to in subsection (a) and endangering the health or welfare of persons in a State other than that in which the discharge or discharges originate is occurring.

(2) The agencies called to attend such conference may bring such persons as they desire to the conference. Not less than three weeks' prior notice of the conference date shall be given to such agencies.

(3) Following this conference, the Secretary shall prepare and forward to all the water pollution control agencies attending the conference a summary of conference discussions including (A) occurrence of pollution of interstate and navigable waters subject to abatement under this Act; (B) adequacy of measures taken toward abatement of the pollution; and (C) nature of delays, if any, being encountered in abating the pollution.

(d) If the Secretary believes, upon the conclusion of the conference or thereafter, that effective progress toward abatement of such pollution is not being made and that the health or welfare of any persons is being endangered, he shall recommend to the appropriate State water pollution control agency that it take necessary remedial action. The Secretary shall allow at least six months from the date he makes such recommendations for the taking of such recommended action.

(e) If, at the conclusion of the period so allowed, such remedial action has not been taken or action which in the judgment of the Secretary is reasonably calculated to secure abatement of such pollution has not been taken, the Secretary shall call a public hearing, to be held in or near one or more of the places where the discharge or discharges causing or contributing to such pollution originated, before a hearing board of five or more persons appointed by the Secretary. Each State in which any discharge causing or contributing to such pollution originates and each State claiming to be adversely affected by such pollution shall be given an opportunity to select one member of the hearing board and at least one member shall be a representative of the Department of Commerce, and not less than a majority of the hearing board shall be persons other than officers or employees of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. At least three weeks' prior notice of such hearing shall be given to the State water pollution control agencies and interstate agencies, if any, called to attend the aforesaid hearing and the alleged polluter or polluters. On the basis of the evidence presented at such hearing, the hearing board shall make findings as to whether pollution referred to in subsection (a) is occurring and whether effective progress toward abatement thereof is being made. If the hearing board finds such pollution is occurring and effective progress toward abatement thereof is not being made it shall make recommendations to the Secretary concerning the measures, if any, which it finds to be reasonable and equitable to secure abatement of such pollution. The Secretary shall send such findings and recommendations to the person or persons discharging any matter causing or contributing to such pollution, together with a notice specifying a reasonable time (not less than six months) to secure abatement of such pollution, and shall also send such findings and recommendations and such notice to the State water pollution control agency and to the interstate agency, if any, of the State or States where such discharge or discharges originate.

(f) If action reasonably calculated to secure abatement of the pollution within the time specified in the notice following the public hearing is not taken, the Secretary

(1) in the case of pollution of waters which is endangering the health or welfare of persons in a State other than that in which the discharge or discharges (causing or contributing to such pollution) originate, may request the Attorney General to bring a suit on behalf of the United States to secure abatement of pollution, and

(2) in the case of pollution of waters which is endangering the health or welfare of persons only in the State in which the discharge or discharges (causing or contributing to such pollution) originate, may, with the written consent of the Governor of such State, request the Attorney General to bring a suit on behalf of the United States to secure abatement of the pollution.

(g) The court shall receive in evidence in any such suit a transcript of the proceedings before the board and a copy of the board's recommendations and shall receive such further evidence as the court in its discretion deems proper. The court, giving due consideration to the practicability and to the physical and economic feasibility of securing abatement of any pollution proved, shall have jurisdiction to enter such judgment, and orders enforcing such judgment, as the public interest and the equities of the case may require.

(h) Members of any hearing board appointed pursuant to subsection (e) who are not regular full-time officers or employees of the United States shall, while participating in the hearing conducted by such board or otherwise engaged on the work of such board, be entitled to receive compensation at a rate fixed by the Secretary, but not exceeding $100 per diem, including travel time, and while away from their homes or regular places of business they may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 73b-2) for persons in the Government service employed intermittently. (i) In order to aid in preventing, controlling, and abating pollution of interstate or navigable waters in or adjacent to any State or States which will or is likely to endanger the health or welfare of any persons, and to protect industries dependent on clean water such as the commercial shellfish and fishing industries, the Secretary shall, after reasonable notice and public hearing and in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior and with other affected Federal, State and local interests, issue regulations setting forth (a) standards of quality to be applicable to such interstate or navigable waters, and (b) the type, volume, or strength of matter permitted to be discharged directly into interstate or navigable waters or reaching such waters after discharge into a tributary of such waters. Such standards of quality and of matter discharged shall be based on present and future uses of interstate or navigable waters for public water supplies, propagation of fish and aquatic life and wildlife, recreational purposes, and agricultural, industrial, and other legitimate uses. The alteration of the physical, chemical, or biological properties of such interstate or navigable waters or the placing of matter in such waters in violation of regulations issued under this subsection is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and subject to abatement under the provisions of this section. Nothing in this subsection shall prevent the application of the provisions of this section to any case to which they would otherwise -be_applicable. 900 1291 1s i...... J2291 jon bп8,9979m

