Mr. MATTEI. Actually, I think the Federal Government did do that when we went with our $95 million bond issue. We made the Federal authorities—I am sorry if we made you look like black sheep, which is what we did, because you have to have somebody that wields a club. When you are asking somebody to vote $95 million, that is the second biggest bond issue ever passed in the State of Missouri. I understand it is the biggest bond issue in the whole country just for pollution abatement.

Senator NELSON. We have been told here repeatedly by industry that the local governments will do this on their own if we just forget about our proposed bill, and that they are doing a wonderful job.

Now, that bond issue you are telling us would not have been passed in the city unless the Federal Government had intervened?

Mr. MATTEI. Definitely. We would never have passed that bond issue unless we had the Federal Government breathing down our backs to stop FHA loans. They had the authority to stop FHA loans is what we said. We also said you had the authority to withdraw from the banks the insurance on the money you have in the savings account. We told them you had the authority to withdraw VA loans. Believe me, we ran a scare campaign the likes of which you have never seen and you were the people that were scaring

us.

Senator BAYH. Are there other activities the Federal enforcing agency can do now to make your burden easier?

This business of $4 or $5 a year to run a sewer in my community, which is smaller than St. Louis, is unheard of.

Mr. MATTEI. Let me put it this way: I think you can only run such a campaign once. You cannot do it twice.

Senator MUSKIE. At some point, we have to defend ourselves. Mr. MATTEI. I think where the Federal Government can help is if they would periodically make releases to the news wires-which get into the Globe-Dispatch and the Post-Democrat-as to the problem. Not necessarily St. Louis itself, but when you have one someplace, to get it in the paper. We will take care of seeing that it gets publicized locally. We have the means and we have the outlets. We have the League of Women Voters that work very closely with us. We have the conservationist groups, the boaters; we have all these people who are with us constantly. Through them we can get the word out. But we need knowledge that this is not only peculiar to St. Louis, that it is nationwide and that nationwide it is accepted.

My neighbor, a doctor, is moving to Milwaukee. He was shocked to find out his sewer bill in Milwaukee is going to be $72 a year. He told me so. He said "I do not understand it, we are paying practically nothing here. Why is it so high in Milwaukee?"

I said, "That is what you should be paying in St. Louis. You are just getting away with murder."

Unfortunately, there is not much we can do beyond this publicity portion right now. I say eventually we will come to it, but it is going to take time.

Senator MUSKIE. Senator Boggs.

Senator BOGGS. I would like to ask one question to clear up the connection between your authority, your municipal authority, which you describe, and the Federal Government. What does the State do to help the situation?

Mr. MATTEI. We have a State water pollution board that is composed of a director or a secretary, I think his title is, and I guess about four or five engineers. They work very closely with us and they helped us considerably on this campaign. But they do not have the big stick to say "You will not dump into the Mississippi River." They can have the authority, but we could have charged them along for a number of years without too much trouble and I do not think they would have done too much about it. They are nice people, and frankly, they do not have the staff. They have to review plans for any treatment facilities, and any sewers, and they have to issue permits. They are very limited in their number of people, and the men are working long hours and working hard and they are damn good engineers. But, unfortunately, you can only spread yourself so thin. When you get beyond this thin level, you are not covering any more and that is exactly what has happened to our pollution workers. They are fine people and we work closely with them. As a matter of fact, they are an arm. We represent the State pollution board in our area. We have the same authority they have. They are delegating their authority to us.

Senator BOGGS. And you work directly with the Federal authorities?

Mr. MATTEI. That is right. We work directly with Mr. Murray, Stein, Peter Kuh, Herb Clare, from Kansas City, and Mr. Poston from Chicago. We work directly with these people.

Senator BOGGS. Whom do you look to for standards, so to speak, or quality?

Mr. MATTEI. I headed down here to talk about standards. I do not think standards are a prerogative of any State. I think standards have to be set by an agency that can tell what they can do with the river and also tell New Orleans and Louisiana what they can do with. the river.

To try to say that Louisiana can set their own standards, what they are going to do with the Mississippi River, and Wisconsin their own standards, and what they are going to do with the Mississippi River, is a gross error.

