Senator MUSKIE. Have recommendations been developed toward that end; do you know?

Mr. TAYLOR. I beg your pardon? I did not hear you.

Senator MUSKIE. Have recommendations for expansion been developed?

Mr. TAYLOR. Well, since 1960 we have been able to get some increased funds. It is now around $63 million for 1964, and this will take up some of the backlog. But there is still a lot left undone in this field. Senator MUSKIE. Is the program effective? That is, does it treat the problem? Does it meet the problem?

Mr. TAYLOR. Very effective. I happen to have a ranch in the center of the first project that was completed in the United States, out in western Oklahoma, and I have to say that it is an excellent program— once we can get the land treated.

Senator MUSKIE. What is the method of treatment?

Mr. TAYLOR. Well, grassing, terracing, furrows, channel regulation. Senator MUSKIE. Soil control.

Mr. TAYLOR. Soil control, that's right-treating the soil right there, as well as the water.

In addition to that, our federation has been interested in this total problem of pollution. We supported S. 120, which became a part of the act of 1961 in the 87th Congress. We supported S. 2 this year, which has passed the Senate, on research work. And we have supported the soil conservation work for many years.

We believe at this time that we should let the 1961 act have time to see what it can do. We believe that a good job is being done. For that reason, we hesitate to endorse the current legislation.

Our resolutions on the subject are pointed out in the paragraph in the middle of page 2, and I would call the committee's attention to some other things which we believe important, as far as the total water problem is concerned.

The last two paragraphs on page 2 read as follows:

There are other facets of the water problem which we believe should be considered and decided by the Congress in the immediate future. They involve the rights to the use of water; States' authority for the allocation of water; water flowing from withdrawn or reserved lands and the taking of water rights without just compensation.

In view of several decisions of the Supreme Court and especially in the light of the June 3 decision in Arizona v. California, it is imperative that these matters have immediate and positive attention. They can only be corrected by congressional action.

If it is the intention of the Congress to continue to allow such encroachment on the rights of the States and of the people and if the powers, authorities, and responsibilities of the States are to be further eroded by judicial decision-it can only lead to the weakening of our Federal system by weakening the component parts thereof-the States.

We believe that a good job now is being done in this regard and would like to defer any further action until that has proven to be true or false.

With regard to the three other bills, S. 737 we certainly have no objection to, except as to one provision of it. That is section 4, involving a revolving fund. We have a definite resolution against this method of financing. But as far as the rest of it is concerned, we are perfectly agreeable.

As far as S. 1118 and S. 1183 are concerned, we have no position at this time; therefore we make no statement on it.

But we do appreciate this opportunity to present our views to the committee.

(The complete statement of Mr. Taylor follows:)

STATEMENT OF JOHN I. TAYLOR, ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,
AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION

The American Farm Bureau Federation has long advocated and supported measures to conserve and clean up the water supply of our Nation. We recognize the need for the better protection of our dwindling supplies. We know the necessity of making the water we have do as many jobs as possible. We are sure that better land and soil management is only part of the answer-but an important part.

Municipal use and reuse of water is also a cause for concern. With expanding and bulging borders-the demand for good water will continue to increase. Towns and cities are realizing their responsibilities in this field and are doing something about it. This is being done under both the Accelerated Public Works program and the Water Pollution Control Act, as well as the good work being done by many cities without Federal assistance.

This latter act, which extended and expanded Public Law 845 of the 80th Congress, as amended by Public Law 660 of the 84th Congress, has been in operation only a short while. We believe it is sufficient to do a commendable job and in fact is filling the need.

The bill under consideration, S. 649, has other conditions which we do not believe are either necessary or desirable.

1. It would create a new administration which will grow into a new bureau. 2. It would increase the maximum for grants to a municipality for construction from $600,000 to $1 million and multiple projects from $2,400,000 to $4 million. 3. It would place in the hands of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare more power to force States to yield to Federal authority.

4. It would allow the Secretary to issue regulations setting forth standards of quality and type, volume and strength of matter permitted to be discharged into navigable waters in any State.

5. It would authorize an appropriation of $100 million for 1964 and each succeeding year, without limit, for this purpose.

