nical matter, which is going to have to be worked out by the Department of Transportation and the Interior Department.

Mr. HARSHA. Thank you. That is all I have.

Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. McEwen?

Mr. McEwEN. No questions.

Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Schwengel?

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I did not get here in time to hear all of your statement, but I have read it.

I am impressed with what you have said.

I am a member of the Izaak Walton League. I know your organization. I worked with them.

Mr. PANKOWSKI. Yes, sir; I knew that.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. I am glad you are here on behalf of your organization. I commend you and all your colleagues who work officially in the Izaak Walton League for the great work you have done in this whole area of conservation. It is perfectly natural you should be here. Mr. PANKOWSKI. Thank you.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. I commend you for your fine statement and your insight and quality of your work.

I have a question on this total problem. Do you see the need for more cooperative research in this whole area of water pollution, to find other and better answers to the problem, both as to how we contend with it after it is polluted and how the rules are applied across the board nationwise?

Mr. PANKOWSKI. Yes, sir. I think there is a need for that. I was here yesterday, Congressman, when Mr. Vanik made his statement, and when you had some comments with respect to it. We feel that the need for more research, however, should in no way hinder or stall the things that we know could be done today. The literature on damage caused by pollution-we have rooms and rooms of it down here the evidence of the massive pollution of our waters is just staggering. And all the research in the world is not going to solve the problem if we do not start building sewage treatment plants, and if we do not start installing devices on vessels, or we do not start seeing to it that industry builds into their processes the kind of safety guards so that when the water goes into the plant it comes out just like it was.

I think research is important, but I think if we did not have one more line of research in this country today, we could still make dramatic progress, simply by applying the technology that we have available

to us.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. I agree with you. And I would not want to sponsor anything that would delay our acting on anything we know the answers to. There are a lot of areas where we know right answers, and we should pursue them.

Mr. PANKOWSKI. Yes, sir.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. But I also recognize that as we move in this technical age, chemistry is playing an increasingly important part, and as it plays an important part to add to our well-being, and increasing our standard of living, which is the case almost always, we must be aware of the hazards that come with it.

And the only way to deal with this adequately, it seems to me, is more research. So it seems to me we need to know a lot more about

the problem, and you have to know the problem before you can find the answers, and then we will find some better answers.

But in those areas where we have the answers, we ought to pursue it in every way we can.

Mr. PANKOWSKI. Yes, sir.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. You mentioned sewage treatment plants. Now, I have been in contact with some scientists who tell me now that we do not know all the best processes yet. This whole area in sewage treatment plants needs continuing studies. That does not mean to postpone building any treatment plants that are as efficient as we can possibly get today; but if there is a better treatment plant and better treatment, and it will save money, it will be more effective and efficient, we ought to have that; should we not?

Mr. PANKOWSKI. I agree, Congressman. We do have some concern that this recognition for more research has fostered the attitude among some industries and municipalities, that if they hold out and wait longer, then it is not going to cost them as much.

I do not think that is likely to happen. I think things are going to get more expensive. The treatment that we are going to require, if we keep on polluting our waters, is going to have to be far more comprehensive than it is now, if we nip some of these things in the bud.

So we are concerned that while we do need more research, that we get on with the job of applying what knowledge we have to these situations.

The point was made yesterday, for instance, that there ought to be industry standards for certain types of processes. We ought to be moving in that direction.

We would like to see industry sit down and work into their own industrial processes the kind of techniques that are necessary so that when the waters go in the plant they come out like they were, or better.

We know this is possible.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. I thank you.

Mr. McCARTHY. I might note that this is a matter of considerable urgency in my State of New York. The State of New York was prepared to set standards for effluent from vessels, but deferred action because they recognized that it was not advisable that 50 different States set 50 different standards, so that New York State is waiting for the Federal Government to act, as I think is a wise decision. Because we do not want 50 different standards. I mean, these boats ply international waterways and interstate waterways, and they do not want to stop off in Ohio and find one standard, and go into Pennsylvania and find another, and go into New York and find still another.

