If stream standards are determined by any other procedure, it will result in the zoning of streams without adequate facts and hearing on the uses of the downstream waters. Arbitrary zoning of stream waters can result in severe economic damage to the municipal, industrial, and recreational development of Tennessee. All pollution in Tennessee has not been corrected but we are proud of the record which shows that pollution of major significance is or will be brought under control by our board's program.

We understand that one section of the new bill will establish a new Water Pollution Control Administration within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. We do not believe anything will be accomplished by changing the administrative organization within the Department. It appears that the present law gives the Secretary sufficient authority to organize or elevate the program within the present organization structure. The so-called elevation of the program has not been done by the Secretary.

Under the present law the Secretary calls the conference or hearing, his representative is the chairman, and the policies and procedures are set by his office. We believe there was better administration of the program when it started and authority and responsibility were delegated to the Public Health Service. If a change is indicated, we recommend that the entire program be placed in the Public Health Service and that the Surgeon General be authorized and instructed to carry out a program.

Much has been written about the lack of pollution control in the United States, and most of this is written without facts. It has been a long time since a national survey was made on industrial wastes and yet figures are presented on the amount each year. We believe if accurate facts were presented each year to Congress you would not have to worry about these amendments each year.

I will appreciate your transmitting our opinion on S. 4 to the Senate committee with the request that it be included in the record. If we can send further specific information or testify before the committee at a later date, we will be glad to do so.

Sincerely,

R. H. HUTCHESON, Chairman, Tennessee Stream Pollution Control Board and Commissioner, Department of Public Health.

STATE CAPITOL,

Salem, Oreg., January 14, 1965.

Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,

Committee on Public Works,

Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: It is my understanding that a preliminary hearing has been scheduled for January 18 on S. 4, a bill which you have introduced to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.

According to our information, S. 4 is identical in all major respects to S. 649 of the 88th Congress. You may recall that Oregon objected to certain features of the latter as passed by the Senate, particularly the section dealing with establishment of water quality standards.

Although portions may not be applicable, I respectfully request that the enclosed statement of Oregon's position on S. 649, presented before the House Committee on Public Works, December 3, 1963, be entered in the record of the January 18 hearing on S. 4 as representative of Oregon's initial reaction to this legislation.

After we have had an opportunity to further review the provisions of S. 4, we shall wish to submit further testimony. Your courtesy in acknowledging this request is appreciated.

Sincerely,

MARK O. HATFIELD,

Governor.

STATEMENT BY HON. MARK O. HATFIELD, GOVERNOR OF OREGON, ON S. 649, DECEMBER 3, 1963, BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am delighted at this opportunity to present Oregon's views on S. 649, a bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended.

This statement will contain information similar to that prepared for presentation before the House Subcommittee on Natural Resources and Power at its scheduled hearing in Seattle, Wash., on November 22, 1963.

The chairman of that subcommittee, Congressman Robert E. Jones, of Alabama, has expressed his belief that the solutions of our Nation's water pollution problems can best be achieved through maximum cooperation between all levels of government, industry, conservation, and civic groups, and the many people who will benefit from clean water and suffer from polluted water. Oregon concurs in this belief. However, we do not feel that S. 649, in the form adopted by the Senate on October 16, is the best means of encouraging such maximum cooperation.

The purposes of this bill, as enunciated in section 1, are such as to elicit complete support. Certainly no one will argue that clean water is undesirable. Section 1, adding a new subsection to the existing Federal Pollution Control Act, in essence provides for keeping waters as clean as possible, as opposed to using the full capacity of such waters for waste assimilation. With this we are in complete agreement. However, we find that the proposed methods of reaching this completely desirable objective, as contained in certain other sections of S. 649, are apparently in conflict with responsibilities which at present are rightfully assigned to, and largely accepted by, State and local authorities. Such responsibility has surely been accepted by Oregon.

The people of Oregon have long recognized the importance of clean waters. Such waters constitute our most important natural resource. As early as 1889, the State legislature adopted a law which declared it illegal to pollute waters used for domestic or livestock watering purposes. From 1903, when the State board of health was created, to 1921, several additional antipollution laws were enacted.

