Page images
PDF
EPUB

been in that direction. The public health aspects of pollution have not been neglected, or deemphasized, in any of the States that have created the agencies that are apart from, or broader than, the State health department.

3. Creation of a Federal Water Pollution Control Agency as proposed in S. 619 would make the program more readily identifiable by the public and the Congress, and, therefore, more responsive to public support and criticism.

4. It would assure a more aggressive enforcement policy. Doctors, and particularly those that are research oriented, tend to be unenihusiastic about becoming embroiled in the hurly-burly of law enforcement. Public health officials have shown à disposition to shrink from the political reaction and controversy that sometimes accompanies an enforcement action in water pollution abatement.

5. A fifth important reason for passing this legislation is that it would benefit the health research activities of the Public Health Service which are indeed its major responsibilities. Scientific research by its very nature should be pursued at a consistant level in an academic atmosphere, and it thrives best if relatively sheltered from political controversy. Controversy is inevitable in water pollution control because it involves industrial interests, special interests, municipal taxes, and other aspects that tend to fire the emotions. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, the action programs authorized by the Water Pollution Control Act do not belong in the Environmental Health Center which the Public Health Service wishes to establish. This does not mean that very important basic research in water pollution problems as related to environmental health could not be conducted by and through such a center. It seems to me the proper kind of agency to conduct such research.

Section 3 of S. 649 is a logical and needed extension of the construction grants program which, within the present limitation, has been an effective stimulant to municipal and local abatement of sewage pollution. The storm sewer problem is deterring action in many old cities because of its magnitude and cost.

Other provisions of section 3 would provide more equitable assistance to the larger cities and proportionately greater national benefits in cleaner streams.

Section 4 would provide a new and potentially useful tool when it becomes necessary to enforce a cleanup in interstate and navigable Waters. We are going to need stronger tools than are now provided. I believe, however, that this authority should be made optional rather than mandatory, as water-quality standards are, in the man, an untried

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you, Mr. Callison. I have just a few questions.

Is it your feeling that as to the desirable separation of the operating program from the Public Health Service, that that is shared by conserrationists generally?

Mr. CALLISON. Yes, I think it is, sir. Senator Muskis. Has the President's Advisory Board on Water Pollution, of which you are a member, expressed itself with regard to appropriate organizational level for the program?

tool to date.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. CALLISON. It has, Mr. Chairman. It passed a resolution on this subject the first time last September in a meeting in St. Louis, an action which I believe Mr. Adams referred to. And then again at its very recent meeting, only last week, in Honolulu.

Senator MUSKIE. What position did it take?

Mr. CALLISON. It took a position last week—incidentally, Mr. Chairman, the Water Pollution Control Advisory Board, in passing the resolution which it did last week, requested the chairman of the board to make that action known to this committee. And I am sure Mr. Quigly, Assistant Secretary Quigly, who is our chairman, will do so when he has an opportunity.

Now, just as a member of the board, I did not feel it was my place to report. But in response to your question, the board did pass a resolution recommending action to elevate the water pollution control program in accordance with the provisions of your bill, S. 649. And it said that this should be done either by legislation or by administrative action, by executive action.

The vote by the board on giving their standby executive action was unanimous. Two members of the board qualified their votes to make it clear that they did not favor legislative action—they felt it should be done only by executive action.

That in general is the action.
Senator MUSKIE. How many members were there who voted ?

Mr. CALLISON. There were nine members, and there were eight present at the meeting.

Senator MUSKIE. So six felt it ought to be done by either legislative or executive action, and two felt executive action.

Mr. CALLISON. That's right. That is, on the question that it should be done. The members of the board were unanimous—that there should be such an elevation. And in connection with that, they also voiced their feeling in the context of this total resolution that the program should remain in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Senator MUSKIE. It might be of interest, I think, to the committee and for the record if we knew the varied interests that are represented on the advisory board.

Mr. Callison. Mr. Chairman, the members of the board have considerable experience. I think in going over the list that I am perhaps the least qualified member of the board. But there are on the board the former mayor of the city of Fort Worth, a man who has been a leader in the U.S. Mayors Conference and American Municipal Association, one of their leaders.

