the last year.

The suggested act has several enforcement provisions similar to those proposed to be added to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act under S. 2987. The enforcement assistance which we are presently able to give the State agencies would be immeasurably strengthened by providing for similar Federal authority. Most notably, provision should be made for acting without delay in situations where actual pollution or threatened pollution from an identifiable source presents an immediate danger to the health or welfare of any persons or to natural resources or to areas of significant scenic or recreational value. This last recognizes our growing concern about the preservation of our natural heritage. The provision would authorize the Secretary