the remedies for pollution can be better prescribed when the local agencies can assess natural and manmade causes and can tell whether the effects are continuous or sporadic. The latter requires attention to discharge controls while the former points up inadequate programs. (5) The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, gives the primary responsibility for pollution abatement to the State and interstate agencies. This dictate of Congress has been honored of late more in the breach than in fact. Because the States have this initial responsibility for water quality control, they must be allowed to determine priority of importance of water usage and the standards for acceptability for such usages. Federal guidance and recommendations can be of real assistance but the published objectives should be State decided.

(6) The Public Health Service has been holding formal conferences with court recorders preparing the record as preludes to hearings on different rivers. These have had the effect of developing into Public Health Service assumption of jurisdiction. The PHS should assume jurisdiction in areas where pollution problems are continuous, until the local agency is established and accepts responsibility. A loose interpretation of the pollution control law currently permits PHS intervention where, in the opinion of the Surgeon General, pollution exists. Clarification of this law is needed to better define the conditions for PHS intervention and for the duration of its control if the intent that States to have primary responsibility is to be honored. Such a statement should also reemphasize the expressed intent of Congress that the Federal agencies are to assist States in accepting their responsibility by providing necessary data and counsel.

Apparently there is a need to prescribe the procedure of action so that the expressed intent of Congress as stated in the "Declaration of Policy" in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act-"to recognize, preserve and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of the States for pollution control" (sec. 1 a, b)-is not subject to question. This suggests attention to the following sections of the act:

(a) Section 8(c) (1) provides for a conference among pollution control agencies of States concerned. It does not prescribe a formal hearing with a hearing board and court reporter making a record. This is the present PHS practice. Informal conferences would do much to promote comment, suggestions and better cooperation.

When the Public Health Service presents its "case" first, as it did in Detroit, and the State does not present its "case" until the second day, there is argument that the conference is more of an adversary proceeding.

(b) Section 8(b) notes that consistent with the policy declaration of the act, State and interstate action to abate pollution of interstate or navigable waters shall be encouraged and shall not, except as provided in 8(g) be displaced by Federal enforcement action. PHS reports on specific recommendations from studies following present conferences can differ with State opinions.

(c) Section 8(g) requires that a court in receiving evidence shall give due consideration to the practicability and to the physical and economic feasibility of securing judgment on any pollution proved. and enter judgment as the public interest and equities of the case

may require. This argues that local area (State) interpretations of what is in the public interest should have a priority over Federal agency interpretation.

(d) Section 9 states the intent of Congress is that Federal installations shall cooperate with HEW and with any State, interstate, or municipal agency having jurisdiction over the waters into which any matter is discharged from such property. PHS recommendations on Federal agency facility needs should be in accordance with State agency requirements.

The Senate Select Committee on Water Resources provided recommendations that would cost in excess of $54 billion for pollution abatement and low flow augmentation. Attempting to make the streams as clean as possible, and specifically noting that the natural capacity of a stream to assimilate wastes should not be used, will increase this cost very much.

The bill would call for public hearings and require consultation with Federal, State, and local interests prior to issuing regulations on standards of quality and limits of waste discharges but responsibility would still remain with an administrator (acting in the name of the Secretary of HEW) to decide the content of the regulations. A closer examination by the Congress on the present Public Health Service program of recommending quality criteria and waste treatment would show evidence that the changes proposed will not provide any greater success than PHS is now enjoying.

We cannot afford either money or time to try this national water program twice. Uniform criteria may be an administrative ease but are a source of local trouble. Our Nation's water wealth deserves better treament—and so do the people. Development of a design for each area which would include an understanding of the problem and the solution required the "given" and "to find" of geometry-will protect our water resources, our financial resources, and our democracy by recognizing the willingness and ability of people to govern themselves. This may sound like the difficult way to those who are impatient for action-those who measure progress by speed rather than direction. But the remarkable and often proved ability of the American public to work and make sound decisions in times of crisis will be shown again-provided they are given complete, accurate facts with which to begin.

Thank you.

Senator BOGGS. Thank you very much.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you. I thank all the rest of you who have been here. The committee will be in recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30.

(Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., the subcommittee recessed to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Thursday, June 20, 1963.)

WATER POLLUTION CONTROL

THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 1963

U.S. SENATE,

SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON AIR AND WATER POLLUTION
OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,

Washington, D.C. The special subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 9:30 a.m., in room 4200, New Senate Office Building, Senator Edmund S. Muskie presiding.

Present: Senators Muskie, Bayh, Nelson, Boggs, and Miller.
Senator MUSKIE. The committee will be in order.

I appreciate your willingness, Mr. Secretary, to come here at 9:30 in the morning, but I know you are an early riser. Otherwise, you would not be the effective public servant that you are.

I know that this is a subject that is of particular interest to you, and that in your long administration as mayor of Cleveland, which is renowned throughout the country, that you gave a great deal of attention to this problem.

We are interested in your views this morning, not only as Secretary of the Department, but also as a man who has had close exposure to the problem-not so much as a technician, but as a policymaker and as a man who gets results.

So you are very welcome this morning.

STATEMENT OF HON. ANTHONY J. CELEBREZZE, SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES M. QUIGLEY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY

Secretary CELEBREZZE. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, we welcome this opportunity to appear before you. As a former mayor of a large city, I know the practical problems faced by large metropolitan areas in the financing and construction of water supply and sewage disposal systems. As a member of the Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Relations, I participated with the distinguished Senator from Maine in the review of the valuable Commission report on "Intergovernmental Responsibilities for Water Supply and Sewage Disposal in Metropolitan Areas." Water pollution control is a problem which should concern everyone.

Our country is rich in water resources, yet today we find ourselves seriously concerned with water shortages and threats of water shortages. What may be our condition 10 or 20 years from now is frightening to consider, unless we learn to do a better job of water pollution control.

Water pollution relates to water shortages in a very simple way. In the years ahead our demands for good-quality water will increase as our population grows and as our technology becomes more productive. We are using 355 billion gallons of water a day at the present time and our experts tell us that we will need 600 billion gallons a day by 1980, and as much as 900 billion gallons a day by the end of the century.

Barring a scientific breakthrough which will vastly increase our supply of fresh water-a breakthrough which we can work toward and hope for but cannot count on-we will be able to meet these future needs for water only by conserving the water we have, by using it over and over again. Already such reuse of water is occurring in many parts of the country, including most of our Midwest. It will be the practice almost everywhere in a few more years, provided we can keep our waters clean enough to allow this reuse. If we cannot do this, then we will in truth be in the midst of a water famine.

Before commenting on the provisions of the bills pending before the committee, I would like to review the action to date under existing legislation.

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 under the Blatnik-Kerr law in 1961. This legislation calls for wide variety 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 hundred fold increase in appropriations, from $1.2 million 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 by 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 and interstate water pollution control agencies in establishing and maintaining adequate programs, grants of $5 million a year are authorized. In the short history of this grant program the States have increased their own appropriations for water pollution control from $4.4 million in 1956 to $10.3 million in 1963, a 230-percent in

crease.

Senator MUSKIE. Is that for construction grants, Mr. Secretary? Secretary CELEBREZZE. This is primarily the State programs. Senator MUSKIE. Are there grants in the field of construction grants! Secretary CELEBREZZE. NO.

Senator MUSKIE. Is that research?