In 1938 a comprehensive antipollution law was approved by the people as an initiative measure, by a 3-to-1 majority. This measure provided the framework for Oregon's present water pollution control program.

The 1938 law established a definite State policy for control of water pollution, created the sanitary authority as a division of the State board of health, gave to the authority the responsibility for abating existing pollution and preventing future pollution, and established the legal procedures by which the authority could function in the enforcement of State statutes. This basic law has since been strengthened to bring it in line with current legal procedures and judg ments, to clarify procedures, and, in emergencies, to permit direct court action. The latest and most extensive amendments were adopted in 1961 and 1963.

When the sanitary authority started its program in July 1939, there were only 49 sewage treatment plants in existence in the State. They served less than 100.000 persons or less than 17 percent of the total sewered population. Raw sewage from more than 450.000 persons was being discharged daily into the State's public waters. The majority of the 49 plants were already overloaded or otherwise inadequate. None of the Oregon communities along the two major interstate streams, the Snake and the Columbia Rivers, had any kind of sewage treatment plant. There was not a single sewage plant on the main stem of the Willamette River or along the Oregon coast.

Industry, likewise, provided little or no treatment for the millions of gallons of wastes which at that time were being poured daily into Oregon's waters. The population equivalent, based on oxygen demand, of the untreated wastes which were being discharged from pulp and paper mills, fruit and vegetable canneries, meatpacking plants, milk processing plants and numerous other industries was estimated at more than 3 million or more than six times the domestic sewage loading.

As a consequence, sections of many of Oregon's streams had become so polluted that they were a menace to health, destructive of fish and other aquatic life, and unfit for beneficial uses. For example, in the lower section of the Willamette River, which flows through the city of Portland and which is one of the State's most important streams, the dissolved oxygen content would drop to zero for a period of time each summer, thereby making it impossible for fishlife to survive. Cities which at one time had used this river as their source of public water supply had long since abandoned it for that purpose.

Such was the situation that existed when the sanitary authority started its program in 1939.

The authority by law is directed to encourage voluntary cooperation of all parties concerned in restoring and preserving the quality and purity of the State's waters. This it has done. In cases in which voluntary cooperation has not been

forthcoming, it is authorized to enforce compliance through legal action, and this it has done. Thus far public hearings have been held and orders entered involving 52 municipalities, 49 industrial plants, and 9 private agencies. Court actions have been instituted against seven industries, four cities, and three private agencies. One court case is pending at the present time.

We are happy to report that outstanding progress has been made in the abatement and control of water pollution in Oregon. At the present time there are some 204 public and semipublic sewage treatment plants in operation serving an estimated 940.000 persons, or more than 96 percent of the total sewered population. In addition, 31 projects are currently under construction.

Every city on the main Willamette River now has at least primary sewage treatment, and by the end of 1964 the majority will have secondary treatment. With the exception of two cities, one at the mouth and one small city upstream, all Oregon municipalities which discharge effluents into the main Columbia River now have primary treatment and chlorination which is adequate to preserve the quality of that major interstate stream. Likewise, Oregon cities on the Snake River now have at least primary treatment and chlorination.

Since 1946 the residents of Oregon have spent in excess of $100 million for construction of new or improved sewerage works projects. During each of the past 2 years, new records have been set in the value of contracts awarded for such projects. During 1963 great strides have been made in catching up on the backlog of needed sewerage works. Of the 57 projects for some 212,000 persons which were on the authority's list of needs for abatement of water pollution at the beginning of 1963, 27 are already under construction or scheduled to be started before next spring. Preliminary planning for another 11 has been completed or is underway.

The Federal construction grant program administered under Public Law 84-660 by the U.S. Public Health Service has been of real assistance in promoting construction of municipal sewage treatment works in Oregon. In fact, without such assistance several of our communities would have been unable to finance their projects.

During the past 10 or more years, Oregon industry has likewise made significant progress in the abatement of its share of water pollution. A good example is the pulp and paper industry. Pursuant to orders entered by the authority in 1950, pulpmills in the Willamette Basin since 1952 have all been operating special facilities for the treatment and disposal of their wastes during the period of critical streamflow.

