DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Washington, D.C., December 7, 1964.

Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,

Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, Committee on Public Works, U.S. Senate.

DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: This is in response to your letter dated November 24, 1964. In that letter you request a statement describing the role and responsibilities of the Department of Agriculture which relate to the water quality implications of the proposal of the Northern States Power Co., to construct a large thermal electric power generating plant on the St. Croix River in the vicinity of Stillwater, Minn.

The Department of Agriculture does not have any regulatory authorities or responsibilities directly pertaining to the water quality or any other aspect of the construction or operation of the proposed generating plant. Neither does this Department have lands under its jurisdiction in the vicinity of the proposed powerplant. Yet it appears that this installation could strongly affect the activities and interests of this Department.

We understand that the proposed powerplant would divert cooling water from and return it to the St. Croix River and that its owner contemplates using that river to transport large quantities of coal by barge to provide energy for the plant. We understand also that questions have arisen regarding possible effects of the proposed plant's installation and operation on air and water pollution and on the continued utilization and enjoyment of St. Croix River Basin for various types of outdoor recreation.

The Department of Agriculture has nationwide responsibility for several activities directly related to the development and enjoyment of outdoor recreation facilities, both public and private. It provides technical and financial assistance to private landowners who wish to develop various types of incomeproducing outdoor recreation enterprises. Similar types of assistance are available under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, through this Department, to qualified sponsoring organizations who develop public waterbased recreation facilities in small watershed projects.

Apparently there is need for additional power in the area and the installation of a plant of the type proposed would contribute significantly to economic growth and development in the area it serves. This Department is an active participant in the administration's efforts to promote and facilitate economic development-particularly in rural areas.

We do not now have sufficient reliable information regarding the nature and magnitude of possible beneficial or adverse effects of this proposal to appraise its overall merit. We are very pleased to know that your subcommittee has scheduled a hearing on this proposal. This hearing will undoubtedly make available a great deal of pertinent official information.

The Recreation Advisory Council, on which the Department of Agriculture is represented, is also interested with problems of this nature. This Council is a Cabinet-level body established by the President in April 1962 to provide broad policy advice on all important matters affecting outdoor recreation resources. As Chairman of the RAC, I am concerned about any development which might affect the potential for outdoor recreation.

One of the studies in which the Recreation Advisory Council is interested is a study sponsored jointly by the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture to develop recommendations for a nationwide system of wild rivers. Such a system would protect and maintain certain streams in their free-flowing state so that unique fishing, canoeing, floating, and other outdoor recreation opportunities will be retained. The St. Croix is one of the rivers included in this study. Although the part of the river selected for detailed study is a segment above the location of the proposed powerplant, the draft report of the task force includes a recommendation pertaining to the lower stretch of the river which would be affected by the powerplant. This recommendation reads as follows:

"The St. Croix River below the study stretch is a recreation resource of outstanding quality, even though development precludes classifying it as a wild river. Appropriate measures should be taken to assure perpetuation of this portion of the stream as a recreation resource of high quality."

It is my understanding that there are a number of alternate sites which have been considered. I believe the cost of installation at alternate sites and the economic values to the respective communities involved should be carefully

weighed against the recreational and esthetic values which might be destroyed if the powerplant is located on the St. Croix.

Thank you for the opportunity of contributing to the hearing record.

Sincerely yours,

ORVILLE L. FREEMAN, Secretary.

Senator NELSON. Senator Metcalf, did you wish to make any comment?

Senator METCALF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No comment at this time.

I am pleased to be here, to participate in this hearing, to hear about this uniquely beautiful recreation area, and the problem of the development of this area. This is a national problem. The problem of preservation of our recreational resources is one in which we have a national interest, and I think we are going to set some precedents here today. Senator NELSON. Thank you, Senator Metcalf.

If some of the witnesses have statements that are a repeat of something that has been said before, we would appreciate it if you would simply insert those statements into the record.

The importance of this record, which will be printed, is to have it available for the study of the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution and for the study of the Members of Congress in the preparation of legislation. What Senator Metcalf's or my opinion may be will not be affected by the oral presentation here because we will have before us the written record of all the testimony that is submitted.

If someone wishes to add to his testimony to cover some points that are not covered in this hearing or wishes to submit a statement, the record will remain open on these hearings until the 18th. At that time the record will be closed and sent to the printer.