At the latest annual meeting of our federation, held in Atlanta, Ga. on December 13, 1962, our policies in this regard were established by the voting delegates as follows:

Congress should assume a responsibility to preserve our Federal system by reversing the trend toward centralization of authority in the Federal Government. Grant-in-aid programs should not be used as vehicles to force States to conform to Federal authority.

We urge Congress to safeguard its legislative prerogatives by:

(1) Insisting that Federal expenditures be approved by Congress on an

: annual basis;

(2) Avoiding delegation of broad, discretionary powers to the executive branch. Water pollution programs should be designed to give primary responsibility to State governments. Cooperation among the States may often be furthered by interstate compacts.

There are other facets of the water problem which we believe should be considered and decided by the Congress in the immediate future. They involve the rights to the use of water: States authority for the allocation of water; water flowing from withdrawn or reserved lands and the taking of water rights without just compensation.

In view of several decisions of the Supreme Court and especially in the light of the June 3 decision in Arizona v. California, it is imperative that these matters have immediate and positive attention. They can only be corrected by congressional action.

If it is the intention of the Congress to continue to allow such encroachment on the rights of the States and of the people and if the powers, authorities, and responsibilities of the States are to be further eroded by judicial decision-it can only lead to the weakening of our Federal system by weakening the component parts thereof-the States.

This bill, S. 649, is a further step toward Federal control, and we of the American Farm Bureau Federation do not believe it is in the right direction.

Briefly, this is our feeling in regard to this bill—a good job is being done now— ample funds are being provided-there is no need for a change in Federal administration and further deletion of State authority in this field is neither warranted or desirable. We, therefore, recommend disapproval of S. 649.

We respectfully request and urge that the Congress turn its attention to some of the fundamental water problems mentioned above.

In regard to related bills:

S. 737-To promote water and air pollution control and abatement by authorizing the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to provide certain assistance to small business concerns in obtaining necessary treatment works. We have no objection to this legislation except as to section 4 (revolving fund). We believe that the moneys received for interest and repayment of loans should go into the Treasury and reappropriated annually.

S. 1118 and S. 1183-dealing with detergents. We have no position at this time. We appreciate the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee and present our views.

Senator MUSKIE. With respect to the objections which you raise to S. 649, some of them have been raised earlier in the hearings. The discussions that we have had on them in the hearings I think might be useful to you in getting at least an understanding of what was in the mind of the sponsors of the legislation.

Mr. TAYLOR. May I say, sir, I have learned a lot along this line just listening to the arguments. I feel this way about it: If the intention. as you have stated, is to be carried out, we would have to withdraw some of our objections. But just reading the bill cold turkey, it does not give that impression to us.

Senator MUSKIE. Well, what we are trying to do is get an understanding here. So rather than cover these points over again, I refer you to that section of the record which you may not have heard. If you have any further views that you may like to submit at some point, we would be delighted to get them.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much, Mr. Taylor.

Our next witness is Mr. Loring F. Oeming, executive secretary, Michigan Water Resources Commission, Lansing, Mich.

It is a pleasure to welcome you, sir.

I notice you have a prepared statement. You may highlight it as you choose or cover such portions as you may think necessary. In any case, the entire statement will appear in the record.

STATEMENT OF LORING F. OEMING, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY. MICHIGAN WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION, LANSING, MICH.

Mr. OEMING. Thank you, sir.

I will try to conserve time and not read all of the statement. Some of this was prepared for a report to the Governor's office. Therefore there is some need for developing a little background. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee:

Thank you for the privilege of being heard by your committee on the proposed amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as contained in S. 649. I am appearing in my position as executive seeretary of the Michigan Water Resources Commission. This is the agency in our State which has been delegated the authority by the legis lature to control the pollution of the waters of the State, both surface and underground, and including Michigan's portion of the Great Lakes.

I am a graduate sanitary engineer and am licensed to practice professional engineering under Michigan law. I have had 30 years' experience in various capacities associated with the administration of the State's water resources and pollution control program. Commencing in 1934, I have successfully occupied the positions of hydraulic engineer, sanitary engineer, and chief engineer for the commission. On July 1, 1962, I succeeded to the position of executive secretary. The comments I wish to offer on S. 649 are contained in a nine page report entitled, "Report of the Michigan Water Resources Commission on Federal Water Pollution Control Legislation, 88th Congress." I am respectfully requesting that this report be made a part of my statement and I am attaching a copy for this purpose.

