It seems to be agreed upon by all at 1,200 billion gallons a day. That figure we can start with. Apparently, Dr. Wolman and I can agree that that is it.

But then we have to know how much of that is available, how much is actually where you can draw on it for any constructive use. Well, we are told 600 billion gallons a day. So that is fixed.

Now, how much of that 600 billion do we use in any way? This is the next figure I am interested in. I do not care about saying whether or not the distribution among uses is wise or unwise, but I want to know how much of that 600 billion is used in any way. The figure that we are given, if I may finish, at the present time, is 355 billion gallons of water a day. Now, this figure is found on page 3 of the staff study and it comes from the Public Health Service which the opponents of this bill consider the experts in this area.

Senator MILLER. Would the chairman yield?

Senator MUSKIE. If I may just finish. So we are told that we use 355 billion gallons of water a day for a wide variety of uses and different qualities, I assume. We need 355 billion. By 1980, that figure will have risen to 515 billions gallons and that by the year 2000, that would have risen to more than 1 billion gallons.

Now, the point that I make is this: If our requirement is 515 billion gallons a day in 1980, there are two sources of that. One, we can get it from the 600 billion that is practically available from the total supply, if it is convenient to use or command. Or we have to get it from reusing water that has already been used for some other purpose. Isn't that right?

Mr. BILLINGS. I am afraid this is getting a little bit out of my field and I am a little bit lost. Because when you get throwing around this many billions of gallons per day, it is a little difficult.

Senator MUSKIE. You tossed in the 1,200 billion figure, which is the largest.

Mr. BILLINGS. And I suppose this is one of the problems when you start our doing things on a national average and a statistical basis. Senator MUSKIE. Either we have 1,200 billion gallons or water available or we have some other amount available and it ought to be measured.

Mr. BILLINGS. Would it be of any help, what he says here

The calculations made for uses of water, other than the consumptive use, indicated that the dilution of waste materials of domestic and industrial origin would represent the major demand on the potential sources of water, both in the year 1980 and in the year 2000.

Senator MUSKIE. Is that statement in your statement?

Mr. BILLINGS. Yes, sir; that is on page 13; the third paragraph. Senator MUSKIE. Let me read it again:

The calculations made for uses of water, other than the consumptive use. indicated that the dilution of waste materials of domestic and industrial origin would represent the major demand on the potential sources of water, both in the year 1980 and in the year 2000.

Is he saying that indication has no basis in fact, or is he saying there is something we ought to know?

Mr. BILLINGS. He is saying these calculations of the consumptive use will be 14 percent, but that the major use by far is for these other purposes, and that these requirements by the year 2000, by the best

calculations made, rise to a figure of about 450 billion gallons per day for the handling of waste which has been treated to a reasonably adequate degree.

You see, I am not aware when you quote this 350 billion. Do you mean that this is water that has been used only once or that has been reused several times? I do not have a total figure.

Senator MUSKIE. That has nothing to do, as I understand it, and I think the point ought to be cleared up, because I am not sure that I understand it correctly.

The 315 gallons is what we use, it is the withdrawal. Now, I assume that this water is reused.

In other words, this is a measure of the Nation's requirements. Mr. BILLINGS. That is the amount that they are withdrawing. That is what our Nation is going to require, even though this is put back into the stream and either in a-what is the words he uses, "are treated to a reasonably adequate degree," or that is assimilated by the stream. Because then it becomes much, much more than 350 or much less.

Senator MUSKIE. Let me put it this way: I did not put these figures together, but we are going to try to find out what they mean. As I understand them, they are put together in the same context as the discussion, that when we are talking about a 1,200-billion-gallon-a-day supply and a 600-billion-gallon-a-day practical supply, we are talking about the same water. So the total that is available, only have, is practically available. As against that 600 billion, I understand that we are now using 355 billion gallons of water a day, withdrawing it and using it in some way. In other words, all three figures in the same context.

Now, if Dr. Wolman says that is inaccurate, then I want to have what is accurate. But I understand that what he said is that we should not be concerned about the 355, that of that 355, 100-some million dissolves or disappears and that is all you have to concern yourself with, but you do not have to concern yourself with the part that is dirty and does not disappear. That is the impact I get from the testimony of Dr. Wolman that you presented.

