Senator MUSKIE. On that point, would you have any judgment as to the extent to which that result might have been minimized without the Federal program?

Mr. MIELDS. If the program had moved along at the rate that-at the rate experienced in the 5 years previous to the enactment of the 1956 act, I think it would have been roughly half of what it is now. Those figures, I believe, are available. But I do think the increase was in excess of an actual doubling of the amount.

Senator MUSKIE. So there is an observable impact of the Federal program.

Mr. MIELDS. There is no question about it in my mind, Mr. Chairman. And I believe that the figures have very conclusively demonstrated that fact. I think the figures also demonstrate that the program has had a marked impact on the size of the appropriations at the State level. They have been increased some 230 percent since 1955.

Senator MUSKIE. In my State, we enacted a State program of matching grants. That program was stimulated by the Federal program. Has there been similar action providing State matching grants?

Mr. MIELDS. Yes, sir, there has. Maryland is another State that has actually matched, I believe, the Federal grant. I am not certain as to what other States provide matching grants, but I believe several others do.

The conference recently circulated a number of cities about the separation of their existing storm and sanitary sewers. Such combined sewer systems in our older established cities present a considerable water pollution control problem.

I understand about 30 percent of the total national pollution problem is attributable to the combined systems in the overflow of storm and sanitary sewage at times of high precipitation.

Senator MUSKIE. In other words, the overload imposed by the storm drainage has diluted the capacity of the system to absorb other sewage. Mr. MIELDS. Of 96 communities which reported that all or a part of their collection systems are comprised of combined sewers, 92 estimated that the total cost of separation may entail expenditures of almost $3 billion. The cities are, of course, ready to assume their responsibilities but it is obvious that they are faced with a substantial

task.

Regulatory controls as represented in the Federal enforcement activity have brought relief to many adversely affected municipalities. We are convinced that this is a necessary and effective adjunct of the Federal-State-local cooperative effort to rid our precious water of the pollution blight. The 1961 amendments granted us a measure of equal partnership by making it possible for a municipality to invoke Federal enforcement action.

The importance of the Federal water pollution control program cannot be overrated. It is hard to understand, therefore, why it should continue to be so deeply submerged in the administrative strata within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Its considerable role in furthering Federal-State-local cooperation and efforts and its important regulatory jurisdiction justify its status as a separate agency on an equal level with others within the Department. We are hopeful that appropriate action to upgrade this important program will be taken soon.

The Water Supply Act of 1958 permits storage to be included in reservoir projects of the Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation for existing or anticipated future needs for municipal or industrial water. The 1961 amendments facilitated arrangements for provision of storage for future demand and use.

Both of these acts definitely contribute to the resolution of the water resources problem.

The recent exhaustive report to the President of the Federal Council for Science and Technology, prepared by its Task Group on Coordinated Water Resources Research, warned of water shortages in the years ahead unless we pursue more prudent management of that priceless natural resource. If we do not, the report said, by the year 2000. consumptive uses of controllable water alone will probably exceed supplies in the Upper Missouri, Rio Grande-Pecos, Colorado, Great Basin and southern California regions, and may in the western gulf. The problem is critical in the arid Southwest with its burgeoning population centers, where to supply even the present population, new sources of water must be found. Water required to dilute sewage, plus consumptive uses, may exceed supplies in the Delaware-Hudson, Great Lakes, and Upper-Arkansas Red River regions. Some of America's great cities, including New York and Philadelphia in the East, and Chicago and Detroit in the Midwest, lie in those regions.

A Public Health Service report, issued in January 1961, "Future Water Requirements for Municipal Use," forecast an increase in total water use in municipal systems from over 16,000 million gallons a day in 1954 to over 28,000 million gallons a day in 1980, and over 42.000 million gallons a day in the year 2000, with an increase in daily per capita use from an average of 147 gallons in 1954 to 152 gallons in the year 2000. Under certain conditions, the daily average could increase to 185 gallons in 1980, and possibly 225 gallons a day in 2000 raising total municipal requirements to 36 billion gallons a day in 1980 and 64 billion gallons a day in the year 2000. These figures are based on medium-range population projections. Under high-level population projections, the demand in the year 2000 could reach 88 billion gallons a day.

Municipal water supply requirements meet another problem in the conflicting demands of communities in adjacent States for water flowing across State lines, and at the local level in the multiplicity of independent governments in larger metropolitan areas.

Another Public Health Service report, "Pollution Abatement," estimated that the total annual cost of collecting and treating municipal sewage in the continental United States would increase from $476.5 million in 1954 to $817.6 million in 1980, and over $1,200 million in the year 2000. The third report in the series, "Water Quality Management," reviewed the need for new, enlarged, modernized, and improved sewage treatment works. Since these recommendations were made, of course, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act has been strengthened by the 1961 amendments.

This information, although readily available to your committee, is repeated here to emphasize that a great national problem-water supply and water pollution abatement-is a problem of America's cities. Los Angeles brings much of its present supply almost 300 miles, and to meet future needs must go beyond that distance. Denver

will have to go to the other side of a mountain range. New York City, in the humid East, went first to the Catskills, then 70 miles to the upper Delaware River. The Hudson, on whose banks New York City stands, is polluted beyond the point of usability. Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, and the Kansas Cities have lake or river sources of plentiful supplies of water. But even such cities must be alert lest pollution so lower water quality as to render the supply inadequate for the needs of its population and industries.

The cities of the Nation are prepared to participate fully in all efforts to successfully resolve the water resources problem in keeping with their avowed interest and responsibility.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to submit a tabulation showing annual appropriations which have been made for the water pollution control program.

