Senator MUSKIE. Well, who does run it interstate?

Mr. ADAMS. Well, there is a question, and it cannot be answered. You go to HEW for one answer, he would go to his own Basin Commission, and the President's Council for another.

And I would further suggest that this bill, which has been before the Interstate Conference on Water Resources, and has been revamped considerably to its present form, is also awaiting or will be, presently the approval of this Congress.

Senator MUSKIE. All legislation is subject to improvement, as you and I both know.

Mr. ADAMS. Yes.

Senator MUSKIE. But let me ask you this: Suppose that you decide that the source of water ought to sustain fish life. Let's just take that for an example.

Now, is there any disagreement among States or as between States and the Federal Government, founded on fact, as to the oxygen content that will sustain fish life?

Mr. ADAMS. No.

Senator MUSKIE. Well, then, this isn't a standard as to which there ought to be any difference as among States, or as between States and the Federal Government.

Mr. ADAMS. Well, there again arises, I think, a question of interpretation as to what is meant by a standard.

In other words, if it is a standard of DO, DOD, copper, acid, cynanide, all of these pollutants with which we have to dealSenator MUSKIE. Well, all of these things are subject to scientific proof, aren't they? Once you have the proof, should there be any disagreement as to standards?

Mr. ADAMS. If a certain given amount of wastes are discarded in a hundred cubic feet per second of water or a thousand or ten thousand or a hundred thousand, the resulting condition is different.

Senator MUSKIE. Whatever the variation is, they are subject to scientific analysis and proof, are they not?

Mr. ADAMS. That's right. And unfortunately we are not at a point today when all of these, even these rivers, are leveled out, as Dr. Wollman has said. We have got to undergo tremendous variations. Some States would not have the opportunity to settle a reservoir capacity, to level out these flows. You are in a tremendously complicated situation. And what I have said here--this possibility, in your New England area, of three possible standards, passed and approved in good faith. I say let's go slow on this section 4 right

now.

Senator MUSKIE. Isn't what we want a standard that is realistic and based upon the results of objective analysis as to what the problem is and what the need is? Isn't that what we want? Mr. Stein has testified that he thought the setting of Federal standards would promote this kind of common effort and cooperation. You think it would be divisive in nature.

Mr. ADAMS. Well, it is a conclusion of my group that-I cannot interpret what is in each man's mind-I have given you the total vote, and that is the best I can do. One of the comments one of the members made, which I have included in the script, is that guidelines, yes, that

would be appreciated. I do not know how much more time you want to give to this. But if you

Senator MUSKIE. Why don't you proceed.

Mr. ADAMS. I have given you everything that was on the ballots, and it is in the record, and you can read it as you please. But with this double standard of interpretation of what standards mean, then I would say

Senator MUSKIE. I am not trying to confuse your testimony, Mr. Adams. You are capable of making it very clear, that I know. I am simply asking the questions in order that we may have a meeting of minds as to what each of us understands from the bill and from your testimony. I have found our colloquy here very useful.

I do not know if my colleagues have questions at this point.
Why don't you proceed with your statement now?

Mr. ADAMS. It would seem, sir, that this standard for acceptable water in interstate carriers, which all of the States have worked onnow, that is a uniform thing. It covers the protection of the public traveling on railroad trains and airplanes and other things. And there may be some fellows' internal workings are such that they can take more coliforms than others. But we have set that, and that is a good thing to go by. And I do not believe the administrators have any objection to that.

Senator MUSKIE. The average man is probably the fellow who would be hurt most by average standards.

Mr. ADAMS. Well-it would appear that whoever is responsible for the draft of section 4 of the bill before you, has not only "ridden roughshod" over these assurances so necessary to the success of a StateFederal partnership effort, but has forgotten that only a relatively small number of the States are "sold" on this procedure of operating under State stream classifications and standards. Those in New England that have adopted them already, naturally oppose a Federal overlay of another set of standards, possibly to conflict with their own. Under them compliance efforts are already underway. I would again remind you that the vote was almost unanimous, 45 to 5 against this section of the bill.

