Senator MUSKIE. Our last witness this morning is Dr. Robert J. Anderson, Deputy Administrator for Regulation and Control of Agricultural Research Service, Department of Agriculture.

STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT J. ANDERSON, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR REGULATION AND CONTROL OF THE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Dr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before your committee to discuss the Department of Agriculture activity relating to the quality of our environment, specifically pesticides activities that have a bearing on water quality. I have a prepared statement that I will be glad to present in its full text. However, for the sake of conserving time, I would be glad to give it in part or submit it in toto for the record and respond to any questions you may have.

What is your pleasure?

Senator MUSKIE. Why don't we put it in the record to make sure it will be there, and you can cover it in any way you wish.

Dr. ANDERSON. Secretary of Agriculture, Orville L. Freeman, extends his appreciation to the subcommittee for its painstaking and indepth studies into the complicated and formidable problems of water pollution. May it be noted, too, Mr. Chairman, that Secretary Freeman is in complete accord with the purposes and intent of the subcommittee's hearings and assures the chairman of continued cooperation by all agencies of the Department in the subcommittee's task.

The problem of safety in the use of pesticides is not new to the Department of Agriculture. The Department has been a leader for many years in developing new, more efficient pesticides, as well as improved ways of using them safely. In recent years, the recommendations for using pesticides safely have become more demanding than ever before. We need pesticides to assure our continued abundance of food and fiber. We need these materials to protect our human health, our crops, our livestock, and our forests. We must also protect the people against exposure to harmful residues of agricultural chemicals and we must shield our environment against the accumulation of pesticides which may become hazardous to our fish and wildlife, useful insects, and contaminate our soil and water.

Beginning with the introduction of DDT to control the gypsy moth in the early 1940's, studies were conducted to measure the effects of this material on the environment. Before this material was used on cooperative control programs, it had been determined that the effects on terrestrial animals would be minimal and that losses to aquatic organisms could be held to a low level. As new materials became available, similar studies were conducted prior to their adoption on cooperative programs carried out by the States and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Even though materials at hand have proven to be satisfactory control agents, the Department has consistently maintained its search for alternate materials that would further minimize any deleterious side effects to the various components of the environment.

Initially, a granulated heptachlor was used to treat the soil to control the imported fire ant. This material is still the most effective

material known to control this important agricultural pest which was introduced to this country from South America. Even so, the Department through its research and methods improvement programs continued to search for alternate materials. A bait was developed which contained soybean oil and mirex, placed on a carrier of corncob grits that has proven to be specific against the imported fire ant. The new material replaced heptachlor as a treatment.

The worker ants search for and carry this bait to the mounds, where the brood and queen are destroyed. Dosage rates have been determined and set at a minimum level where only one-seventh of an ounce of insecticide per acre is required to control ant populations. Observations have been made by the Fish and Wildlife Service and State conservation agencies and the various State and public health agencies, who all agree that this new bait is safe and can be used without hazard on all segments of the environment where fire ants are found.

In line with its continuing effort to find alternative chemicals to control serious agricultural pests, the Department has now learned to use, and has substituted malathion for aldrin in grasshopper control, carbaryl (Sevin) in place of DDT for gypsy moth control, and malathion instead of the highly toxic methyl parathion for boll weevil control.

The Forest Service, through its research programs, has discovered how to use malathion in place of DDT against spruce budworm, Saratoga spittlebug, larch case bearer, and hemlock looper. These are but a few of the examples where the nonpersistent chemical have replaced some of the more persistent chlorinated hydrocarbons.

In addition to the Department's intensive research aimed at the development of alternate pesticides, extensive research programs are underway to determine the fate of pesticides in soil, water, and other segments of the environment. Generally speaking, insecticidal chemicals vary in solubility from slightly soluble to almost completely insoluble in water. The chlorinated hydrocarbons are among the least soluble of all the insecticides now in use. This means that the presence of these materials in water in any appreciable amount will be confined by adsorption to the suspended matter, such as clay and organic material, that may be carried by water or other means of transport to a main stream. Other chemicals can move as a true solution and percolate through the ground in this manner.