Some think that compacts are the answer. Gentlemen, compacts are not the answer. They have no authority-most of them do not. ORSANCO, I think, has the authority to take it to court. I do not know of any case ORSANCO has ever taken to court. I think they have done an outstanding job on the Ohio River. But why should the States have to get together and interpose another layer of government just to tell you what the river can or cannot do, when you have the U.S. Public Health Service, with all its technicians, all its research work, and all its powers, and the capabilities they have? What is the sense of setting up this tremendous agency to do this beautiful job which they are doing. We use them constantly. I do not want to downgrade the U.S. Public Health Service one bit. They are really top people. But to come along and expect to set up this agency and then say, "Well, you do not have any power," this is a little ridiculous.

I think all the interstate waters should be classified. Now, I know that some cities, unfortunately, are on dry gullies that are dry 9 months of the year. Even though they are dry 9 months of the year, when it is raining, they are flowing into some river which does flow past my door or your door. I think they should be controlled someway, and

20-495-63-40

they cannot be controlled at the local level. Even I cannot control what we dump in the Mississippi River. If I could, why would I spend $95 million, and we are only bothering the people downstream?

Senator BOGGS. Thank you. Now, back on the standards or quality decisions you make for your treatment and so forth. From what you said, I know you must be doing a very fine job.

Mr. MATTEI. Well, we are trying.

Senator BOGGS. Do you consider, in arriving at your decisions, the multiple uses of the river-the wildlife, boating, swimming, or industrial uses? Do you take all those things into consideration, or are you looking primarily at the contamination from sanitary sewers?

Mr. MATTEI. You mean would we, as the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, take these into consideration?

Senator BOGGS. Yes.

Mr. MATTEI. No; I don't think it is the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District's responsibility to worry about whether somebody can catch a fish in the river below our outlet. I think it is somebody else's responsibility to tell me what I can dump and cannot dump into the river, and it is up to me to live within those regulations.

Senator MUSKIE. You think there should be such regulations.
Mr. MATTEI. Very much so.

Senator BOGGS. You think, as I understand your testimony, that the State cannot do it and it is the Federal Government's job to do it?

Mr. MATTEI. Let's put it this way. Supposing the State were to put restrictive measures on St. Louis or on what is dumped into the Mississippi River and the State of Illinois would not put such restrictive measures? It would only be a matter of time before those industries that do have these particular wastes, which it would be expensive to treat and handle, would be on the Illinois side of the river and not the Missouri side of the river. I do not think that this should be permitted arbitrarily, to have someone move just because the wastes which they generate are expensive. I know of a lot of industries which have done this in the St. Louis area. Back in 1952 and 1953 and 1954 when they could read the handwriting on the wall, they moved out. They went down into areas where they were assured they would not have to spend this money.

Senator MUSKIE. Yet it is the same river?

Mr. MATTEI. Yet it is the same river. Now I am sure that the enforcement division is looking at them and forcing them to do the things that they would have to have done in St. Louis anyway.

Senator BOGGS. You mentioned earlier that Monsanto Chemical was making some tests for you. How do you find the cooperation with industry?

Mr. MATTEI. Our cooperation with industry has been really marvelous. As a matter of fact, they tell me that the people from Monsanto and Anheuser-Busch and others are preaching what they have done in St. Louis and other areas. What we did is this: We wrote what we call an industrial waste ordinance. We then called a meeting, arranged through the chamber of commerce, of all the large industries in the area, and we had this at the Chase Hotel. Better than 400 industries were represented. We went over the ordinance. We didn't read it; we passed out copies of it. We told these people at this hearing that we had broken the industrial waste down by type.

In other words, why would the packing industries-they are not interested in coming down there when we are talking to the plating industries, for example-why should they waste their time to come down and talk about these things when it is really nothing in their prerogative?

So we held individual meetings for the type of waste.

We held some nine such meetings. We had a court reporter who took all the discussion down. Then we analyzed all the discussion and we made the recommended changes in our ordinance. We sent these recommended changes out to the particular industry that had met that night and asked how they felt about it. Then they replied, and from this we have what we consider is, for our area, anyway-it may not be applicable to another town-but for our area we have what we consider is about as model an ordinance as you can get. We have no complaints from industry. As a matter of fact, we receive quite a few pats on the back about it.

