the State water commission and other agencies. Today, the commission has a staff of 10 engineers and 3 secretaries, the same number the water commission had 30 years ago.

Besides the additional number of staff help needed to keep pace with the growing problem, this same understaffed commission is responsible, in addition to water pollution, flood control, shore and beach erosion control, supervision of dams, structures and dredging in navigable waters, water resources inventories and other duties.

Today, 1,192 plants are treating waterborne wastes from industries, municipalities and institutions. Some 975 of these are treating sewerage and sanitary wastes and 217 are treating waste water from industries.

William S. Wise, director of the Water Resources Commission, says the State needs 235 more plants to treat industrial wastes and 46 more sewerage treatment plants.

Ten years ago, his staff started operations by projecting how long it would take to complete the water pollution control plants. The projects were placed into two phases.

Phase 1 was to complete sewerage treatment plants and was scheduled for completion this year. Phase 2 was the time needed to complete all industrial waste treatment plants. Target date was set for 1970.

However, because of the serious deficiency in the number of staff personnel, the sewerage treatment schedule was advanced to 1970 and the industrial treatment schedule advanced to 1975.

Five years ago, a commission study showed it needed a staff of 29 to do the work, more than double the number it now has. A Federal study later indicated the same commission would need a minimum of 46 and a maximum of 57. Wise, however, still thinks the figure of 29 is more realistic.

Budget requests for more staff have continually been cut back.

Can it be that the State administration and the general assembly wish to give only token attention to water pollution? If it did not so wish, why did it overburden the commission with so many other added duties?

Is it possible that a deliberate attempt is underway to slow down this State's initial drive against dirty water?

Wise has been reluctant to blame anyone for the apparent legislative and administrative apathy. He says the commission's record "points to notable progress. But," he says, "it also shows that we still face complex problems."

These complexities he enumerates:

The many suburban residential developments building beyond sewerage facilities and in inadequate drainage areas near small, clean streams.

Estuaries and tidal rivers complicating the receiving of outward flow from waste treat

ment facilities.

Ground disposal and treatment of various types of sanitary and industrial wastes and the treatment of disposal of wastes resulting from the production and the use of toxic substances, chemicals and pesticides, etc.

Besides these added so-called complexities, Wise and his staff do not have the manpower to regularly inspect the waste treatment plants already built. How can the commission expect the treatment plants built to continue to do the job if no staff is provided to see that they do?

[p. 8675]

Last month residents from East Hampton complained about the red color of the Salmon River.

The color came from paper fibers discharged from a paper company. Wise and his commission have had the plant under observation for 20 years. Different pollution control devices were tried with varying degrees of success.

After 20 years, paper company officials were threatened with formal commission action if the company did not find a satisfactory remedy by Monday. And after 20 years, plant apparently equipped with a waste treatment facility is still polluting the Salmon River.

Is it enough to rationalize the problem away by admitting to complexities and the huge amount of work still left undone?

Wise admits his staff has been slowed down by many obstacles. These he said were the money hurdle and getting public and private officials to put pollution control on a priority list of importance.

But there must be a limit to buck passing. If enough money cannot be raised to pay for an adequate staff after the problems and complexities have been clearly stated, who is actually responsible? Or has the problem actually been clearly stated?

If the administration does not consider water pollution an important enough problem to solve effectively, who is responsible for making them recognize the importance?

Forty years ago, Connecticut thought the problem was serious enough to pass a law to solve it. Forty years have passed and administrative apathy has all but thwarted the law's directive.

Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my support for the water pollution bill which is now before the House.

This legislation, S. 4, the Water Quality Act of 1965, will provide effective pollution prevention and enforcement. The bill has provisions for:

First. Setting water quality standards.

Second. Increasing the Federal grant ceilings for multimunicipal construction projects and State pollution control programs.

Third. Promoting research into the problems of mixed storm drainage and sanitary sewage systems.

We were once a nation that was proud of the beauty and majesty of our national resources. Today every major river system is polluted. Millions of Americans are denied the use of recreational areas because of widespread pollution. Furthermore, this pollution is detrimental and costly to our economy. It is very expensive to treat polluted drinking water.

The passage of this bill is essential if we are to return America to the beautiful Nation that it once was and can be once more. We must all be aware of the quiet crisis that we face with regard to the preservation of our natural resources. Industry and government at all levels work closely together in the area of pollution control. The passage of the Water Quality Act is important to insure that the Federal Government does its share to preserve our most precious resource-water.

Mr. GRABOWSKI. Mr. Chairman, it is a great pleasure for me to join with my distinguished colleagues in support of the legislation before the House. With a great many Americans I have always been concerned with the quality of water resources. For many years I have believed that our Nation's streams constituted the lifeblood of the Nation's health.

