Page images
PDF
EPUB

Does that answer the question?

Senator MUSKIE. I am not sure.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, you are asking if this met our viewpoint. I would have to say "No." But it does meet a practical viewpoint that we can accept.

Senator MUSKIE. I see.

Now, what is your viewpoint?

Mr. JOHNSON. As Mr. Cannon said in this text here, he feels that our viewpoint-and I concur with him, and we have various published policies on this point-that the criteria should include "clean as economically feasible."

Senator MUSKIE. This is the point I am driving at. You don't object so much to the statement of national policy, as you are concerned about its content.

Mr. JOHNSON. I am afraid I didn't hear you. I am sorry.

Senator MUSKIE. It is not so much that you object to the bill containing a statement of national policy as you are concerned about the content of that policy statement.

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.

Senator MUSKIE. In other words, if you were to modify this, you would place a heavier emphasis upon the economic considerations. Mr. JOHNSON. Exactly, that is true.

I have some quotes here, one from Dr. Karl Brandt of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, and it is as follows:

While it is technically possible to restore river and canal water to its virgin quality of nature prior to industrialization or even better, including the restoration of all aquatic biology, it all involves severe costs and complex chain reactions in our economy.

Hence, social science research should explore and demonstrate the alternative courses for achieving a reasonable compromise which permits an aggregate benefit to the community of people affected.

To do this involves ultimately quite a few value judgments. Again, what should be proved is the social cost of achieving certain intangible benefits, to whom they would actually accrue, and who would share the costs, directly and indirectly.

It should be demonstrated particularly, that the costs involved for varying degrees of improvement in the quality of aquifers are ultimately entering into the account of the American economy and thereby inevitably affect all the people.

Costs of water pollution abatement can be deflected or charged to certain individuals, corporations, or other forms of enterprise.

However, as in the case of taxes and levies, the actual burden of such costs is shifted to a broader number of people if not the public in general.

Reliable and accurate knowledge about costs and their ultimate bearers should not and will not prevent the people and their representative government from making progress in water pollution abatement. On the contrary, the better the public understands the complex and interlocked issues of intelligent water uses and the necessary adjustments, the better become the prospects for arriving at sensible solutions by voluntary cooperation and consent rather than coercion and bureaucratic rule of more and more centralized power.

If the citizens of a State understand fully what it means in terms of costs to enterprises and to the public if perfectionism prevails as, for example, quality criteria for industrial effluents into rivers are lifted to unrealistic levels, or one should require secondary treatment for municipal sewage disposal into the ocean, then we may expect to arrive at reasonable compromise.

Such compromise could lie in gradualness in the raising of requirements, in adoption of reasonable standards, and a broader participation in shouldering the costs.

While it may be deplorable that some fish are killed in a river or canal which actually served primarily as a carrier of industrial waste it may yet be the

case that this use of that particular current of water in a strictly industrial area may prove to be the highest marginal productivity attainable that far outweighs any potential value of the commercial or the sport value of the fish. Senator MUSKIE. You have brought a new word to my attention: "aquifers."

Mr. JOHNSON. Oh, yes.

We certainly make no plea for overloading the assimilative capacities of streams but do make a plea for recognition of the fact that such assimilative capacity is a great economic asset to this country and must be employed to some reasonable extent.

As stated by Dr. Brandt at the National Conference on Water Pollution

from the standpoint of continued success of our agriculture and industries in competition in the world market, the balance of payments, the integrity of the currency, effective control over the Federal and State budgets, and, therefore. in the interest of the improvement in the real income of the people, it is imperative that prudent husbandry prevail in the use of other resources for the development of water resources. This must also apply to water pollution abatement.

We speak on page 18 of the pollution, Federal water pollution control regulations.

Senator MUSKIE. I wonder, Senator Nelson has some questions he would like to ask you on this portion of the statement.

Mr. JOHNSON. By all means.

Senator NELSON. I intended to interject this question when Senator Muskie was asking a moment ago on page 15

Mr. JOHNSON. On page 15?