In other words, we work with them hand in glove. We wanted them to understand every step of the way what we were planning, how we were doing it, and why we were doing it.

Senator MUSKIE. Did you have any questions?

Senator RANDOLPH. I wanted to ask the witness, did I hear correctly when he was speaking of damn good engineers? What is the meaning of the word "damn"?

Mr. MATTEI. I am sorry; I should not have used the term. They are very competent engineers, very knowledgeable.

Senator MUSKIE. Good dam engineers.

Mr. MATTEI. I am a product of the construction business and that language is not always the best.

Senator RANDOLPH. I did want to ask the question with respect to the problems of St. Louis, not as a municipality or as a political subdivision, but only the problems of St. Louis, are, in your opinion, the responsibility of St. Louis. Am I correct?

Mr. MATTEI. My primary responsibility is the problems immediate to St. Louis. All I meant by that is that the problems downstream from St. Louis, even though we may be responsible for them, if someone does not tell us what we can do or cannot do, I certainly would not be justified in spending large sums of money to correct it. I think it is like anything else.

If you have a teenage delinquent who has never been told what is right or wrong, you cannot expect him to know the difference. If we are not told what it is we are doing wrong, how can we know what we are doing wrong? I certainly am not spending any money downstream to sample the water and find out whether there are people fishing or boating down there. In the Mississippi River, we have industrial fishing going on. I am not going to spend money to go down and travel and put people down there. That is not why we were put in existence.

Senator NELSON. I take it what you are saying is that while you may feel a philosophical responsibility for all the waters in our country, your legal responsibility is to your city and your metropolitan sewage district?

Mr. MATTEI. That is right; yes.

Senator RANDOLPH. I remember that St. Louis once voted down a bond issue to create an airport, and it was looked upon in later years as a shortsighted policy not to raise funds to construct an airport.

It is rather an interesting case. It went to court, and one of the attorneys I know spoke about the shortsightedness of St. Louis. I am sure if such existed then, it does not exist now; is that right? This reminds me of an article I wrote for Aviation magazine, in January 1945, which touched upon this incident, and I would like to quote again from an opinion of Justice Cardozo which I used at that time. Justice Cardozo, in discussing the right of the city of Utica, N.Y.. to issue airport bonds in 1928, expressed himself in terms which are appropriate and applicable to the problems you face and which are before this committee.

Justice Cardozo, in 1928, wrote:

A city acts for city purposes when it builds a dock, or a bridge, or a street, or a subway. Its purpose is not different when it builds an airport. * * * The city that is without the foresight to build the ports for the new traffic may soon be left behind in the race of competition. Chalcedon was called the city of the blind because its founders rejected the nobler site of Byzantium lying at their feet. The need for vision of the future in the governance of cities has not lessened with the years. The dweller within the gates, even more than the stranger from afar, will pay the price of blindness.

Justice Cardozo's statement applies, it seems to me, with especial weight to the questions of water quality control in our cities.

Mr. MATTEI. Well, you have to remember that St. Louis is composed primarily of very conservative German people and very conservative Italian people. Unless you can really get the point across to the individual-and I might add that we need a two-thirds majority to pass a bond issue and it is tough to get a two-thirds majorityunless you get to each individual voter, and you have to get to them through the PTA's and through the various women's bowling leagues and so on down the line-unless you get down to the grassroots level, you are just not going to pass a bond issue.

Senator RANDOLPH. I know you understand grassroots politics.
Mr. MATTEI. I am trying.

Senator RANDOLPH. I can see that.

Mr. Mattei, I would like to draw attention while you are on the stand-in explanation, Mr. Chairman, I have a comment upon the United Press-International story which appeared in the Fairmont, W. Va., Times of June 25, 1963. This article will be made a part of the record?

Senator MUSKIE. Without objection, it will be made a part of the record.

(The article referred to is as follows:)

[From Fairmont Times, June 25, 1963]

STREAM PROBLEMS TO BE DISCUSSED

CHARLESTON, W. Va.-Stream pollution problems involving various communities around West Virginia will be discussed Tuesday at a meeting of the State water resources board.

The agenda included a discussion of the failure of the city of Chester, Hancock County, to meet its sewer construction schedule under a $105,735 Federal grant-in-aid.