Our people require clean water in every respect whether we are referring to drinking water or to those leisurely hours when we vacation with family and friends near a cool lake. It is important that the quality of the water be of the highest possible standard.

In supporting this legislation, I am aware of the great efforts that have been made by the members of the House Pub

lic Works Committee, and by various Members in the other body. I have followed this work and I have read through the hearings that have been held in each body. I have been convinced that their work merits our great admiration. And I want to take this opportunity to praise the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. BLATNIK] and all other Members who have worked so diligently on this legislation to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.

This legislation has many, many interesting features. It establishes the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. It provides grants for significant R. & D. matters and increases the grants for construction of municipal sewerage treatment works.

It is a time worn cliché to say that water is our greatest resource. As we look across the broad expanse of the globe, we can readily see that water constitutes a much wider area than land. We have been particularly fortunate here in the United States and it is absolutely imperative that we begin now on the course to settle the issue of pure water for all time. As was stated so poignantly in the House committee report to accompany S. 4, "the issue of pure water must be settled now for the benefit of, not only this generation, but for untold generations to come."

Mr. Chairman, in my judgment, the legislation before the House today will start us on the road to substantial and necessary improvement of our Nation's waterways. In two brilliant messages since January our distinguished President has called for improvement of our Nation's waterways. And back in the mid-thirties another great Democratic President said:

To some generations much is given. to others much is expected. This generation of America has a rendezvous with destiny.

These memorable words of Franklin Delano Roosevelt apply to the present problem at hand.

Mr. Chairman, I know that other

Members of this distinguished House will speak to the specific aspects of this legislation. I want to conclude my remarks by simply saying that I believethat in terms of water quality improvement-this generation of Americans has a challenge and a moral commitment to start the long process of cleaning up our streams. I also know that representatives of the local governments and industry are prepared to begin together the long and difficult task that lies ahead. The legislation before us, as approved unanimously by the House Committee on Public Works, will start the ball rolling. I urge its immediate enactment. It will be of lasting benefit to all residents of the Sixth Connecticut District.

Mr. HELSTOSKI. Mr. Chairman, in my own district we have two major rivers, and I am sorry to say we cannot boast today of the beauty of either one. The Passaic and Hackensack Rivers at one time, however, were pure and beautiful. They once served our area not only for transportation but for recreation as well.

The encroachment of industry, uncontrolled until recent years, has changed that picture. Today, no one would bathe in either river because of heavy pollution and there are few fish able to survive the contents of the tidal areas in either stream.

This has become a growing problem, long overdue for correction. It has reached a point where many homeowners are affected directly-by peeling paint, unpleasant odors, and unsightly waterfronts.

It is my belief that the proposed amendment to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act will begin to correct these shortcomings in my district and in similarly affected communities throughout the Nation.

This bill is a necessary forward step in our national effort to solve our water pollution problem and to bring about proper water quality. It upgrades the existing program; provides incentives for the participation of States in assist

ing local governments to finance the construction of necessary waste treatment works, and requires the establishment of water quality criteria by the States.

The creation of a Federal Water Pollution Control Administration within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare by this legislation will lead to a strong national policy for the prevention, control, and abatement of water pollution.

The question of water quality standards, Mr. Chairman, is one of prime importance in my own district. Large portions of New Jersey and neighboring States are now faced by the results of a 4-year period in which we received lessthan-normal rainfall. Our reservoirs have been drained to dangerously low points at times and many of our areas have had to ration water during hot summer days.

Cleaning up our rivers under this act could lead to finding and developing new sources of water for consumption.

This bill will open new areas of cooperation between the States and Federal Government. In this program, States and local agencies will benefit from research, investigations, training and information programs developed by Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. And since waterways do not recognize State boundaries, local efforts could result in providing purer water for large areas.

This amendment also provides the means for communities-particularly our older cities-to find the means to combat problems caused by antiquated sanitary and storm sewers.

This bill will aid many additional communities by doubling the dollar ceilings limitations for construction of waste

[p. 8676]

treatment works from $600,000 to $1.2 million for an individual project and from $2.4 million to $4.8 million for a joint project in which two or more communities participate. This dollar in

crease will still limit the Government to 30 percent of the total cost of the project, but is a more realistic figure based on present total construction costs. It will provide the degree of help necessary for larger cities and for those once-small communities which suddenly have found themselves mushroomed into city-like proportions. Their sewage treatment problems have grown at the same pace. These, Mr. Chairman, I consider to be necessary services and aids for our communities. I strongly support this fight to combat water pollution and urge my colleagues to join me in voting for passage.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of S. 4 as reported by the Public Works Committee.

In the 9 years since Congress first enacted a permanent program for an assault on the growing problem of water pollution, we have made important strides in the improvement of water quality. In 1961, I supported legislation to broaden and expand this program and was particularly pleased that the research function would be emphasized to a greater degree.