Senator NELSON. About the conference, the language defining it at the bottom of the page.

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.

Senator NELSON. Now, when the chairman asked you what your preferred definition would be, I did not quite hear what it was. Mr. JOHNSON. We feel that a greater emphasis should be put on economic practicality than to have a national policy statement "as clean as possible."

We would like to qualify what is as clean as possible. We have heard testimony to the extent that some mountain streams might not be as clean as possible, completely untouched mountain streams might not qualify. That is an exception, I agree. But I think "as clean as possible" has to have some degree of qualification.

Senator MUSKIE. Would you yield, Senator?

Senator NELSON. Certainly.

Senator MUSKIE. In other words, you attribute to the words “as clean as possible" the interpretation or the possible interpretation. that this means as clean as possible in terms of technological possibilities.

Mr. JOHNSON. I heard that made in a statement this morning. It should be as technically-it should be as clean as our techniques can make it. That was not quite the thought, but that-that was not quite the words, but that was the substance of the statement.

Senator MUSKIE. If you listened today to this morning's discussion, I am sure you know now that is not the meaning attributed by the committee.

Mr. JOHNSON. I grant you that. That is what it says, I know. It is subject to interpretation. We would like to have something that defines how far that interpretation is going to go.

Senator NELSON. Wouldn't you agree that the definition on page 15 is a big enough umbrella so that everybody from the most idealistic preserver of fresh water assets to the fellow who does not care what goes under that umbrella can make his own interpretation?

Mr. JOHNSON. I think it is that wide, yes.

Senator NELSON. So the definition on page 15 does not really mean anything.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, yes, I think it does mean quite a little, to protect and enhance the capacity of water resources to serve the widest possible range of human needs.

Senator NELSON. I think that means something. But what does

Mr. JOHNSON. That goal can be approached only by accepting the policy of keeping water clean consistent with the variabilities within and among the different river basins.

Well, I think that there are some parts, perhaps, and I am not too familiar with this in detail, but some parts of one Atlantic seaboard bay that could not be kept because of the industrial use to which it is being put, could not be kept, as clean as some less industrialized bay on the Pacific coast, say or the Northwest.

Senator NELSON. Your amendment, if you were to have your druthers, your amendment would be what?

Mr. JOHNSON. To stress the economic practicality of clean water. We will go as fast as we can as far as we can.

Senator NELSON. What do you mean by economic practicality?

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I think that there are some-I can conceive of many standards being erected or set up that would be almost impossible for some particular company to comply with short of going out of business.

Senator NELSON. In any case where it may be a substantial interference with a business or in any case in which a business might not be able to operate, that is where you draw the line?

Mr. JOHNSON. Not entirely. I should add there must be time limits involved in this.

Senator NELSON. No, but if it would result in some business not being able to operate, that is where you would draw the line.

I

Mr. JOHNSON. I know what you are talking about, of course. think all these things should be brought into consideration. That is one of the problems that we are talking about, drawing a line and saying that this is bad and this is good, that is my point. I do not want to get into a position where we have to do that.

Senator NELSON. What I am wondering about is whether your or ganization considers scenic beauty, recreation, enjoyment of fresh water assets as an economic value.

Mr. JOHNSON. Indeed they do.

Senator NELSON. Then there are circumstances in which pollution of some water by an industry is such as to make it unusable for recreation?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, I follow you.

Senator NELSON. And you would be willing to agree that under some circumstances such as this the industry would have to withdraw its pollution even though it may result in them having to move out of town or stop their business?

Mr. JOHNSON. Indeed, I do. I would only qualify that with some sort of temperance; that is, there would be a time angle in there. For some reason, this area of great beauty that you speak of has just suddenly become known.

Coney Island, for instance, the beach there was a place of great beauty at one time. Now, are we going to suddenly restore that to its natural status? No, we are not.

So there is give and take all the way around. Who suddenly finds this great place of beauty that has been supporting this miserable industry all this time? Who makes that decision that that suddenly is a place of beauty?