I now call upon Mr. Murray Stein, chief enforcement officer and Assistant Chief, Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control of the U.S. Public Health Service.

Mr. Stein, you will be followed by Dr. Clarence M. Tarzwell. It might be helpful, in opening your remarks here, if you would give us Dr. Tarzwell's qualifications in this area of water pollution.

STATEMENT OF MURRAY STEIN, CHIEF ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND ASSISTANT CHIEF, DIVISION OF WATER SUPPLY AND POLLUTION CONTROL, PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Mr. STEIN. Yes, sir.

Dr. Tarzwell is our chief aquatic biologist. As you know, we pride ourselves on our scientific team and the variety of scientific competencies we have in water pollution control. Dr. Tarzwell is the senior member of our biologic team. Among other things, Dr. Tarzwell is an internationally acclaimed expert-in my opinion and I handle expert witnesses, I think this stands up-acclaimed expert on the effect of thermal pollution on fish and aquatic life. As a matter of fact, Dr. Tarzwell has set up the experiments and the standards that most aquatic biologists throughout the world use in determining the effect of thermal pollution on aquatic life.

We consider ouselves very fortunate in having Dr. Tarzwell on our staff.

Senator NELSON. Mr. Stein, may I interrupt you at this moment? Can everyone in the audience hear the testimony of the witness? Is there anyone who cannot hear it clearly?

All right, Mr. Stein, you may proceed.

Mr. STEIN. Thank you, sir.

In its lower reaches, the St. Croix River forms the boundary between the States of Minnesota and Wisconsin. The river is universally acclaimed as being spectacularly beautiful.

In riding up here today, I would say I want to join with that. In the course of my work, I have been working at this for 23 years, I think I have seen most of the rivers in the United States, looked at them professionally. You, indeed, have a jewel here. This is a wonderful river.

This esthetic consideration enhances the concern, which we share, for protecting and maintaining the quality of its waters. This concern has an understandably practical and realistic basis in the predominant and important use of these waters. The basin is sparsely populated and is a center for park and recreational activities in the MinneapolisSt. Paul area. The river is used for all forms of water sports, including swimming, skiing, fishing, and canoeing. There are approximately 15 marinas and boat ramps and at least 6 swimming areas within the stretch of the river from its mouth to Stillwater. Swimming from boats is also practiced. Waterside parks are found in Stillwater and Bayport, here in Minnesota, and in Hudson, Wis. Approximately 16 species of game fish, including sturgeon, northern pike, walleye, bass, and trout, and 11 varieties of rough fish make their habitat in these waters.

Federal enforcement jurisdiction and procedures to abate pollution are currently applicable in this area under the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Our assistance was requested by the Honorable Karl F. Rolvaag, Governor of Minnesota, and the Honorable John W. Reynolds, Governor of Wisconsin, to extend to the interstate and intrastate pollution problems of the Mississippi River from the Coon Rapids Dam in Minnesota, through Lake Pepin, including the major tributaries in the two States. The conference held in this matter between our Department and the representatives of the Minnesota and Wisconsin State Water Pollution Control Agencies on February 8, 1964, defined the enforcement area to include the lower reaches of the St. Croix River as one of the major tributaries, along with the Minnesota River, to the main stem of the Mississippi. As recommended by the conferees, we are engaged in conducting the Twin Cities-Upper Mississippi River project to study and identify the pollution problems with a view toward their resolution.

Our Department considers this area so important that we have a resident group here right now of 23 people on the job full time, this will be expanded to 26, total complement, and we are putting about a quarter of a million dollars a year into this study. We intend to keep up with at least that scope of assistance in the area until we come up with an equitable solution to the problem.

The St. Croix River has been the subject of a routine intensive survey by the project staff and has been found to be a relatively clean stream. Three of the four largest communities along the river, Stillwater and Bayport, Minn., and Hudson, Wis., provide treatment for

their waste discharges to the St. Croix, and the fourth community, the city of Prescott, Wis., discharges its treated wastes directly to the Mississippi River. These communities range in population size from 8,100 to 1,536. Only one industry, located in Bayport, is discharging treated waste directly to the St. Croix in this stretch and the discharge appears to have no significant effect on the water quality. The survey adequately confirms the safety of these waters for bathing and further indicates their very good quality for recreational pursuits involving body contact.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act provides procedures for the abatement of existing pollution. While Federal enforcement action to abate potential pollution is not authorized by the act, we naturally are concerned if new sources of pollution would degrade water quality when existing pollution is abated.