19d[((j) As used in this section the term 9181971). "person" includes an individual, corporation, partnership, association, 9112 State municipality, and political subdivision of a State, and 997d1 1289! 14 brette 2bafunicipality" means a city town, borough, county, parish, Idisisiët, to ai or other public body created by or pursuant to Statenawired bica91otc od: 22/NOTE.Present law shown in roman and changes proposed by S10497shown Tid itaWesDeleted material is shown by [ ]. breed

n

Mr. SMITH. Thank you.

That is all of my statement, Mr. Chairman.
Senator MUSKIE. I have one other question, simply on facedal

matter.

You have some different figures on anticipated water supply and demand in the future than we have been given from other sources. You suggest, for example, that today's water use is 262 billion gallons a day, as contrasted with the 355-billion figure that we have been given previously.

For the year 2000 you show an estimate of only 450, as against the 1,000 billion gallons per day that we have been given. I simply want to know what the source of your figures is.

Mr. SMITH. Frankly, I do not remember, but I think we got them from the U.S. Public Health Service. I can check that.

Senator MUSKIE. Could you advise us on that, because we ought to get those basic facts as consistent as possible.

Mr. SMITH. Yes

Senator MUSKIE. Our figures come from the Public Health Service,

too.

Mr. SMITH. Maybe mine are older. Those figures have a way of changing. We would prefer to believe the larger figures.

Senator MUSKIE. Well, if we could clarify that, so we could have uniform figures, if it is possible.

Other questions?

Senator MILLER. Mr. Chairman ?

Mr. Smith, you are recommending here tax amortization for industrial treatment?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator MILLER. Do you have in mind, for example, a meatpacking company which installs a sewage treatment plant, let's say at the cost of $500,000, being permitted to deduct the cost of that plant over, say, a 5-year period, quick amortization, rather than over its ordinary useful life, which is the usual tax depreciation allowance? Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

There has been, and I think there is now, legislation on the other side, I think it is a House bill, that would permit that.

Senator MUSKIE. Senator Ribicoff introduced such a bill, which I was happy to cosponsor. Since it is a tax matter, I guess sponsorship on this side is rather moot.

Mr. SMITH. We feel that anything that will encourage industry to take care of their own problem ought to be given them, and especially when something like this could be done that would permit them to go ahead on a more rapid basis than they might otherwise.

Senator MILLER. Might I suggest to the chairman, this sounds like a very sound, reasonable idea. I do not know whether it is going to be worthwhile trying to incorporate such a provision in this bill. It would have to be cleared by the Tax Committee, the Finance Committee. But we hope that it would not have much difficulty in that respect, because it is something I hope we could get through, either as an amendment to this bill or as a separate bill.

I think this furthers the public poicy that we are all desirous of promoting. And I just wanted to make sure what Mr. Smith had in mind by this recommendation.

Senator MUSKIE. I think it makes all kinds of sense. I suspect this committee will have jurisdictional problems, both as they relate to the Committee on Finance and also the House. I suspect it would have to originate in the House in the first instance anyway. Mr. SMITH. Congressman Saylor has a bill on that subject.

Senator MUSKIE. We will watch it with interest. And I suspect it will get the support of members of this committee, at least. Senator BAYH. Mr. Chairman, I recall that Mr. Stein testified yesterday, in answer to a question I asked about this interstate, or stream and tributary proposition, that the Department did not presently attack pollution situations on tributaries unless the effect of this pollution was felt in another State, thus placing it under interstate jurisdiction. As I recall this was in answer to a question very similar to the one you pose.

Do you have any suggestion as to how a downstream State can attack a pollution problem originating in an upstream State tributary of an interstate river, if the Federal Government does not have the power to do it?

Certainly, the downstream State would not have the power in an upstream State.

Mr. SMITH. Unless it could be done on a voluntary basis with the State government above.

Senator MUSKIE. Upstream States are not always as enlightened as that.

Senator BAYH. If we could get voluntary action, we would not need a bill.

Senator BOGGS. Senator, the only suggestion I could make offhand is to take them into court, in the Federal courts, and prove your damages.

Senator BAYH. That is not always easy to do, as the Senator knows. Senator BOGGS. That is correct. But that can be done.

Senator MUSKIE. I think also there is another point emphasized by Wisconsin's experience with the 2 million gallons of soybean oil. Sometimes it is easy to deal with a problem before it arises and creates damage than it is after it arises.

I am delighted that you were here and presented your statement, Mr. Smith.

It has been a very useful contribution. We appreciate it, sir.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you.

Senator MUSKIE. We will recess at this time until 2 o'clock this afternoon.

(Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the hearing was adjourned, to reconvene at 2 p.m., of the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Senator MUSKIE. The committee will be in order.

We have two witnesses on the schedule this afternoon.

The first witness is Mr. Samuel S. Johnson, chairman of the Conservation and Management of Natural Resources Committee of the National Association of Manufacturers.

Mr. Johnson, will you come forward. It is a pleasure to welcome you here this afternoon. I notice that you have a prepared statement, which is rather lengthy.

You may submit it for the record, and highlight it, or you may read it, as you choose.

Mr. JOHNSON. I would like to highlight it with your permission, and then include the statement in its entirety for the record.

Senator MUSKIE. Without objection, it will be done that way.

Mr. JOHNSON. I have with me here Mr. Dan Cannon, who is the committee executive before my committee in the National Association of Manufacturers.

STATEMENT OF SAMUEL S. JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN OF THE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS; ACCOMPANIED BY DAN CANNON, COMMITTEE EXECUTIVE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS

Mr. JOHNSON. For the record, I am Samuel S. Johnson, Tite-Knot Pine Mill, Redmond, Oreg. I am the chairman of the Conservation and Management of Natural Resources Committee of the National Association of Manufacturers.

Senator MUSKIE. I am curious. What does Tite-Knot mean?
Mr. JOHNSON. Well, that is rather interesting.

Common lumber has tight, small knots, the kind you would build a sheathing out of. And the other lumber has large knots. The kind

of timber that grows in our area is predominantly the small knotted type, it has a promotional, I hope, advantage to it. At least it is red when it is seen.

I live in central Oregon, and this is ponderosa pine I am talking about.

My testimony is offered on behalf of our association, the member companies of which represent approximately 75 percent of the Nation's industrial output and employ about the same percentage of the industrial work force.

We appreciate the opportunity to present our viewpoints on water pollution control problems before this distinguished Special Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution of the Senate Committee on Public Works, and we sincerely hope that the information which we submit herewith will be helpful to the subcommittee in its deliberations.

We wish to apprise the subcommittee in some depth of how industry has organized itself to work on water pollution control, to discuss some of the economic aspects, to state the policy viewpoints of the National Association of Manufacturers on water quality control, and to comment on the specific provisions of S. 649.

Senator MUSKIE. You will not be commenting upon the other legislation before us?

Mr. JOHNSON. We are aware of the other legislation. We do not have a prepared statement for the other legislation, but I would be glad to answer any questions to the best of my knowledge on them. Senator MUSKIE. I don't know whether or not any questions will develop. But if you wish to submit a statement bearing upon that legislation, we would be interested to get it.

Mr. JOHNSON. I think we would like very much to do that. And with your permission, can we mail them to your staff?

Senator MUSKIE. Yes. I think our last scheduled hearing is next Tuesday, and at that time I will indicate how long the record will be open. If you get it in before then, fine.

Mr. JOHNSON. We will have one in before next Tuesday.

In order to convey a full understanding of the intensity with which industry works on water pollution control, it is necessary to discuss in some detail the manner in which industry is organized to deal with these problems and the activities which it carries out within this organizational framework.

Industry has long been aware of its water pollution control problems and has organized itself over the past five decades to study and take action to solve these problems.

Each industry has specific committees devoted to water pollution control, composed of that industry's outstanding experts in the field. Senator MUSKIE. When you use the word "industry," to what do you refer? For example, you would be referring to such organizations as the pulp and paper industry.

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; in fact, later in the testimony, I go into detail in reporting on the National Technical Task Committee on Industrial Waste.

I hope to offer this publication for the record, "Clean Water," which is printed by the public-the National Technical Task Committee on Industrial Waste.