So I think it is important to note that many States, including New York, are prepared to act; but have deferred action, pending action by the Congress.

I have a statement here from our distinguished colleague, Congressman John M. Murphy, of Staten Island, and if there is no objection, it will appear in the record at this point.

(Statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN M. MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Thank you Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of vital legislation aimed at preventing the tragic ruination of the nation's navigable waters.

Water pollution now costs the country an estimated $12 billion dollars a year. It is estimated that by 1980, we will be spending $66.3 billion dollars on overdue water and waste-water research and development projects.

But this massive pouring of money on troubled waters by both the Federal government and private industry is only a ripple in man's fight against a tidal wave of slime and sewage. For what was once a source for pleasure and profit has become a repository for filth and disease.

In my own 16th Congressional District, which takes in the Bensonhurst, Bay Ridge, Coney Island sections of Brooklyn and all of Staten Island, we not only feel the economic effects of this pollution but we see and smell its consequences. Staten Island is surrounded by two large estuaries. On the north, the Kill Van Kull laps at our shoreline and on the south the mouth of the great Raritan Bay finds its home. These two great bodies of water that should offer Staten Islanders boundless economic opportunities and recreational enjoyment offer little but repulsive odors and sights.

The Kill Van Kull was once described as an area "well supplied with large beds of excellent oysters, "today in some stretches of this channel no marine life at all can survive, and along with Coney Island Creek in Brooklyn, has been described as "possibly the most polluted waterway in the world".

Raritan Bay and Lower New York Bay have potentially the richest clam beds in the world, but since a 1960 hepatitis scare it is against the law to remove shellfish from these waters. A once thriving clam industry is almost dormant, with a loss to Staten Islanders running into millions of dollars, and I might add a loss to clam lovers of some of the finest tasting clams in the world.

In 1964 the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge opened Staten Island's shores to thousands of New Yorkers, it gave them the opportunity to enjoy the miles and miles of beaches we have to offer-almost. Almost, because most of the beaches on Staten Island are closed because of pollution. Tottenville Beach, Graham Reach, and Oakwood Beach all "boast" no swimming signs. Those few beaches that do allow bathing, like South Beach, can be enjoyed only if you don't mind the oil slicks, debris and pollution.

Coney Island, one of the world's great beaches, while not closed to the bathing public is contaminated with pollution and debris.

These few examples that I have mentioned, affecting my own Congressional District, are unfortunately not the exception but the rule all around the country, whether it be in Florida, California or Massachusetts.

If we are to reclaim these once productive waters, something must be done immediately. My bill H.R. 1246 is such a step.

It would prohibit the dumping of spoil from dredging operations into navigable waters by the Department of the Army or any other officer of the United States unless the Secretary of the Interior first determines that it will not pollute the waters. It would also ban, under similar conditions, the dumping of any other earth, garbage, or refuse material into navigable waters.

We must no longer permit the nation's waterways to become a garbage dump. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. hope this committee will take the necessary steps to curb the water pollution problem that is heading towards crisis proportions.

Mr. MCCARTHY. I believe Mr. Anderson of California has a question. Mr. ANDERSON. No, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MCCARTHY. Any more questions on my left? Mr. Denney or Mr. Zion?

Mr. HARSHA. I have one other question.

Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Harsha.

Mr. HARSHA. Sir, on page 4, your second paragraph, you say, "The second assumption is that it is technically and economically feasible to devise vessel sanitation devices, particularly for large vessels, which combine both holding and treatment features."

Well now, this may be well for large vessels, but you have a different problem with small craft, pleasure craft, do you not?

Mr. PANKOWSKI. Yes, sir.

Mr. HARSHA. Have there been any devices developed that will handle this sort of thing for small craft?

Mr. PANKOWSKI. I am not sure at this point. In reviewing all the literature on this subject, particularly the hearings that were held before Congress last year, there is a good deal of discussion about the problems of putting in devices in smaller crafts.

In going through this literature, it became rather apparent that there is a certain difference of opinion arising here as to whether the devices ought to be limited to holding tanks, or whether they should be macerator or incinerator types, and in going through this literature it seemed very evident there was very little discussion about combining these fixtures, so that a boatowner would have an option. If a boatowner bought a vessel which complied with Federal standards, and took it out on navigable waters, he would be assured that he could operate this boat normally anywhere in these waters.

If, for some reason, he wanted to move this boat inland, to a large inland lake, and he were to discover that he could not operate this boat because it is going to be a violation of the State's prohibition against discharges entirely, this boat to many, for inland purposes, is useless, unless he has options here of discharging in waters which are allowed for this purpose, or of pumping his sewage into onshore facilities, or the option of seeing to it that no discharge at all emanates from that vessel.

Mr. HARSHA. I understand all of that. What I was trying to get at is, if you had any knowledge of any device that has been developed that would meet with a degree of success to this problem. Up to now we apparently have not had any information of anything that has been developed

Mr. PANKOWSKI. I have no knowledge on that. That is why I used the word "assumption" here. I personally feel that somebody ought to look into such a device that would have both features.

Mr. HARSHA. Thank you.

Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Pankowski. We appreciate very much your valuable contribution.

Mr. PANKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MCCARTHY. Our next witness is DeWitt D. Barlow, Jr., president of the Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co., and vice president, National Association of River & Harbor Contractors.

STATEMENT OF DeWITT D. BARLOW, JR., PRESIDENT, ATLANTIC GULF & PACIFIC CO., AND VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RIVER & HARBOR CONTRACTORS; ACCOMPANIED BY BARRY SULLIVAN, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE

Mr. BARLOW. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is DeWitt D. Barlow, Jr. I am vice president of the National Association of River & Harbor Contractors and also president of Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co., New York, N.Y., a member of this association.

Members of our association perform upward of 80 percent of all dredging operations by private business in the United States.

I have with me Mr. Barry Sullivan, our Washington representative. We appreciate very much the opportunity of presenting to you our views on the various water pollution control bills before you this morning and particularly the measures relating to disposal of dredge spoil in the navigable waters of the United States.

Since concern for the problem of water pollution became significant some years ago, studies, surveys, and investigations have been undertaken by individual members of our association as well as by various regional sections of the industry. The Corps of Engineers as well as agencies of State and local governments also are pressing forward to gather the facts as a basis for decision.

However, with the onset of concern for this problem, the difficulty of securing shoreside disposal areas has been accentuated. It is becoming well-nigh impossible for us to secure permits to dispose of spoil either in deep water or in spoil areas on shore. In some situations permits are being denied for the use of spoil areas, whether owned by our member companies or by organizations wishing us to perform dredging operations for them.

In our view the problem is one of balance. To keep the waterways of the United States open for commerce, and to expand them, is as vital a consideration as the improvement of the quality of the waters themselves. And we are agreed that the latter objective is also essential and urgent.

With your permission, I will skip the examples of the importance of waterways, with which, I am sure, all of you are familiar.

To maintain the waterways, system dredging operations are continuous. Accordingly, we would commend to the committee's consideration the importance of the continued use of authorized disposal areas under the control of the Corps of Engineers and recommended, also, that permits for disposal on lands owned by private organizations be expedited.

Let me emphasize that disposal in authorized deepwater spoil areas has not been shown by surveys, so far, to increase pollution materially and that the prompt issuance of permits for disposal on shore or in enclosed areas, would begin reversal of pollution by removing material from the waterways.

We recognize the importance of removing polluted material from the waterways and eliminating the introduction of additional such material into the waterways. In our operations, we are introducing more effective procedures to prevent the backflow of pollutants into the waters from dredge spoil areas.

These include the intensified use of spillway structures to increase retention of solids, successive settling ponds for the same objective, control of the flow velocities of the effluent, et cetera.

But the achievement of significant improvement in water quality of the rivers and harbors of the United States requires a new approach to the pollution problem which now has the support of all of us.

Very costly programs are underway by industry and public bodies, including some municipalities, to reduce introduction of pollutants into the waterways. But, to lower the level of existing pollution of