The efforts to date have borne fruit, but as the Public Works Committee has pointed out, we are just holding our own-we are not really getting at the root of the problem.

For this reason, I think that the bill before us today is necessary. If we wait much longer to intensify our attack, the battle may be lost.

It is estimated that we will be doubling our water consumption in the next two decades. It is clear that we have got to develop far more effective means of reusing water if we are to meet the rapidly rising demand for water for home, industrial, and scientific use.

This bill contemplates such an effort by including funds for projects to develop new means of waste disposal and control of discharge from sewers. Water treatment also will benefit. The cost of pollution control is expensive. But how much greater is the cost if we measure

it in terms of lost opportunities for industrial development, or in terms of the health and happiness of our communities.

This legislation properly removes the limit on grants for waste treatment plants. At the same time, however, it provides incentives for State and local initiative and participation.

In short, it creates the opportunity for real partnership in this field.

In New England and particularly in Massachusetts, we have been blessed with an abundance of water for power and recreational purposes. I believe that this legislation can provide us with an opportunity to preserve that precious resource and open up a new era of economic growth and give our people the pure water they need for health and recreational use.

I urge the passage of the pending legislation.

Mrs. DWYER. Mr. Chairman, the pending bill, the Water Quality Act of 1965, can represent a major advance in one of the most critical problem areas facing the country-the need to clean up our waterways and assure our people of adequate quantities of clean water.

I strongly support this legislation, and I am pleased to note that it has come to the floor of the House with broad bipartisan backing.

New Jersey, Mr. Chairman, is no stranger to water pollution or to water shortages. As the most heavily populated and most intensively industrial of all the States, we have greater need for good water and face greater danger from polluted water and from inadequate supplies of clean water than most others.

In recent years, several of our communities have been forced to ration their water during periods of drought, while along sections of our seashore widespread pollution, at least temporarily, destroyed much of the shellfish industry and rendered useless miles of beaches for recreation purposes. Few of those who have been affected are likely ever to forget the role in their lives played

by clean water.

More immediately, Mr. Chairman, northern New Jersey faces the most serious water shortage in its recent history. State and local officials are warning that 3 years of drought have reduced the huge reservoirs serving Newark and other major communities in the State to their lowest levels on record for this time of year. Last week, for instance, the two principal reservoirs in the area were down to 56 percent and 31 percent of capacity, respectively, whereas this time last year they were filled at 95 percent and 75 percent of capacity, respectively.

This impending emergency has not been created solely by inadequate rainfall. New Jersey, like most of the rest of the Nation, has plenty of water. But too much of it, including some of our biggest rivers, is so thoroughly polluted that it cannot be utilized as a source of public water supplies or even, in many cases, for industrial purposes.

Controlling and reducing and, finally, eliminating pollution from our lakes and streams is the only certain way of guaranteeing our people the water we need.

About 9 years ago, Mr. Chairman, Congress established the first comprehensive and permanent program for controlling water pollution. At that time, as the House Public Works Committee noted in its report on the present bill, "untrammeled pollution threatened to foul the Nation's waterways beyond hope of restoration."

Gradually, the committee believes, we have reached a point where we are just about holding our own. But that is not enough. In the face of unprecedented population growth, economic expansion, and rapid urbanization, the only way to keep up is to stay ahead. It is most significant that the committee was unanimous on this point. Both Democrats and Republicans-without exceptionrecognized this fact of life and voted to report the bill favorably. Since the bill was reported, the House Republican policy committee has joined in calling for

its enactment-an excellent example of a bipartisan response to a national need.

The first water pollution control bill in 1956 defined the role of the Federal Government as primarily one of supporting and strengthening the activities of State, interstate, and local agencies. The program was improved in 1961, and the present bill will carry it forward again. But in all cases, Congress has recognized that nothing less than wholehearted cooperation between all levels of government will do the job. Congress and the executive branch can prod, encourage, advise, and help support the States and local communities. But it cannot step in and take over full responsibility for a problem that must, by its nature, be handled where it exists.

In 1962, the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, on which I serve as one of three House Members and which is responsible for promoting greater Federal-State-local cooperation, recommended several improvements in the water pollution control program. The Commission proposed, among other things, that greater public investment in water supply and sewerage treatment facilities be encouraged; that the dollar ceilings be increased for individual grants for construction of sewerage treatment facilities so as to provide more help for larger cities; that grant ceilings be increased to encourage construction of joint projects serving two or more communities; and that an added incentive be provided to encourage the construction of waste treatment projects in conformity with regional or metropolitan area development plans.

Having introduced legislation in the previous Congress to implement these recommendations, I am especially pleased to note that the committee has included each of those I have mentioned in the bill now before us.

In addition, Mr. Chairman, the comImittee bill would also do these other important things:

Improve administration of the program by means of the proposed Federal