Senator MUSKIE. Isn't the net effect of the vote that your people are all for getting more Federal money, but all against getting more Federal control?

Mr. ADAMS. I could not say that. I do not have to any more. But frankly, I do not think so. I hear a good deal of crabbing, because of the reports that have to be made the things they have to do now that they did not do before. And I think it is probably all to the good that they are doing it. But this matter of Federal-State relations-it needs to be coaxed and persuaded. I do not think you need any more law now to help bring out the best results of what is already underway.

Senator MUSKIE. You and I are in complete agreement that it is important to maintain the integrity of the States in all Federal-State relationships. I think we disagree only in the application of changes at particular moments.

Mr. ADAMS. This emergency public works program made a great inroad in our State, and was tremendously helpful in getting more of this work done.

Senator MUSKIE. That is true in mine, too.

Mr. ADAMS. Probably in yours, and in other States. But it has always been my conclusion, in the 43 years I have been in State and municipal work, that when a thing is going, let it go-don't hamper it. Wait until something shows up. And I think my good friend Stein might want some help from this committee when he really gets to dogging some of these polluters, and his authority to go in and correct on some of these problems is challenged.

But this group is not "agin" everything. They are on record, 27 to 18, in favor of the first section of the bill despite the reservations of many as to just what it means.

As to section 3, covering increase in certain authoritzed municipal grants with a new provision for financial aid to municipalities proposing to separate sanitary sewage from combined sewers for purposes of improved stream protection, their vote is 35 to 9 in favor.

My personal experience as Grand Rapids' city sanitary engineer some 40 years ago where that city was served about one-half on the combined plan, and one-half by separate storm and sanitary sewers, leaves me "cold" and in doubt as to the justification of this new authorization.

If I had been voting, I would have voted against it.

The figures are no longer available to support my recollection, but coliform tests run on combined sewer discharges and storm sewer discharges during periods of runoff varied but little, particularly during the higher flows.

Since up-to-date tests of this nature are already underway and the results will be known presently in the Detroit metropolitan area, would it not be prudent for this committee to insist on proof of need before opening the Federal purse still further to this type of outlay? Senator MUSKIE. So you think your association is wrong on that point.

Mr. ADAMS. I do.

Then, as I recall it, other cities such as Columbus, Ohio, have devised and used other methods not covered for benefits by this section to control storm water pollution. And their little river at Columbus, the Scioto, demanded the best possible quality. The combined sewer overflows were retained and settled in riverside tanks out of which discharge was taken later to provide maximum stream protection.

Solids were settled out, and either went to the interceptor or the river.

Any municipality desiring to follow the Columbus method or others would not be eligible to receive aid under this section as now drafted. All in all, it would seem best to this ex-administrator to delay for another session of Congress, at least the enactment of this part of section 3, while your staff does further digging for the answer to the storm water pollution problem. Further important staff work could well be devoted to the entire bill, as I see it.

Now for the reservations and comments that have come in to the chairman explaining the vote of some of the administrators.

Eight have commented on the first section of the bill (approved 27 to 18) to establish the "positive national water pollution control policy". One says "extremely dangerous and naive as written". Another "no" voter says "the actual policy proposed is not clear and

Two others

as stated will cause more argument than clarification." would have found the proposed statutory declaration satisfactory if phrased as it appears as recommendation No. 1 of the December 1960 conference called by President Eisenhower. One suspicious Great Lakes State administrator voting "no" says "that our long-range policy should be 'keeping waters as clean as possible' providing 'possible' includes 'practicable,' which I am not sure was not intended." Senator MUSKIE. Have you any idea why he is so sure?

Mr. ADAMS. I do not know why he should be that way.

A midsouth administrator explains his "no" vote in these words— "I believe in keeping waters as clean as possible in relation to reasonable and necessary uses."

Senator MUSKIE. I think he should have voted yes, then.

Mr. ADAMS. "Some assimilation capacity should be allowed. Treatment for treatment sake would not be a sound policy." A "yes" voter from west of the Mississippi says, "Set up the policy-let the States

act."