Mr. BILLINGS. I think what he means, sir, is that the 350 billion gallons withdrawn are not necessarily rendered unfit for use. Senator MUSKIE. Nobody has said that.

Mr. BILLINGS. Therefore they can be returned and if only 50 percent of them is used, then we have approximately 350 billion gallons being returned to the stream over the 350 billion gallons being used.

Senator MUSKIE. They may be returned in unusable condition, certainly unusable for some situations. I am not so much concerned with his 100 million gallons used, because we are told that we can expect 300 billion gallons a day into the future. So what he calls consumed does not reduce the total supply available. We are still going to have

it.

So I am not so much concerned with that as I am with the part that has to be reused in order to give us enough water for our requirements. What I am concerned with is the dirty water that does not disappear. Maybe if it disappeared, we would be better off. But I am concerned with the dirty water that does not disappear. I want to know how much is there, to the extent that we are going to have to reuse it more

and more.

Because if we got enough water that we never had to reuse it for any purpose, we have enough indefinitely, then the pollution problem is of no concern to me. But if the supply is limited to the point where we have to reuse it, then I want to know at what point in our experience and our future history we are going to reach the point where we are going to have to reuse all the available water in order to have enough for our supply. It is this sort of thing that I am concerned about.

Now, there is the chart in the committee's study and I will refer you to it.

Please give Mr. Billings a copy of this.

On page 4, there is a chart which shows that already our fresh water use exceeds the estimated dependable supply, that if we did not reuse water now, we would not have enough.

Now, I would like to have these facts settled. That is one of the purposes of this hearing. I think that Dr. Wolman's approach minimizes the point. Now, if the other approach distorts it, I want to know that, too. But I do not think Dr. Wolman is helpful at all in terms of our problem. It may have been in terms of what he was discussing.

Senator MILLER. I think this colloquy bears out the point I was trying to make earlier, that we cannot be meaningful in our analysis of the problem unless we have some idea of the actual usage of the water. I can understand how, if we have only 600 billion gallons of water readily available and someone comes along and says, by the year 2000 we are going to need a thousand billion gallons of water. one could become quite alarmed. But if that is leavened by a scientific study indicating that while we might actually use 1,000 billion gallons, given the reuses and the treatment of various waters, that perhaps only 200 billion gallons will be consumed; then I am not going to be as alarmed about the situation.

I think that the chairman's point, with which I agree, is that we have to be concerned with the state and quality of the water that is going to be reused.

But I repeat that we cannot be meaningful, even in that respect, unless we have a pretty good idea of the usages to which this water is going to be put.

In some areas, we may not need clear, pure water for industrial uses. In other areas, we may need very pure water for human consumption.

I think we are all trying to come up to the same conclusion here. but I suggest that we are not going to be able to come up to a really meaningful conclusion until some expert can tell us with a fair degree of accuracy what kind of uses will be involved here and what kind of a treatment program can be utilized so that we can come up with a fairly clear picture of "consumptive use."

I do not think we have that now.

Senator MUSKIE. My only point is that you cannot answer any question as to what uses water ought to be put to or whether or not the present allocation as among users is right because of the public interest until you know how much you have to start with. That is what I am concerned with.

Senator MILLER. I think we are in agreement on the 1,200 billion

and the 600 billion.

Senator MUSKIE. I think we are concerned with the 355 billion, also.

Senator MILLER. I suggest this 355 billion might as well be 900 billion as far as I am concerned, because what I am interested in is how much of that is actually going to be consumed. In a given set of circumstances, perhaps 355 billion is a dangerous figure. Perhaps in another given circumstance, it may not be dangerous. I think we are not going to come to agreement on that until we know the amount of water and the uses to which the water is going to be put.

Senator MUSKIE. Can you give me, Mr. Billings, a table showing the number of gallons of water used in America for all uses, and classify that by uses of available water?

Mr. BILLINGS. Help. No, sir; I do not have that figure. It seems to me the Kerr committee tried to do it. Look at all the time they spent on the problem. We feel that their recommendations and forecasts. for the paper industry were very unrealistic. We are talking about uses for many types of industry and I can see that you gentlemen need this or this figure. But is not this true, that this is just one of thosewell, how would this thing be coped with if we have this water in one part of the country and not another? Isn't that a specific area where needed?

Senator MUSKIE. This is another point you get to, but you have to have a starting point.