In order to meet the State's minimum water quality standards for the Willamette and several other streams further reductions in the pollution loads, particularly in the oxygen demand and suspended solids content, of the effluents from certain pulp and paper mills, fruit- and vegetable-processing plants and miscellaneous industries are still required. We are confident, however, that all the industries concerned will cooperate fully in providing the necessary improvements.

As a result of the installation of sewage and waste treatment works by our cities and industries, the quality of Oregon's waters in recent years has been greatly improved. In the lower Willamette River, for example, it is now possible to maintain on a year-round basis enough dissolved oxygen to support fishlife.

Tables indicating progress which has been made are appended.

This brief review should serve to indicate Oregon's awareness of the problems to which S. 649 is directed. We wish to assist this committee in every practical manner. We believe, with some amendments. S. 649 could be a desirable addition to the Federal pollution control statutes. As presently constituted, however, we believe the bill has objectionable features. Specifically, those are sections 2 and 5.

Section 2 would create within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare a new Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, presumably to be headed by a new Assistant Secretary, also authorized by the bill, and transfer water pollution control activities, presently the responsibility of the Public Health Service, to this new Administration. We do not see the necessity for this administrative change.

The first permanent Federal water pollution control law did not come into existence until 1956. In its present amended and strengthened form it has been in existence only since 1961. During this time the responsibility for conducting water pollution control activities at the Federal level and for enforcing and carrying out the provisions of the law have been wasted in the Public Health Service.

From our experience in Oregon and our observation of activity in other Columbia Basin States, we believe the Public Health Service has performed in a most commendable manner. While its program has been in operation for only a relatively short period of time, it has accomplished much in the abatement and control of pollution in our Nation's waters. We do not believe any other single agency or separate administration could have done more in the same period of time. While the service's most noteworthy accomplishments, particularly insofar as enforcement is concerned, have probably been in the Missouri Basin, its activities in the Pacific Northwest deserve further mention.

Pursuant to its responsibilities and authority under section 8 of the existing Federal law, the Public Health Service in 1958 responded immediately to requests from Oregon and Washington for assistance in dealing with an extremely complex problem of bacterial slimes in the lower Columbia River. More recently, at the request of the State of Washington, it immediately scheduled a conference and has since undertaken a detailed study of the problems of wood products manufacturing pollution in the waters of Puget Sound.

With regard to enforcement activities, it is our opinion that the Public Health Service has been more than sufficiently aggressive. On its own initiative it has scheduled for next January a conference regarding alleged pollution in the lower Snake River near Lewiston, Idaho. This, of course, may be interpreted as one example which could and would be handled satisfactorily by the pollution control agencies of the States concerned without the necessity of Federal intervention.

Under existing Federal law, the Public Health Service has developed a very competent staff of engineers and other scientists in its basin office in Portland. This staff is presently engaged in the development of a comprehensive program for pollution control and abatement in all waters of the Columbia Basin, including those in our coastal drainages. An introductory report on this particular project is contained in the Public Health Service, region IX, publication issued March 1961.

The Portland office of the Public Health Service reviews all proposed Federal water resource projects and advises appropriate Federal agencies regarding the need for inclusion of adequate storage capacity for municipal and industrial water supply purposes and for water quality control. Presently the staff is conducting special studies of the Willamette River system and has installed two automatic water quality monitoring stations in that river basin as a part of its program for assisting the State of Oregon in the abatement and control of pollution on this major tributary of the Columbia River.

We believe that these and many other activities and accomplishments in Oregon and elsewhere indicate that the Public Health Service is doing a commendable job in carrying out provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The transfer of responsibilities to a new and separate administration at this time could very well hinder rather than improve the program.

We are opposed to section 5 of S. 649 in its present form. This section, as written, would amend existing Federal law by authorizing the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to almost unilaterally promulgate and enforce standards of water quality for all interstate or navigable waters. A reading of the bill indicates such authority could be applied to practically all public waters within the State of Oregon. We call your attention to section 5(c) (5) which reads as follows:

"(5) The discharge of matter into such interstate waters, which reduces the quality of such waters below the water quality standards promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to paragraph (4) of this subsection** (whether the matter causing or contributing to such reduction is discharged directly into such waters or reaches such waters after discharge into tributaries of such waters), is subject to abatement in accordance with the provisions of this section." [Emphasis supplied].

