Our last witness-I do not think we are going to have time for the panel discussion, but I would like to suggest to Dr. Wollman and Mr. McCallum that after Mr. Callison's testimony we would appreciate any supplementary comments either of you would like to make in the light of what you have heard. I think that still might be useful, since I think we will have a little time.

Our next witness is Mr. Charles Callison, of the National Audubon Society.

Do you have a prepared statement?

STATEMENT OF CHARLES H. CALLISON, ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY

Mr. CALLISON. Mr. Chairman, my statement is brief, because I had the advantage of having to write it in Honolulu, where none of my files were present. So I was able to stick to the point and keep my statement brief.

With your permission, I would like to present it.

Mr. name is Charles H. Callison. I am assistant to the president of the National Audubon Society with headquarters in New York City.

I have been actively interested in water pollution control matters, both at the level of State government and at the level of Federal Government, for more than 20 years, during which I have been active in conservation work.

I started my career in conservation as an employee of the Missouri State Conservation Commission, and later served 9 years as conservation director of the National Wildlife Federation here in Washington, D.C.

I have the privilege and honor at the present time of serving as a member of the President's Water Pollution Control Advisory Board. The magnitude and complexity of the water pollution problem in the United States requires an aggressive, positive approach and high level Government authority to deal with it. It is a problem that will not be solved by half measures or by temporizing. And since we shall need to use all our water resources if America is to continue to grow and prosper and provide world leadership, we must set our sights on cleaning up streams and other waters that are now contaminated, and keeping all our waters as clean as possible. For this reason, the statement of positive policy in section 1 of S. 649 is of basic importance as a national guideline. There are still those who cling to the outmoded defeatist, and self-defeating philosophy that streams being used to carry away sewage and industrial wastes are being beneficially used. This is an argument constantly repeated by some spokesmen for polluting industries. I have heard it echoed by some Government officials whose responsibility it is to control and abate pollution.

I would recommend amending the statement of policy, in order to make its meaning crystal clear, by inserting in line 5 on page 2 of the bill, after the word "possible," the following: "and of improving waters now polluted."

The key to the future success and effectiveness of our water pollu tion control program is proposed in section 2. This I firmly believe

after rather close association with and observation of the program since the enactment of the 1956 law. There are five reasons why the provisions of section 2 must be passed.

1. Public health hazards are only a part of the destructive and debilitating effects of water pollution upon our national economy. In many instances of pollution, including some major cases where whole streams for many miles are poisoned by industrial wastes, the hazard to human health is virtually absent-unless one stretches the point that indirect health effects occur through the loss of recreational opportunities. To assign the control and abatement program to an agency that is historically and legally concerned with health problems, and one moreover that is traditionally administered by medically trained officers, limits the official concept of the program. It also limits the public image of the problem. It encourages the theory that so long as human health is not endangered, pollution is under control, or is not of serious public concern.

Mr. Chairman, in recent hearings that I have participated in in Honolulu, we heard State officials testify that the State health department which has such authority as exists in that State to control pollution is powerless to take any action against pollution unless they can show that public health is in danger.

So far as the law is concerned, that is all there is to water pollution. And that outmoded concept of water pollution is what is holding back the program in many States, and particularly those States where the responsibility is vested solely and narrowly in the Public Health Department.

The St. Louis bond issue, which has been mentioned here several times today, Mr. Chairman, was put over by a tremendous majority in a campaign that emphasized in particular the recreational, the esthetic, and the potential industrial values of the Mississippi River which are being destroyed and have been destroyed by pollution.

Public health was important in that campaign. But it was proportionately less than the total of the public interest concerned in cleaning up the Mississippi River-because nobody was getting sick, nobody was drinking the water, unless it is thoroughly treated from the polluted Mississippi.

My second point is the actual and potential public health aspects of sewage and some forms of chemical and radioactive pollution are indeed grave, but these would not be neglected-indeed we may be assured they would be given full emphasis-through an administration under the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare as proposed in this legislation.

Senator MUSKIE. Mr. Callison-I would like to get in the record at this point, to preserve continuity, and in response to a point that you made, a summary of State actions to establish water quality criteria standards, which I think would be very useful at this point in the record in showing the variations of criteria set by States.

Without objection, that will be included.

(The material referred to follows:)

Thus far 36 States have legislation that directs or permits the establishment of stream classifications and/or water quality standards. Of these, 22 States have established such classifications and/or standards and 14 have not. Criteria in use range from a minimum requirement of primary treatment of wastes to complex systems of stream classifications and water quality standards. In cer

tain States where fairly comprehensive systems have been established, standards and classifications are not applied statewide, and cases are judged on an individual basis.