(The tabulation referred to follows:)

Summary of annual appropriations, Public Law 660, 1956–63

Funds withheld for management purposes in the Bureau of State Services and the Taft Center in Cin cinnati, Ohio.

Senator MUSKIE. I take it you are interested in water uses in a broad sense that is industrial, recreational, domestic consumption,

and so on.

Mr. MIELDS. That is right.

Senator MUSKIE. Do you regard the increases in the amount of grants of construction treatment facilities as proposed by S. 649 to be necessary?

Mr. MIELDS. Well, the bill, as I understand it, authorizes an increased appropriation of $100 million a year for the separation of storm and sanitary sewers. And I would think that that $100 million, in addition to the $100 million that should be currently available under

the 1961 act, would provide very close to an adequate amount for the abatement as it relates to municipal problems.

That is, the domestic sewage and pollution problem as it relates to storm water overflow. But I would not be in a position to make a judgment as to its adequacy, because as Dr. Wollman pointed out, we have no idea as to the extent of industrial pollution which is an unknown factor at this point.

Senator MUSKIE. I was thinking also of the increase in the individual grant from $600,000 to a million, and the increase in the combined grant. This, of course, relates to the ability of the larger cities to deal with the problem.

Mr. MIELDS. I think that aspect of the bill, that title of the bill is certainly justfied from the standpoint of equity. And I certainly believe it would stimulate additional action on the part of the Nation's cities.

In the last analysis, however, I believe the test of actually meeting the needs that we know exist in terms of treatment plants is measured by construction activity at the annual level.

I understand in order to meet current needs and to take care of obsolescence and to provide for increased population, we should be constructing waste treatment plants at a level in excess, I believe of $670 million a year. We have not reached that construction level at this point.

Senator MUSKIE. What are the pressures that limit the pace of construction?

Mr. MIELDS. Well, at the local level, it is certainly the fact that local financial resources are limited, that in many of our cities, we have reached bonded indebtedness limitations imposed either by statute or by the State constitution, or we have reached the political limitation in terms of the property tax-that is, it is not politically possible to increase it any further.

Also, I believe that the problem as far as waste treatment plants are concerned generally is that it is not the kind of public works that fire the imagination of the citizens, it is not generally the kind of bond issue that he is inclined to look at with great enthusiasm. And for that reason, I think it presents some problems. Although, on the other hand, as Mr. Stein pointed out in his testimony, St. Louis did pass a $95 million bond issue by a 5-to-1 vote. And I would add here that Mayor Tucker was chairman of our resolutions committee at our meeting in Hawaii, and he commented on the enforcement program that is currently underway, and his comments were salutary. And he said the position taken by the Federal Government had considerable merit, and it was of material assistance to him in getting his bond issue passed.

Senator MUSKIE. With respect to the metropolitan area problem, does your association approve of the grant for metropolitan planning! Mr. MIELDS. Yes, sir, the second resolution that we passed on water pollution control endorsed all of the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Relations in this area.

Senator MUSKIE. Does that also relate to the new authority for setting of water equality and discharge standards that I discussed with Mr. Stein?

Mr. MIELDS. Well, our resolution on that was more of a general nature. But I think that the position the mayors took was a general endorsement of a program concept which would expedite, give impetus to the current important drive toward a maximum abatement.

Senator MUSKIE. So you think such standards should be consistent with our general purpose?

Mr. MIELDS. I personally believe they would, and I believe most of the mayors would agree with me on that. I know that we were somewhat disturbed about the fact that Congress amended the Atomic Energy Act, to provide for State standards being established on maximum levels of radiation. I think many of us felt there that this would mean we would get 50 sets of standards to contend with assuming all the States decided to go ahead and establish them. And I think the concensus of opinion was they would prefer to have one national set of standards, knowing full well that the Federal Government with its tremendous research resources and knowledge in this area would be in a much better position to establish meaningful and reasonable standards in this area. And I believe the same reasoning applies to water pollution.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much. Senator Boggs?
Senator BOGGS. No questions.

Senator MUSKIE. Senator Metcalf.

Senator METCALF. We are glad to have you again before the committee, Mr. Mields, to see you again in your new position.

Mr. MIELDS. Thank you, Senator.

Senator METCALF. How are these matching grants obtained from local communities? Are they property tax, or special improvement district, or general property tax, or what is the source of revenue of the community?

Mr. MIELDS. For the most part, it is the general property tax that provides the money to construct treatment plants and sewer systems. Now, in some communities they do have assessment districts which provide for the cost of the sewer system, and that basically relates to the initial installation of the sewer-that goes along with the sidewalk, street, and sewer, where the homeowner himself actually assumes part of the direct cost of the laterals and so on.

But as far as waste treatment plants are concerned, for the most part they are financed out of general property taxes.

Senator METCALF. But in either event, the local financing comes from a property tax, whether it is by special assessment or special improvement district, or under a general property tax, system of bonds. Mr. MIELDS. That is right.

Senator METCALF. Now, how do these municipalities go about administering? Do they have a local health office or county health officer or city health officer in charge of these inspections, and administering the sewage plants?

Mr. MIELDS. Well, the practice varies a good deal. In some States the county has direct responsibility. In some cases there are metropolitan sewer districts, as is the case here in Maryland, which encompasses, I believe, two counties, and which is tied in in part with the District system.

Now, in Milwaukee, where I originally came from, and I worked for the city for several years there, the city installed all of the sewer