Projects are underway to study the extent and rate by which pesticides and other chemicals are moved from farmlands into surrounding streams and waterways and deep percolation in groundwater aquifers. One project is being conducted on irrigated farmlands in the Imperial Valley agricultural area of California. Many individual farms in this area use irrigation and have drainage tiles installed for the removal of subsurface water. The drainage water from these installations is sampled and tested for pesticides and fertilizers.

A similar project is being conducted in Coshocton, Ohio, on natural watersheds and under natural precipitation. Irrigation is not generally employed in this area. Surface and subsurface water is being sampled and analyzed for pesticide and fertilizer constituents. Since the chlorinate insecticides are the most persistent of the pesticides normally applied to soils, emphasis is placed on these compounds.

The significance of erosion on possible pesticide removel from soils is being studied under closely controlled conditions in Watkinsville, Ga. The work there is being conducted on small plots of soil 12 feet wide, and from 35 to 75 feet long. The pesticide under study is applied to the soil and a sprinkler system capable of simulating rainfall of various intensities is used to produce the erosion. This type of system affords very close control of environmental factors and can be very useful in obtaining data used to predict the conditions under which pesticide movement may occur.

A project is being conducted in Baton Rouge, La., to determine the possible movement in water, if any, of pesticide materials from sugarcane land in the Mississippi Delta. This section of the country is characterized by high rainfall and considerable natural surface runoff. Tile drains are not normally used because of the relatively low profile permeability.

Information obtained from the projects described above will answer questions regarding the fate of pesticides in soils, and the rate at which they are transported into the streams and underground waters. Located as they are, we can obtain information over a broad range of soil, drainage, and climatic conditions. These are a few examples of studies and reviews initiated or expanded recently which are an integral part of a continuing long-range research program the Department has conducted for many decades.

Experiments also are conducted to evaluate mechanisms by which pesticides move in soil. In general, they move in association with clav and organic matter, in solution, or in the vapor stage. These experiments are conducted at Fort Collins, Colo., and at Beltsville, Md., to determine the extent to which insecticides and their transformation products are absorbed by soil organic matter and by the clay fraction. Cumulative data in this area of research continues to add greatly to the understanding of the movement of these compounds in the soil, and is of great value not only to the Department, but to the scientific community as a whole.

Laboratory experiments are underway in Fort Collins, Colo., and in Riverside. Calif., to determine the significance of movement of pesticides in the form of vapor in soils. For such movement to occur, the compounds must first be vaporized. Several factors other than the vapor pressure of the pesticide influence the rate at which this occurs. For example, in dry soil, DDT is considered to be quite stable because of its very low vapor pressure. In moist soil, DDT vaporizes with water, presumably because DDT accumulates at the air-water interfaces in the soil pores. Experiments being conducted at Fort Collins are designed to give information about the reactions occurring at the air-water interface, so that the magnitude of losses by this mechanism can be evluated. Work at California is to measure the movement of chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides in and through the soils. Initial emphasis will be given to measurement of actual movement in the vapor phase as compared with values predicted by the law of physics. The projects underway are not yet completed and are enumerated in this discussion only as an example of the intense interest this Department has in accumulating knowledge that will be useful in developing recommendations that will avoid contaminating our streams and other water resources.

One of the major recommendations of the President's Science Advisory Committee "Report on Pesticide Use" issued in 1963 called for a monitoring system to give "an assessment of the levels of pesticides in man and his environment." Shortly after this report was issued, the Department intensified its investigations and broadened its monitoring programs. Intensive study areas were established in the lower Mississippi Delta region to determine current levels of pesticides that may have accumulated in the soil and to determine whether or not they were accumulating at a rapid rate, consistent with a high-use history. In this area samples of the soil, runoff water, forage grown on treated soil, and other elements of the environment were examined carefully for accumulations of pesticides. A résumé of this work is being presented as an exhibit for the committee to study in detail if it so desires. (Exhibit 1, "Monitoring the Agricultural Use of Pesticides.") The Department has been gratified that the preliminary results of the first year of study have indicated that pesticides are not accumulating rapidly and those accumulated thus far do not exceed those added in any one year for pest control. Water samples have shown residues at extremely low levels, in parts per billion. These studies are being continued for a 3-year period and will be extended to other parts of the United States.