Senator MUSKIE. Did he vote against the increased grants for storm sewers?

Mr. ADAMS. He voted yes. But he says to set up the policy and let the States carry it out.

A Southwest State administrator explains his "yes" vote in saying, "It is presumed 'as clean as possible' implies complete treatment to the extent of current knowledge and economics."

While this ex-administrator does not vote in this poll, my court and administrative experience over a 43-year period leads me to conclude that enactment of this section of the bill will accomplish little. Certainly it will not do away in a pollution litigation showdown with the doctrine of "reasonable use" as recognized for years by judges of both State and Federal courts.

When I was studying law some years ago it was very clear that Federal courts required in most cases more effective proof of injury than did our State courts. I hope that is not the same now, for Murray's sake, because he is such a swell fellow and doing a good job.

Senator MUSKIE. I do not think either Mr. Stein or I would advocate an unreasonable use.

Mr. ADAMS. Then I raise the question, can administrators be blamed for tempering their daily decisions with some of the same commonsense and reasoning?

And that is the thing that goes to the heart of this thing, because no matter what the law, no matter what the problem, with this different variation in resources, there has got to be reason applied in any solution.

Senator MUSKIE. But you still believe in a government of law, Mr. Adams.

Mr. ADAMS. Oh, yes. And that is certainly done-when the judge says it.

Now, four explanations of "no" votes on section 2 of the bill appear. This section creating the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration was not favored, the vote being 3 for, but 46 against. One Midwestern State administrator calls attention to the fact "that it is in conflict with item 7 of the Water Pollution Control Federation's

statement of policy on water pollution control revised October 11, 1962."

Another says "retain as is." A third sees "no need or advantages" to the change and says the administration of State-Federal relations "should remain in the Public Health Service" because "health is by far the dominant consideration."

Senator MUSKIE. Would it be fair to ask this question at this pointwould that administrator believe that unless water is needed for drinking purposes, the state of its quality is of no importance?

Mr. ADAMS. Would what?

Senator MUSKIE. Would that administrator take the position that unless water is needed for drinking purposes, that its quality is relatively unimportant?

Mr. ADAMS. Oh, I would not assume that, no, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. Then I wonder what he means by saying that "health is by far the dominant consideration."

Mr. ADAMS. That would take another 15 minutes to put that all in the record, as I see it.

When you get into court, when you get these problems before a tribunal, the one thing which sticks up and get the judge's ire up is the injury or the potential injury to health.

Now, there are lots of places, unfortunately, where we cannot have the fish life we would like, and we do not have. And we can work toward relieving that burden.

But when people are in jeopardy, their health-and of course now the fellows who have worked against water pollution control-the people that build these fine filtration plants, and will make a drinkable and safe water out of one that is frequently low-grade water.

Senator MUSKIE. But those who sponsor the bill believe that water quality is also important for industrial use, we believe it is also important for recreational use and agricultural uses, and not just for health. This is not to minimize the importance of water that will sustain health. What we are saying is that these other uses are important, too. Whereas this administrator says that health is by far the dominant consideration, which seems to suggest that he does not consider water quality important relative to these other uses. And I simply wanted to have his viewpoint clarified for the record, because I am sure he would not want to leave that impression.

Mr. ADAMS. Well, I would agree I do not think this administrator is as broad as he should have been there.

The fourth, from the Southwest favors "administration within the U.S. Public Health Service."

Now, the draft of the bill does not mention the U.S. Public Health Service but you see my administrators speak out here.

Five administrators from different sections of the Nation, approve, divide or fail to register opinion on section 3. One favors subsection (c) but opposes (a) and (b) of section 3 of the bill. The one not voting writes three paragraphs so he will have to bring in his comments separately. An eastern seaboard administrator splits his ballot by eliminating the words "separation of combined sewers" while favoring the increased grants for the other purposes, (a) and (b).

I am giving a cross-section of these fellows, and just what their thinking is, and just what they have turned in.