I refer you to page 6 of the Kerr committee report, Senate Report No. 29 of the 87th Congress, 1st session. It gives you a table, which undertakes to give information on withdrawals and for what purposes. This gives you the amount, gives you information similar to that which I understand Senator Miller to be talking about.

But if our requirement today were 800 billion gallons of water a day instead of 355, we would be so far behind in our efforts to clean up water as to be in a dangerous situation.

The 355 has great meaning as a measure of whether or not our efforts at maintaining good quality control are keeping pace with our water requirements.

Now, agreed, there is a variety of uses that water quality in that 355 billion gallons a day varies a great deal. Of course, that does. But you still have to know what the total available is before you know how to allocate it and whether greater effort ought to be made to clean it up.

Senator MILLER. I wonder if we can have that one statement put in the record at this point? I think it does bear upon the point we have been discussing.

Senator MUSKIE. We will include in the record at this point the material beginning at the top of page 4 to the bottom of page 9 of the Italicized portion, "Problems of Distribution."

I think that gives us an analysis that the record needs, because nobody is trying to confuse this. We are trying to find out where we are and where we are going. Dr. Wolman is not helpful to me. But I will be happy to get other, more detailed analyses of what he has in mind.

It seems to me that our problem is not the water that disappears, it s the water that has to be used. That is why I find his views not helpful.

20-495-63- -87

(The information is as follows:)

[Extracts from Report of the Select Committee on National Water Resources (S. Rept 29, Jan. 30, 1961)}

B. NATURE OF THE NATIONAL WATER PROBLEM

Water problems are found in all parts of the United States. They are becoming more acute and widespread as the demands of our growing population, agriculture, and industry, press ever nearer to the potential limits of the supply of water that nature provides. The major problems may be classified as falling within one of six categories: supply, distribution, natural quality, manmade pollution, variability, and floods, and they are dealt with in that order in this summary of the findings of the committee's studies.

1. Water supply in relation to demand

Reports submitted to the committee indicate, based on medium projections of population increase, that by 1980 demands on the Nation's water resources will almost double, and they will triple by the year 2000. Projections of all these demands have been put together for the committee in the form of regional water supply-demand studies1 for all regions of the United States except Alaska and Hawaii,' which have water supplies and problems which are physically inde pendent of those of the contiguous States.

In general, the projections are based on assumptions that the Nation's economy will continue to grow at the same rate as it has in the past, that adequate wate? supplies will be made available under the present general pricing policies, tha there will be relatively little change in presently known technical methods of water use, and that, with the exception of increased application of techniques for improving the efficiency of irrigation, present inefficient methods of usita water will continue.

An increase of over 7 million acres of irrigated land from 1954 to 1980 is projected, but increases in costs and absolute shortages of water are expected to bring about overall improvements in efficiency, by the use of presently known techniques, which will hold down the total amount of water used for irrigation to the extent indicated. Some of the other assumptions used in the supply demand studies are that soil and water conservation practices on agricultur and forest lands are expected to increase considerably, as projected by the Department of Agriculture, and that increasing demands for fish and wildlife w be met by an increase in acreage of swamps and wet lands for wildlife habitat, at an increase in water quality for fish life. Recreation based on water is projected to increase manifold. This is expected to be accomplished partly by more tensive use of the same water areas used at present, and partly by the e reservoirs which will be required for storage of water. Furthermore, the poor tion control measures that the studies indicate are essential and will greaty enhance recreational potential of the Nation's waters.

In presenting the results of the study which is based on the aforementioned assumptions by the committee staff and the participating agencies, the e mittee does not mean to imply that it is predicting that these assumptions * be adopted as a matter of national policy, that it is recommending their adoption or that it is endorsing the specific rates of growth on which the study is base The committee hopes that the Nation's growth rate will be greater, in which cas the projections of water use in 1980 and 2000 will be attained some years earlier than the study would indicate. The committee emphasizes the need for pros and affirmative action in the field of water resources to prevent lack of wate from inhibiting our national growth.

The committee's water supply-demand study projects demand for withdrawals consumptive uses, and depletions of water for various purposes as shown table I.

See Committee Print No. 32 for the detailed information on which the discussion the supply-demand situation is based. 2 See Committee Prints Nos. 19 and 20 for separate reports on water resource prob>** of Alaska and Hawaii.

See Committee Print No. 12.