In view of this, the following subsection, which is apparently designed to limit Federal jurisdiction, appears meaningless.

We believe application of this section 5 would constitute a usurpation of the powers and authority of the State of Oregon and that it is contrary to the public policy set forth in section 1 of Public Law 84-660 whereby Congress declares it to be its policy "*** to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of the States in preventing and controlling water pollution." *** Subsection (b) of section 1, Public Law 84-660, contains the following language: "(b) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as impairing or in any manner affecting any right or jurisdiction of the States with respect

to the waters (including boundary waters) of such States." S. 649 does not eliminate these provisions of existing law.

Despite assurances to the contrary, we are also concerned that authority granted the Secretary under section 5 could prejudice holders of water rights in Oregon and other States.

For example, an irrigation district which has been operating effectively for many years in accordance with State law could conceivably discharged return flows that were of a quality below established standards, yet such return flows would not necessarily be damaging to any downstream user. Abatement proceedings, if instituted during an irrigation season, could cause serious inconvenience and economic loss to the State and region.

As the committee is undoubtedly aware, Oregon's water code is one of the most comprehensive and forward looking in the Nation. Under this code, there is a continuing study of the State's water resources. Plans for conserving and augmenting these resources have been developed. Under Oregon law the following are recognized as beneficial public uses of water: Domestic, municipal, irrigation, power development, industrial, mining, recreation, wildlife, fishlife, and pollution abatement. Only when such uses may be found in mutually exclusive conflict, human consumption and livestock uses have priority. Otherwise, all are equal.

The State water resources board, which administers the Oregon Water Code, has systematically classified Oregon waters, and has completed establishment of programs for water use in the majority of the State's drainage basins, covering more than two-thirds of the land area of Oregon. Significantly, the board has consistently held that our waters are too valuable for other purposes to permit granting of rights for pollution abatement in lieu of adequate treatment, even though such use is permitted under State law. Once established, the board's programs are binding upon all State agencies.

We have found that present and future water requirements vary widely as to use between tributaries of a stream or between different parts of the main stem. For example, the headwaters or certain tributaries may be classified for recreation and compatible uses, other parts of the stream for power, irrigation, municipal, industrial, or other uses. We strongly believe that determinations of use are necessary before detailed standards of quality can be established on a practical basis. Therefore, it would appear unfeasible for the Federal Government to establish such standards. We urge the committee to consider the cost of investigations and studies of the type outlined above. Only through a procedure of this kind can full consideration be given to local needs and desires. As an alternative to the existing language of section 5, we recommend adoption of the amendment proposed by the Interstate Conference on Water Problems which will be presented for the committee's consideration by a representative of that organization.

We also strongly urge the adoption of language which will make it abundantly clear that Congress has no desire to permit the Secretary to interfere with uses of water for which rights have been, or will be, obtained under State law.

We have previously expressed support for expanded research in the field of water supply and pollution control. We recognize that pollution problems must be attacked and solved, thus we find highly desirable that portion of S. 649, which provides a means whereby improved methods of controlling wastes from combined storm and sanitary sewers may be determined. We have also previously endoresd language similar to that which provides for an increase in the maximum construction grants available to individual communities and metropolitan area projects, even though this new feature would have relatively little application in Oregon. Total funds allocated to this State, for construction grants annually, is about $1,250,000. Thus, it may be seen that one eligible project costing approximately $3,333,000 would use up most of the Federal allocation for 1 year. The increased grant authorization for metropolitan area projects should be of great value in other areas but no projects of this magnitude are foreseen in Oregon at the present time.

We find section 12, dealing with the problem of synthetic detergents, to be an admirable approach and one which is in the spirit of the existing Water Pollution Control Act whereby all parties at interest are assured a voice in the recommendatory process.

While we object to certain features of the bill under discussion, we recognize the continuing need for effort on the part of all concerned to eliminate pollution. Continued progress and well-being of our State and Nation depends on an adequate supply of usable water for all beneficial purposes. It is in this spirit we have suggested amendments to S. 649.

42-032-65--8