Six formal interstate agencies, several informal interstate groups, and the International Joint Commission have legislation or agreements providing for water quality standards and classifications. All but five of the States are members of formal interstate agencies or informal interstate groups, and apply the established or agreed upon classifications and water quality standards to their interstate waters.

The following table summarizes State and formal interstate actions to establish stream classifications and/or water quality standards as determined by responses to a questionnaire of the Senate Public Works Committee and supplemented by information available to the Public Health Service.

Summary of State actions to establish water quality criteria or standards

State

Alabama.

Alaska....

Arizona

Arkansas..

California..

Colorado..

Connecticut....

Delaware.....

Florida..
Georgia..

Hawaii.

Idaho..

Illinois..

Indiana....

Iowa..

Kansas..

Authority

Water improvement commission has duty
to establish criteria or standards for
recognized limits of pollution; issues per-
mits for waste discharges.
Water pollution control authority respon-
sible for setting standards of pollution
and water purity, recognizing that no
single standard is applicable to all

waters.

Statutes do not provide specifically for
establishing stream standards or classi-
fications.

Water pollution control commission has
authority to set stream standards and
classify waters.

Statutes do not provide specifically for
establishing classifications or standards.
Objectives and requirements developed
by each regional board.
State health department shall establish
and enforce minimum general standards
as to quality of water supplied to the
public and as to quality of effluent of
sewerage systems and trade wastes.
Water resources commission adopts some
standards on a river valley basis and on
specific waste discharges. As member
of New England Interstate Water Pol-
lution Control Commission and the In-
terstate Sanitation Commission, some
waters subject to standards and classifi-
cation of these commissions.
No statutory authority to establish stand-
ards or classifications. Member of In-
terstate Commission on the Delaware
River and Delaware River Basin Com-
pact Commission.
No statutory authority to establish stand-
ards or stream classifications.
State board of health authorized to estab-
lish such standards of water quality
deemed necessary.

Department of health authorized to estab-
lish rules and regulations, and will adopt
standards.

State board of health authorized to estab-
lish and enforce minimum sanitary
standards.

No specific authority to establish stand-
ards or classifications. Member of
ORSANCO.

Stream pollution control board em-
powered to determine qualities and
properties of water that indicate dele-
terious pollution.
Department of health empowered to adopt
and enforce rules and regulations
restricting pollution.

State board of health authorized to make
rules and regulations.

Actions taken

No standards have been established.
Each pollution situation is reviewed
on its own merits in relation to down-
stream water uses.
No standards set.

None have been established.

None have been established. Waste discharges subject to permit by commission.

Each pollution problem dealt with on an individual basis.

Minimum standards established by
law and State board of health re-
lating to coliforms, floating, sus-
pended, and dissolved organic mat
ter, and toxic substances.
Effluent standards adopted for 2 river
valleys. Other waters classified and
subject to standards of the 2 inter-
state commissions.

Interstate commission has promulgated minimum standards for Delsware River within the State.

No classifications or standards adopted.
No specific standards established.

No standards adopted. Each case
dealt with on own merits.
Adopted minimum waste effluent
standards.

As member of ORSANCO, subscribes
to its minimum standards for efflu-
ents discharged to the Illinois, Ohio,
Mississippi, and Wabash Rivers.
Regulations promulgated for minimum
effluent and stream standards.

No rules and regulations published.
Pollution controlled by orders.

Minimum criteria adopted for Kansas
River Basin. In certain other basins
policy has been adopted which pro-
vides minimum quality criteria.

Summary of State actions to establish water quality criteria or standards-Con.

Summary of State actions to establish water quality criteria or standards-Con.

State

South Carolina.....

South Dakota.......

Tennessee.

Texas..
Utah..

Vermont...

Virginia...

Washington....

West Virginia..

Wisconsin.
Wyoming..

Authority

Water pollution control authority is em

powered to establish classifications and
standards of water quality.
Committee on water pollution required to
classify waters into 2 classes; permits are
required for which committee prescribes
standards of water quality.

Stream pollution control board responsible
for establishing standards of water
quality.

No specific statutory requirement permits
required which set conditions.
Water pollution control board has author-
ity to classify waters and to adopt,
modify, or repeal standards of quality.
Water resources bo rd authorized to
classify waters not classified by legis-
lature, and to determine degree of purity
to be maintained.
State water control board required to
establish, modify, amend, or cancel
standards of water quality as necessary.

Pollution control commission authorized
to establish water quality standards.

State water resources commission promul-
gates rules and regulations.

No specific statutory authority.
do..

Mr. CALLISON. Many States have placed water pollution responsibilities under an agency separate from, or broader than, the health department. I think it can be shown that in general the most aggressive and effective State programs are the ones carried out by the agencies that are more broadly based. The trend in State government has