In addition to its monitoring program, the Department conducts special studies designed to measure the residue levels and to determine sources of contamination. One such study involved a cooperative effort between the Plant Pest Control Division and the USDA Sedimentation Laboratory of the Soil and Water Conservation Research Division in the Lower Mississippi River. A résumé of this study (exhibit 2, "Surface Hydrology and Pesticides-A Preliminary Report on the Analysis of Sediments of the Lower Mississippi River") is included among the exhibits being offered to the committee for detailed study.

In addition to its broad-scale monitoring programs, the Agricultural Research Service and the Forest Service monitor cooperative FederalState programs to suppress, control, or eradicate important agriculutral and forest pests. In planning cooperative programs, full consideration is given to the possibility of contaminating streams and the effect pesticides may have on other than the target organism. The area to be treated is studied carefully to determine application patterns that will avoid streams and favorable wildlife habitats. These monitoring programs are concurrent with the period of operation and provide the on-site supervisors with the information they need to make any changes that will further minimize the effects of control materials to critical areas. It has been gratifying to learn as a result of these studies that have been conducted in connection with forest pest control, Japanese beetle control, gypsy moth and grasshopper control, cereal leaf beetle, and other programs that we have been successful in avoiding excessive contamination of streams and that wildlife losses have been extremely low, or nonexistent.

For the benefit of the committee, copies of the monitoring report on the Japanese beetle control program in Michigan (exhibit 3, "Monitoring the Effects of the 1963-64 Japanese Beetle Control Program on Soil, Water, and Silt in the Battle Creek Area of Michigan") and the

1 The exhibits referred to in Dr. Anderson's testimony begin on p. 478.

cereal leaf beetle program (exhibit 4, "Monitoring the Effects of the 1964 Cereal Leaf Beetle Control Program on Wildlife in Michigan"), are included with other exhibits.

So far I have covered a few of the highlights of the work being conducted by the Department that pertains to or is directed toward preserving the quality of water. Before I close my statement, I must mention the Federal Committee on Pest Control (FCPC). This organization grew from an action initiated by the Secretary of Agriculture in 1961. Recognizing the need for pesticides to preserve our national resources, the Secretary suggested that a board be formed to review all pest control programs conducted by the Departments of Agriculture; Interior; Health, Education, and Welfare; and Defense. This board was formed in June 1961, when the three Secretaries signed a formal agreement. It was known as the Federal Pest Control Review Board until August 1964, when it was reorganized and its sphere of interest expanded.

The Federal Committee on Pest Control coordinates all Federal pest control activities to see that the total public interest is served in terms of safety and effectiveness.

Senator MUSKIE. May I ask a question here? When you refer to the board which reviews all pest control programs conducted by the Departments of Agriculture, Interior, HEW, and Defense. Those are four Departments. You said three Secretaries signed agreement. Dr. ANDERSON. Four Secretaries: Defense, Interior, HEW, and Agriculture.

Senator MUSKIE. All four signed the agreement?

Dr. ANDERSON. All four of them. I am sorry.

Much of the FCPC's work is performed in regular and special meetings at which every proposed control program is examined. Those programs involving the use of pesticides are reviewed to determine if risks exist to man and beneficial life, and if these risks are outweighed by advantages expected.

The FCPC also coordinates Federal activities which seek to improve pest control safety through—

Nationwide monitoring of changes in environmental levels of pesticide residues.

Research to develop less hazardous pest control methods.

Interagency efforts to inform the American people about developments in pest control safety and other Federal work in pest

control.

All Federal pest control activities come within the purview of the FCPC. The Committee is composed of two members and two alternates appointed by each of the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Interior, and Health, Education, and Welfare.

The FCPC recommends administrative action on pesticide problems or suggests legislation. Although the FCPC has no mandatory power, all its recommendations on proposed pest control progams have been accepted to date by the agencies involved.

The Department is gratified that this committee is conducting an intensive study on the ways and means to strengthen the capabilities of cities and communities for the disposition of waste materials. We believe Agriculture's record is good and that the increased use of agricultural chemicals has not had a major effect on our water