The Federal act also authorizes us to furnish technical assistance to State water pollution control agencies at their request to find solutions to any specific problem of water pollution confronting any State, interstate agency, community, municipality, or industrial plant. In addition, the act specifies that comprehensive programs for eliminating or reducing pollution of interstate waters and their tributaries are to be prepared and developed in cooperation with Federal agencies, State and interstate water pollution control agencies, and the municipalities and industries involved. For these purposes we are authorized to make joint investigations with any such agencies of the condition of any waters in any State or States, and of the discharges of any sewage, industrial wastes, or substance which may adversely affect such waters. The comprehensive plans are directed toward the development of both short- and long-range guidelines designed to provide a regulated supply of clean water available for all legitimate uses to the present and future population of the area.

The findings and recommendations of the ongoing project—that is, the project for which we now have 23 people and are investing a quarter of a million dollars a year-study may well result in requirements for costly remedial facilities to abate existing pollution. It appears, therefore, that it would only be equitable that every effort be made to assure that the entry of potential pollution from new sources will not leave an adverse effect on the water quality provided by the water pollution abatement program. Within the statutory authorities of the Federal act and the available staff and resources, we are prepared to cooperate to the fullest extent in these efforts.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear before your committee.

Senator NELSON. I didn't understand from your testimony the exact scope of the study that is now being made.

Mr. STEIN. We are studying the entire metropolitan area involv ing the Twin Cities as part of a Federal enforcement case. We were called into this case by Governors Rolvaag and Reynolds and we met with the State agencies concerned and came to some conclusions and made some recommendations. Possibly the first one, I think this is the key, is no surprise to the people here. The waters around the Twin City area, from industries, municipalities, and strong overflow sources, have created a health hazard for those engaging in water activities, have caused visual nuisance interference with fish and fishing,

40-957-65- -2

caused sludge banks, which gives noxious odors, and interferes with aquatic life and feeding and spawning grounds for fish propagation. This polution must be abated. We and the State agencies are proceeding with an active program to do that. Our study is designed to abate this pollution. The study area includes the lower reaches of the St. Croix River, the area covered of interest to this committee today. Our view has been that if the Twin City area is cleaned up, it seems to be fruitless to clean up an area and then have a potential source of pollution come in on top of the cleanup program and develop a new problem. It seems equitable that the whole area should be considered at once, and I suspect that is why the conferees included the lower regions of the St. Croix in the enforcement area.

Senator NELSON. When did your committee commence its study? Mr. STEIN. We had the conference in February. I don't think we were fully staffed until several months later, about 3 or 4 months after that, in June, and we still aren't fully staffed. We have a complement authorization for 26 people and we have 23. We are practically completely staffed. It takes time to get experts to engage in this type

of work.

Senator NELSON. And this study is being conducted under your direction, it is?

Mr. STEIN. Yes, sir; it is an enforcement action under the direction of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in cooperation with the State air and water pollution control agencies concerned. It is financed by the Federal Government and under the authority of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which is under the jurisdiction of your committee.

Senator NELSON. Based upon the findings that your committee makes, your Department has the authority to commence enforcement actions to abate this pollution after you have set some standards?

Mr. STEIN. Yes, sir. I think, though, that under the statute the first step in the enforcement action has been taken, that is, the calling of the preliminary conference. I think once we do that under the act our process is excellent. We have a mandatory procedure to follow that rule to the end. If there is a determination that interstate pollution exists, and I think from reading the summary it is very clear that pollution exists in the area, we attempt to get a solution at the conference stage and have the States take care of the remedial actions under State programs. In almost all the cases we have accomplished this. If this is not successful, then we have a public hearing and the Secretary would issue recommendations directly himself. If that is not successful, we can ask the Attorney General to bring court action. In all the cases we have had, involving more than 650 cities and about a like number of industries, we only had to go to court once against the one city. The vast majority of the cases have been solved at the conference stage.

Senator NELSON. Those are all the questions that I have.

Judge MCDONOUGH. You stated earlier this is in the nature of an adversary proceeding. Will we have the opportunity of asking this witness one or two questions?

Senator NELSON. I would have no objection.

The procedure is that the governmental witnesses will go on this morning, that the proponents of the location of the plant would go on