This report was prepared at the request of Gov. George Romney after consultation with various agencies and interests within the States. At the meeting of the water resources commission on May 23, it received unanimous concurrence as representing a consolidation of the position of affected State agencies and other interests comprised in the membership of the commission. This position reffects the multiple interests in the commission as provided by four ex officio members heading the State health, conservation, highway, and agriculture departments and three citizen members representing respectively, industrial management, municipalities, and organized conservation

groups.

In the light of this background, I would respectfully invite your attention to our comments and recommendations on each section of S. 649.

In section 1, Mr. Chairman, our comment is that although the purpose of the section might seem to be laudable, it is actually meaningless unless the term clean as possible is clearly defined or is related to an expressed purpose. Technically it is possible to render water chemically pure, but only at a cost that would be so great when applied to municipal or large volume industrial wastes, that all elements of reasonableness disappear and the objective becomes unrealistic.

With something less than chemical purity presumably intended, the proposed objective is relative rather than absolute and demands a plane of reference to give it any meaning. The real purpose of pollution control is to avoid injury to other users of the water, and the test of pollution control effectiveness must be whether or not a reasonable degree of protection to other users is accomplished-not whether it entails the best known method of treatment or whether it conforms to some specified standard of relative possibility.

In short, the stated objective in this amendment is incapable of interpretation and application without provisions to explain what is meant by clean as possible and fails to recognize the common law principle of reasonableness, which is applicable in Michigan as well as in a large section of the United States.

Furthermore, there would be no limits to the extent of discretion that could be exercised by the Federal administrative authorities in tetermining just how clean they would require the waters to be. This constitutes a clear and serious encroachment upon the functions of our State legislature and State water pollution control agencies, and conflicts with the expressions of policy in the present Federal

20-495-63- -27

act. The portions of this declaration which pertain to this contention are in section 1(a):

** it is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities of the States in preventing and controlling water pollution *

And in section (b):

Nothing in this act shall be construed as impairing or in any manner affecting any right or jurisdiction of the States with respect to the waters (including boundary waters) of such States.

No justification exists for the assumption expressed in this amendment that a negative policy of full use of the waters for waste assimilation is being followed. Nothing in the Federal act indicates that such a policy exists. Waste disposal policy in Michigan assigns neither the highest nor lowest priority to the use of the State's waters for disposal of waste. It does, however, recognize that waste disposal is a use that must be accommodated but tempered to the extent that compatability with other water uses can be maintained. Determinations of the extent to which waters may assimilate wastes are made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the generally applicable principles of the reasonable use doctrine.

Departure from these established policies and principles that can result from this amendment will cost the taxpayers of Michigan many millions of dollars annually and would impose a severe financial burden on its industries. These burdens are not warranted in view of the past accomplishments and the present status of pollution control in the State.

We have a recommendation to offer here, a modification of section 1, which reads as follows:

It is the purpose of this act to establish a positive national water pollution control policy of keeping waters as clean as reasonably possible so as not to injure the health or welfare of any person.

Senator MUSKIE. May I ask at this point whether or not you might anticipate some difficulty with the policy that is established so as not to injure the welfare of any person? That is pretty sweeping.

Mr. OEMING. Yes. But, Senator, the present act is predicated on this kind of proof and this kind of establishment of an injury.

In fact, the enforcement section, when the courts get a problem referred to them, they have to determine what needs to be done to determine the health and welfare. I think that is written into the present act. And what I propose here is to relate the extent to which pollution control needs to be maintained.

Senator MUSKIE. The present act uses the word endanger. The proposed language of yours uses simply the word injury. So I am just suggesting that the language you are suggesting may have a more sweeping effect than the language in S. 649.

Mr. OEMING. I think it would, yes.

Senator MUSKIE. If a person would like to fish on a stream, you would figure his welfare is injured if he cannot catch fish because of pollution. Would you insist, then, that every stream be cleaned up to the quality to sustain fish life so that the welfare of anyone wishing to fish in it would not be injured?

Mr. OEMING. Yes, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. That is a more sweeping standard, then.