I think when we get into theoretical ramifications of this, each one can draw such a fine line that it becomes impractical to discuss it. But, to answer your question, if that were decided to be a place of great beauty, and there was a factory there, presumably that had been there for some time, that was polluting the area, and the concensus of opinion is that it is beautiful, then the factory goes. Certainly that is the way we run this country.

Senator NELSON. I do not think these things happen suddenly. Pollution occurs and is added to under normal circumstances over

the years.

Mr. JOHNSON. I grant that.

Senator NELSON. Once it is started, then the next business that pollutes is in the position of saying

Mr. JOHNSON. I see your point.

Senator NELSON. Through the chamber of commerce or the manufacturers' association, usually that this is good for the economic development, and that somebody else is doing it, and that this little 5 percent added really does not affect the present status of the stream, and so it goes until pretty soon the stream or river or the lake is ruined, and then somebody suddenly says this is a place of great scenic beauty and a needed asset for recreational purposes.

Does your organization support a program that will require industries to stop pollution, even though it costs them some money? Mr. JOHNSON. Indeed we do definitely.

Senator NELSON. I have always run into, over the years of my experience in my State on this issue, the fact that industry will always say, "Well, we agree with you that this pollution is not good, but we must compete with people in Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and California, and if we establish a standard of treatment of the waste here that is more refined than our competitors who are in another State. then you are going to drive us out of business."

My experience as Governor, and in the legislature of our State, is that this argument inevitably prevails, so the pollution continues. It seems to me, and I ask you this question, in view of the fact that the competitive argument is always used, isn't it really necessary in order to put people on equal standing, competing businesses between the States, that we have the Federal Government establish a standard that they all meet so that the competition is exactly fair. After all,

the consumer is going to pay it anyway. It is part of the cost of doing business.

Mr. JOHNSON. We are both anxious to answer.

As I see it, you start in the middle of the problem. Now, the Kimberly-Clark people have just moved out, bought a large timber holding in a sawmill on the Sacramento River near Anderson, Calif.

Senator NELSON. That is a great Wisconsin corporation.

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; and a very fine one, too. They went through all sorts of preliminary negotiations with the State of California, with the various regulatory bodies, and they were completely in accord when they finally decided to build their pulp and paper plant on the Sacramento River there.

So the situation that you have described need not arise with an enlightened organization such as Kimberly-Clark, and the attitude that the State of California took, and the residents of this particular

area.

Senator NELSON. I do not know what the agreement was that was made or who made it.

Mr. JOHNSON. At least it is made to the satisfaction of the State. I see your point, though, and the residents there, and the various other parties that concern themselves with clean water.

Senator NELSON. I do not know that.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I do not know the details.

Senator NELSON. I am just saying that if that is the case, it is rare. Mr. JOHNSON. I have to assume that is the case. I do not know that. I know what you are talking about.

Senator NELSON. I do not mean some parties did not agree.
Mr. JOHNSON. I know.

Senator NELSON. What I am saying is that the unheard from masses of people who have a stake in the fresh water assets of this country are never consulted, to my knowledge. Yes, the chamber of commerce is consulted, the mayor of the city is consulted, the industrial development group is consulted, some technicians of some State, and the corporation involved are consulted, and they make these agreements, and the asset is destroyed, and that is what we have been doing all over the country.

Mr. JOHNSON. Presumably, these people are working for this great

mass.

Senator NELSON. I am not satisfied with their representation if they are working for them. But I still want to know how fair competition between competing industries in different States is assured unless there are national standards to be followed. How do you protect them without having some national standards so that all the corporations can relax and say, "Now we are on an equal footing competitively. We are all going to stop polluting the waters."

How can you do that and avoid the argument which is so compelling to the legislatures and everybody else for the sound reason that "we cannot compete if you do this." They say this in Wisconsin and they point to Minnesota and other States, and, therefore, we keep losing ground. But if we had national standards, everybody would be equal. This is what I would like to have answered.

Mr. CANNON. Senator, I would like to make a comment that, incidentally, Kimberly-Clark, their mill in California, I understand that

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »