For over three centuries the beauty of Ameri:a has sustained our spirit and has enlarged our vision. We must act now to protect this heritage. In a fruitful new partnership with the States and cities the next decade should be a conservation milestone. *

We will seek legal power to prevent pollution of our air and water before it happens. We will step up our effort to control harmful wastes, giving just priority to the cleanup of our most contaminated rivers. We will increase research to learn much more about the control of pollution.

These objectives and approaches stated by the President are reflected in S. 4.

As I mentioned previously, this legislation is, with the exception of two deletions and some perfecting amendments, identical to S. 649, as approved by the Senate on October 16, 1963, by a vote of 69 to 11. The two sections deleted were those relating to the control and abatement of pollution from Federal installations and the problem of nondegradable detergents.

[p. 1503]

The Federal installations section was eliminated from this bill because similar problems with respect to Federal installations are present in the field of air pollution, as well as water pollution. In addition, there were other matters relating to Federal activities in both fields which require separate and more complete consideration. Because of these factors it was decided to cover these matters in separate legislation.

The detergents section was deleted because the members of the soap and detergent industry have reported changes in their schedules for supplying the market with detergents which will degrade more readily than those presently on the market. In view of this change it was considered advisable to conduct additional hearings on the detergent problem to determine the type or need of corrective legislation.

S. 4 includes the following proposals; First. To establish an additional position of Assistant Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to help the Secretary to administer the Federal Water

Pollution Control Act.

Second. To create a Federal Water Pollution Control Administration to administer sections 3, comprehensive programs; 4, interstate cooperation and uniform laws; 10, enforcement measures; and, 11, to control pollution from Federal installations, of the act.

Third. To authorize appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1965, and for 3 succeeding fiscal years in the amount of $20 million a year for grants for research and development to demonstrate new or improved methods for the control of combined storm and sanitary sewer discharges.

Fourth. To increase grants to individual sewage treatment projects from $600,000 to $1 million, and to allow multimunicipal combinations grant increases from $2,400,000 to $4 million.

There is also a provision which provides a 10-percent bonus on construction grants for treatment plants where such construction is part of a comprehensive metropolitan plan.

Fifth. To provide procedures for the establishment of water quality standards applicable to interstate waters.

Sixth. To authorize action by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to initiate abatement proceedings where he finds that substantial economic injury results from the inability to market shellfish or shellfish products in interstate commerce because of pollution of interstate or navigable waters and actions of Federal, State, or local authorities.

Seventh. Provisions for audits where Federal funds are utilized under the act, and provisions, under the Water Pollution Control Act, for appropriate application of the authority and functions of the Secretary of Labor with respect to labor standards.

The two perfecting amendments to the bill, as adopted by the committee, relate to the quality standards section of the bill. The first clarifies the procedure relating to the revision of water quality standards, so that the same provisions for hearings and consultation, followed

in establishing standards in the first instance, will be followed in the revision of those standards. There is, connected with that amendment, another amendment which provides a more logical sequence of paragraphs in the standards section.

The second committee amendment requires the hearing board, under the enforcement procedure, to give consideration to "the practicability of complying with such standards as may be applicable." This language is identical with that added to the court review section of the Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, in S. 649 in the 88th Congress. It is considered a clarification of a protection the committee intended to be present in the enforcement provisions of the act.

I have outlined, Mr. President, the provisions of S. 4, its origins, its development, and its senatorial sponsorship and support. In addition, this year, it has the support of the administration, as indicated in the January 18, 1965, letter to Chairman MCNAMARA from the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. In that letter he wrote, in part:

The overall purposes of S. 4 are highly desirable, particularly insofar as they are consistent with the President's goals and objectives noted above. We favor, therefore, the enactment of this legislation as necessary for the effective conduct of the national water pollution control program and the accomplishment of its important aims and purposes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the Secretary's letter be printed at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,
Washington, D.C., January 18, 1965.

Hon. PAT V. MCNAMARA,
Chairman, Committee on Public Works,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in response to your request of January 11, 1965, for a report on S. 4, a bill, to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,

to establish the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, to provide grants for research and development, to increase grants for construction of municipal sewage treatment works, to authorize the establishment of standards of water quality to aid in preventing, controlling, and abating pollution of interstate waters, and for other purposes. In his state of the Union message, delivered to the Congress on January 4, 1965 (H. Doc. No. 1, 89th Cong.), President Johnson set forth important national goals and objectives for the prevention, control, and abatement of water pollution. The President proposed "that we end the poisoning of our rivers," and to this end he recommended legal power to prevent pollution before it happens and further asserted that we will step up our effort to control harmful wastes, giving first priority to the cleanup of our most contaminated rivers and will increase research to learn much more about the control of pollution. We view the purposes of S. 4 as consonant with these goals and objectives and therefore highly desirable.

The provisions of S. 4 are identical with those of S. 649, 88th Congress, passed by the Senate on October 16, 1963, except for the deletion of the provisions for permits for waste discharges from Federal installations and for measures for the control of synthetic detergents. Our comments on their identical provisions were submitted to you in our letter of October 11, 1963.

As stated therein, we fully support the provision of an additional Assistant Secretary position for this Department. This important provision will contribute to the necessary strengthening of the Office of the Secretary and will benefit all the Department's programs.

The proposed program of grants to assist municipalities in the development of projects which will demonstrate new or improved methods of controlling discharges of sewage and wastes from storm sewers and combined storm and sanitary sewers will aid greatly in resolving this very critical pollution problem. A recent report prepared by the Public Health Service, entitled, "Pollutional Effects of Stormwater and Overflows from Combined Sewer Systems; a Preliminary Appraisal," reveals the following significant aspects of this problem: Approximately 59 million people in more than 1.900 communities are served by combined sewers and combinations of combined and separate sewer systems. Storm water and combined sewer overflows are responsible for major amounts of polluting material in the Nation's receiving waters and the tendency with growing urbanization is for these amounts to increase. Both combined overflows and storm water contribute significant amounts of pollutional materials

to watercourses. These discharges affect all known water uses adversely in the receiving watercourses. Complete separation of storm water from sanitary sewers and treatment of all waste is the ultimate control measure to provide maximum protection to receiving waters. Total costs for complete separation based on scattered information are estimated to be in the $20 to $30 billion range. The report recommends demonstration projects identical in purpose with those specified in S. 4 as an attack on the problem and to provide information for future action. While we fully endorse the objectives of this provision of the bill, we wish to advise the committee that the administration will be proposing a community facility grants program. The organizational and coordinating arrangements for this and related existing programs are still under consideration, and will be dealt with in future recommendations to the Congress.

We agree with the desirability of increasing the existing dollar ceiling limitations on the amount of a single project grant from $600,000 to $1 million and from $2,400,000 to $4 million for a project in which two or more communities jointly participate. This amendment will provide a more equitable measure of assistance to those projects involving disproportionately higher costs and substantially stimulate the construction of necessary waste treatment facilities by larger communities, where the attendant needs are commensurately greater.

The bill provides that the amount of a grant for a project may be increased by 10 percent of that amount if the project is certified as conforming with a comprehensive plan for the metropolitan area in which the project is to be constructed. We believe that a direct financial incentive such as this is desirable to encourage municipalities to coordinate and conform, if practicable, to the facility plan for the metropolitan or regional area, both in the interests of effective water pollution control and because of the substantial savings in expenditures that may be realized to all levels of government as a result of such area coordination. This provision of S. 4 and the proposed increases in the dollar limitations for any single or joint construction project implement the recommendations of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations in its October 1962 report on "Intergovernmental Respon

[p 1504]

sibilities for Water Supply and Sewage Disposal in Metropolitan Areas."

The provisions for establishment of standards of water quality to be applicable to interstate waters would appear to have for their purpose the prevention of pollution before its inception. Sound water quality standards are capable of serving as valuable

guidelines for municipalities and industries in providing for effective treatment and disposal of their wastes so as to prevent pollution situations from arising. We are in agreement, therefore, as to the necessity and desirability of these provisions.

Such industries as the commercial shellfish and fishing enterprises, which are importantly engaged in the shipping and marketing of seafood products, are particularly susceptible to the deleterious effects of pollution. In addition to the immediate health nazards involved, the uncontrolled discharges of water matters in proximity to shellfish bed and commercial fish habitat areas inflict grave economic losses upon these industries through the resultant necessary closing of such areas to harvesting operations. The proposal of S. 4 directing the application of enforcement authority and procedures in such instances would provide corrective relief measures presently unavailable to those operators whose economic livelihood is imperiled through such pollution.

The overall purposes of S. 4 are highly desirable, particularly insofar as they are consistent with the President's goals and objectives noted above. We favor, therefore, the enactment of this legislation as necessary for the effective conduct of the national water pollution control program and the accomplishment of its important aims and purposes.

We are advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program.

Sincerely,

ANTHONY CELEBREZZE,

Secretary.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the provisions of S. 4 also have the support of the Federal Water Pollution Control Advisory Board, by resolutions adopted by the Board on June 12, 1963, and November 10, 1964. This distinguished panel of public-spirited citizens maintains a continuing relationship with the water pollution control program and has an intimate knowledge of its operation within the Public Health Service and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the names and titles of the members and the resolutions of the Board relating to the creation of a Water Pollution Control Administration in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare be printed at this point in the

RECORD.

There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADVISORY BOARD

Chairman, ex officio: Hon. James M. Quigley. Assistant Secretary, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington, D.C.

Executive secretary: Mr. Robert C. Ayers. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington, D.C.

Mr. Earle G. Burwell, former member, Wyoming State Stream Pollution Committee, Casper, Wyo.

Mr. M. James Gleason, commissioner, Multnomah County, County courthouse,

Portland, Oreg.

Mr. Raymond A. Haik, attorney-at-law, Minneapolis, Minn.

Mrs. Burnette Y. Hennington, national secretary, National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, Inc., Northside Station, Jackson, Miss.

Mr. Gerald A. Jackson, vice president, Champion Papers, Inc., Chicago, Ill.

Mr. Lee Roy Matthias, executive vice president, Red River Valley Association, Shreveport, La.

Mr. Blucher A. Poole, director, bureau of environmental sanitation, State board of health, Indianapolis, Ind.

Mr. William E. Towell, director, Missouri Conservation Commission, Jefferson City,

Mo.

Mr. William E. Warne, director, California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, Calif.

BY

FEDERAL WATER RESOLUTION ADOPTED POLLUTION CONTROL ADVISORY BOARD ON JUNE 12, 1963

Whereas the Federal Water Pollution Control Advisory Board was created by Congress and members are appointed by the President for the purpose of reviewing the water pollution problem of this country, appraising public opinion on the subject and making recommendations which would lead to the formation of policies which would effectuate better water pollution control throughout the Nation; and

Whereas there is now pending before the Congress legislation which would transfer the administration of the Federal water pollution control program out of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; and

Whereas there is also pending before the Congress legislation which would establish a separate administrative agency within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare for the Federal water pollution control program; and

Whereas this Board is previously on record in favor of the establishment of such a separate administrative organization within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare: Now be it Resolved

1. That considering the availability of highly qualified water pollution control personnel now in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and considering the wealth of knowledge and experience accumulated within that Department in this area this Board strongly urges and recommends that the administration of water pollution control be retained within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; and

2. This Board specifically endorses and urges the adoption either by administrative action by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare or by congressional enactment, that section of S. 649 and H.R. 3161 (or similar pending bills) which relates to the establishment of a separate administrative agency for water pollution control within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; and be it further

Resolved, That the Chairman of this Board is requested to bring the contents of this resolution to the attention of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and the chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Water and Air Pollution and the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors and Public Works so that they may be fully appraised of this Board's deep concern for the need of the immediate upgrading of the water pollution control program within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

POLLUTION DEPART

RESOLUTION CREATING A WATER CONTROL ADMINISTRATION IN THE MENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Resolved, That the Federal Water Pollution Control Advisory Board, in executive session this 10th day of November 1964, at Chicago, Ill., recommends the creation of a separate Water Pollution Control Administration within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the proposed legislation has the support of the distinguished Governor of California, Edmund G. Brown, who testified before the committee. It is supported by the U.S. Conference of Mayors and other civic organizations. It is supported by the National Wildlife Federation and other conservation groups. Industrial representatives who appeared before the committee and who consulted with us

have indicated that while they may not agree with all of its provisions, they believe S. 4 is reasonable in its approach.

Mr. President, I believe S. 4 deserves the high priority accorded it by the administration and by the Senate leadership. Two years have passed since its basic provisions were presented to the Senate. A year and a quarter has passed since the Senate approved S. 649. The improvements that this legislation offers are needed today more than ever.

The need for the acceleration of sewage treatment plant construction and for the correction of the problem of combined sewers is no less urgent than when I introduced S. 649 in January of 1963, or when it passed the Senate in October of that year. As a matter of fact, the delay in enactment of legislation has created a greater backlog of needs in correcting the Nation's water pollution problems.

The committee recognizes that the increased authorizations in S. 4 do not go as far as some members would like. We are conscious of the problems confronting our larger cities where even the $1 million project authorization contained in S. 4 will not approach 30 percent of the project cost. We are also conscious of the growing needs of smaller communities, where the cost of collection sewers-not eligible for aid under the Water Pollution Control Act -is often larger than that of the sewage treatment works. There are many other fiscal and developmental problems connected with the sewage treatment grant program which must be examined. But none of these questions can be considered adequately without giving attention to the problem of overall grant authorizations. It is the committee's intention to give timely and intensive study to this problem. The views of all interested parties will be solicited in an effort to arrive at a sound and fair total authorization and to correct any inequities which exist in the present grant program.

Today our older cities are faced with

the necessity of separating their combined storm and sanitary sewers, or devising means whereby the discharge of runoff from city streets is gradually fed through treatment plants to prevent overloading of treatment systems and the discharge of untreated sewage into public waterways. The correction of the problem of combined sewers requires huge expenditures on the part of communities. Current estimates place the cost of separation in the order of $30 billion. The $20 million annual authorization in S. 4 would help launch a research and development program to find

[p. 1505]

improved methods of dealing with the combined sewage problem. Hopefully, this program will also cut the costs of corrective action.

For the program of sewage treatment facilities to be of greater benefit to our larger communities, the limitation on individual and multimunicipal grants needs to be raised. The present ceilings are unrealistic when applied to the considerably greater expenditures which a larger city must bear in installing necessary treatment works. In application, the grants approximate as little or less than 10 percent of the costs involved, and thus they fail to achieve what is at once a primary and necessary objective of the grant program-the incentive to develop local projects for the control and abatement of water pollution.

S. 4 would authorize the establishment of an additional Assistant Secretary to help in the responsibility of the Department to oversee this important sphere of activities. There would also be authorized a Federal Water Pollution Control Administration to carry out certain functions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, thus accomplishing two purposes:

First, the new Administration would elevate the status of our water pollution control and abatement programs to a more appropriate and effective level in the Department.