Senator MUSKIE. Would you give us their names?
Mr. Callison. That gentleman is Tom McCann, Ft. Worth, Tex.

Mr. John Biggs, is presently the director of the State game department of the State of Washington.

Dr. Maurice Goddard, Secretary of the Department of Lands and Waters in the State of Pennsylvania.

Mr. Leroy Mathias, executive secretary of the Red River Valley Association-I think his headquarters are in Shreveport, La.

Mr. William Warne, Director of the Department of Water Resources of the State of California.

Dr. Clair Boruff, technical director of the Hiram Walker Distilleries Co., with headquarters at Peoria, Ill. He is a very able chemist, a man of long experience in this field.

Mr. James Gleason, who is a county commissioner in Portland, Oreg., and I believe he is the first vice president now of the County Governments Association of the United States.

Those were the eight-counting myself--and I have given you my background. We were the eight members present at the past meeting.

The ninth member is Mr. Ed Reed, who is the executive secretary and director of the Alabama Municipal League.

Senator MUSKIE. As a conservationist, I would like to get your reaction to a point made by Mr. Adams in his testimony, relating to section 1, which is the policy statement.

It is the purpose of this act to establish a positive national water pollution control policy of keeping waters as clean as possible as opposed to the negative policy of attempting to use the full capacity of such waters for waste assimulation.

Would you consider that policy to be in conflict with the doctrine of reasonable use to which Mr. Adams made reference?

Mr. CALLISON. Well, the words “reasonable use” are subject to broad interpretation and lead, I think, to more controversy over the long run, and will continue to lead to more controversy than this kind of statement, the one that is contained in your bill-because what is reasonable has an entirely different meaning to say,

industrial corporations which feel that they should have the privilege, which they may have been enjoying for decades or even a hundred years, of using a nearby stream as a means of disposing of its waste—that looks reasonable to that company. It may not look reasonable to others who may need the water for different purposes. It may be entirely inconsistent with the national interests.

But I would agree with Mr. Adams and with you, sir, that in the application of any program, any law, you have to use reason.

Senator MUSKIE. So to that extent, you would not find it incongruent. You do not propose an unreasonable use, and I am sure Mr. Adams doesn't propose the national policy ought to be to keep the waters as dirty as possible, either. Mr. CALLISON. No, sir. Senator MUSKIE. Senator Boggs?

Senator Boggs. I was wondering if your advisory committee, in the course of its deliberations, gave any thought or any inquiry or consideration to new methods or new approaches, technological approaches, or materials to be used in pollution abatement by industries and municipalities that would lessen the problem especially for storm water filtration.

Mr. CALLISON. Senator Boggs, our advisory board has given a great deal of thought to the possibilities of improving techniques and methods in the whole area. Certainly there may be vast opportunities for new approaches to the storm sewer problem. If the legislation could he amended to in such a way as to not foreclose this possibility, I think that would be advisable.

We have got to keep our approaches open and fiexible however possible. And there certainly does have to be continued research and expanded research in industrial waste treatment problems.

This is one of the areas where Government agencies have really not, I think, been competent to do their best work up to now for the simple reason that not only are medical officers of the Government agencies not tuned to or are very competent in industrial waste treatment problems, but the men in the health agencies we have depended on, and we are depending on to the greatest extent to carry out the problem, the sanitary engineers, have not been trained in these problems.

This thought occurred to me recently, and I have been questioning some of my very good friends who are sanitary engineers. They ad mit that one phase of their education that was sadly neglected was training in industrial waste treatment practices.

I think perhaps we should get something done to encourage our engineering schools to broaden the courses of training they are now presenting to sanitary engineers on the basis of which they are giving them diplomas and degrees.

Senator Boggs. Thank you.
Senator MUSKIE. Senator Metcalf?
Senator METCALF. No questions.

Senator MUSKIE. Mr. McCallum, do you feel moved to make a statement at this point? We would be delighted to have it. Mr. Cal. lison, why don't you stay there. Dr. Wollman, won't you come up, too. And I will just invite Dr. Wollman and Mr. McCallum to make such observations as they might think appropriate at this point. I doubt that we have time for a panel discussion beyond that. But the committee might be prompted to ask a question or two that we would like to address to the whole panel.

Mr. McCallum, would you identify yourself.

STATEMENT OF GORDON MCCALLUM, CHIEF, WATER SUPPLY,

WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM

Mr. McCallum. I have been on this assignment for 7 years, during which time we have been trying to implement the 1956 act and the 1961 amendment.

I think, as has been pointed out here, one of our difficult problems has been getting appropriations. And the other one is getting personnel.

If I might comment a little on Mr. Callison's reference to our lack of education in sanitary engineering, I could make a list much longer than his on things I missed when I was in school. But I think the problem is much more complex than that, but certainly which would be helped by better education.

But one of the things that needs to be done is to spend more money on research as to how to handle these types of problems.

It was brought out in testimony before another congressional committee recently that a certain type industry spends $250 million a year on advertising, but less than $5 million a year on research with respect to water pollution.

Senator MUSKIE. You think that is a fair figure?

[ocr errors]

Mr. McCALLUM. Well, that was a figure that was given before Jr. Jones' Subcommittee on Resources and Power of the House Government Operations Committee.

Our total appropriation in the Public Health Service for water pollution research is $3 million a year, despite the fact that our 1961 amendments authorized $5 million a year for just three specific types of research. And I think until we do attack this problem with resources somewhat comparable to the problem, we are going to continue to be deficient. Senator MUSKIE. Until we get some technological breakthroughs, there is that constant resistance. Technological breakthroughs that are economical.

Mr. McCALLUM. Yes; exactly.

Mr. Chairman, I have a statement that I would like to put in the record at this point. Senator MUSKIE. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The statement referred to follows:)

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

STATEMENT OF GORDON MCCALLUM ON ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF PUBLIC LAW 660 The Federal water pollution control program is carried on under Public Law 660, which was enacted in 1956 and greatly strengthened and broadened by amendments (Public Law 87–88) enacted in 1961. This legislation calls for wide rariety of activities in research, enforcement, and other fields and authorizes program grants to State and interstate agencies and construction grants to municipalities. In the past 7 years much has been accomplished under this program.

Since the enactment of the 1956 act, Congress has given ever increasing attention and support to this program.

In addition to the very comprehensive legislation which Congress has enacted, it is most significant to note the hundredfold increase in appropriations, from $1.2 to $125 million, and the corresponding sevenfold manpower increase in the program, from 157 to almost 1,100, since the passage of the 1956 legislation.

From the very beginning, the program of grants for the construction of municipal waste treatment facilities has been remarkably successful. Immediately after the passage of the 1956 act, national construction of waste treatment works increased 62 percent, from a level of $222 million annually to a level of $360 million. When more adequate authorizations were enacted in 1961, construction jumped again to $545 million in 1962, a record level.

To assist State and interstate water pollution control agencies in establishing
and maintaining adequate programs, grants of $5 million a year are authorized.
In its short history this grant program has encouraged the States to increase
their own appropriations for water pollution control from $1.4 million in 1956
to $10,3 million in 1963, a 230-percent increase.
In the area of enforcement, a total of 20 actions have been taken to date.
Twenty-eight States and the District of Columbia have been parties to these
actions which have involved more than 300 municipalities, a like number of
industries, and have affected some 5,500 miles of rivers and bays. More than
$500 million has been expended to date for remedial works in about one-half

Seven comprehensive river basin programs for long-term water quality man-
agement are now underway. Comprehensive programs will be developed in
all the 21 major drainage basins of the United States within the next decade.
The investigation and planning phase of the first of these projects, the Arkansas-
Red River Basins water quality project, has been completed. A report will be
submitted to Congress shortly.

Research programs of the Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control are conducted at the Taft Center in Cincinnati, generally acknowledged as being the foremost water pollution control and water quality research center in the world. Among the staff of 140 professional and supporting workers maintained

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

of these areas.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]
« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »