the fact that industry, which was at one time less of a polluter than municipalities and communities, has now become a major polluter. The complexity of some industrial waste problems requires the active involvement of industry itself which has intimate knowledge of manufacturing and other industrial processing operations. The stipulation that 70 percent of the cost of such investigations be borne by the Federal government should be an inducement to have industrial support and participation in the studies.

The committee is not inclined to belabor industry for its growing contribution to this problem. Nothing will be gained by attempting to fix blame. The problem is here and it must be solved or some future generation will be worrying about clean oceans. The committee does feel, however, that more should be done by industry, and

[p. 25]

it is very pleased to note that during the hearings evidence was presented to show that industry is attempting to do its part.

The Federal Government should do its part, too, in helping in the solution of this problem, certainly, in developing means for controlling it. The inclusion of specific grants to industry for research is based upon the same concept as in existing law for grants to public and private agencies and institutions for research in this field. It would be of little value if we solved the technical means of preventing or alleviating the sewage from municipalities and failed to lend necessary assistance to research for the disposal of waste emanating from the various types of industrial and manufacturing processes.

Industrial research should not be limited to the technology of waste treatment. It should also include an investigation of possible financial methods of providing for this treatment, including methods of providing treatment works to the smaller industries on an installment basis. If a small company is faced with the necessity of putting in extensive treatment works as a result of Federal and State laws or public pressure, such financing could be helpful.

ESTUARY RESEARCH

The second addition to the research and development field is authorization for a study of estuaries. In the bill, estuaries are defined, the contents of the report expected to be produced are specified, and 3 years are allowed for its completion. The committee was impressed by the evidence presented to it, both during the hearings and later, indicating the need for such a study. Again, the committee has no desire to duplicate the work already being accomplished by agencies, but insofar as pollution is concerned, it appears that a comprehensive study as proposed in the bill, with the assistance of other

departments and agencies and the Federal Government, would be most timely.

Other legislation is pending in the Congress to establish a study of estuaries. The committee believes that the study proposed in the bill is generally broader and is more suitable in its wording in the framework of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The Department of Interior has stated in hearings before another committee that a thorough nationwide study should be conducted to identify the estuary areas of the country that should be preserved before an estuarine land and water acquisition program as contemplated by other legislation is undertaken. The committee feels that the provision of the bill will better fulfill the need for this nationwide study. The bill also provides that consideration be given in the study to the development of estuaries so that a proper balance can be maintained between preservation and development.

The report will include recommendations for a comprehensive national program for the preservation, study, use, and development of estuaries. The committee feels that it should include suggestions for a national estuarine system along the lines proposed in other pending legislation.

RESEARCH APPROPRIATIONS

The appropriation authorized for the entire program for research. and development is $75 million per year for the fiscal years 1967, 1968 and 1969, plus $1 million per year for the same years for the

[p. 26]

estuary study. Of the $75 million authorization the bill specifies that not less than 25 percent per year shall be used for industrial research.

USE OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

If a State or interstate agency requests assistance in the preparation of a basin pollution control and abatement plan being prepared for submission and approval to the Secretary and to the Congress, the head of each department, agency, and instrumentality of the Federal Government is authorized to detail employees of such department, agency, or instrumentality to the State or agency to assist in this effort. Since the Federal Government may pay 50 percent of the administrative expenses for the preparation of this plan, these employees would, in effect, be paid one-half by the Federal Government and one-half by the States.

SPECIFIC DESIGNATION AND PROPOSALS

The bill recognizes that there are agencies already established by

law to carry out the entire program of water resource development in a basin. The two areas in which this condition exists are the Tennessee River and the Delaware River. In the case of the Tennessee River, the Tennessee Valley Authority is a Government corporation. In the case of the Delaware River, the Delaware River Basin Commission has been created by the Delaware River Basin Compact approved by Congress and the Secretary of Interior is a member of the Commission. In recognition of this situation, the bill provides that basin pollution control and abatement plans prepared by the Tennessee Valley Authority and approved by its Board of Directors, or prepared and approved by the Delaware River Basin Commission, should need no further review in the executive branch of the Government, and may, therefore, be transmitted direct to Congress for statutory approval. The method of approval is specified to be by act of Congress.

LABOR STANDARDS

The bill contains the usual language to insure that wage rates shall be not less than those prevailing for the same type or work on similar construction in the immediate locality, as determined by the Secretary of Labor, for projects financed by grants under the water pollution control program. This is in accordance with the act of March 3, 1931, as amended, commonly known as the Davis-Bacon Act.

DEFINITIONS

The bill provides for a definition of the term "basin" as used in the clean rivers restoration title, which is somewhat different from the river-basin concept as it is normally known. The reason for the broader definition is to include coastal waters, estuaries, bays, lakes, and portions of these bodies of waters.

Ordinarily, the problems in the development of water resources are in a river basin which ends at the point where the river discharges into the sea, or into a bay or lake. In the water pollution program, however, there are many instances of pollution discharges directly into these bodies of water, as well as into rivers and their

[p. 27]

tributaries. It is the intention of the bill to cover these cases and such waters have therefore been included in the definition of "basin."

COST ESTIMATE AND STUDY

The bill provides, in a new section 6 of the existing Federal Water Pollution Control Act, authority for the Secretary to make (1) a detailed estimate of the cost of carrying out the provisions of this act:

(2) a comprehensive study of the economic impact on affected units of Government of the cost of installation of treatment facilities; and (3) a comprehensive analysis of the national requirements for and cost of treating municipal, industrial, and other effluent to attain such water quality standards as are established pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or applicable State law. He shall cooperate with State water pollution control agencies and with other water pollution control planning agencies. The purpose is to develop new programs and to furnish the Congress with the information. necessary for authorization of appropriations for the fiscal years beginning with the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968. This is one of the reasons why the committee feels that the amounts it has provided for construction grants are ample for the time being.

He shall submit the detailed estimate and comprehensive study of cost for the 3-year period beginning July 1, 1968, to the Congress no later than January 10, 1968. The 3-year period would, therefore, cover the fiscal years 1969, 1970, and 1971. This study shall be updated each year so that the study submitted no later than January 10, 1969, would cover the fiscal years 1970, 1971, and 1972, and so on. This updating would consist each time of revisions as necessary in the figures and conclusions for the 2 fiscal years following the date of submission and for a third fiscal year to be added.

STUDY OF TRAINING OF STATE AND LOCAL PERSONNEL

The bill authorizes the Secretary to make a complete investigation and study to determine the need for additional trained State and local personnel to carry out the water pollution control and abatement program, both for those for which grants are made under the program as amended by this act, and other programs for the same purpose. He is also to study the use of existing Federal training programs to train such personnel. The study shall be submitted to the President and to the Congress not later than July 1, 1967.

PROGRAM GRANTS

The bill increases the authorization for grants to States and interstate agencies to assist them in meeting the costs of establishing and maintaining adequate measures for the prevention and control of water pollution. These are essentially planning grants. Existing law authorizes grants for this purpose, concluding with $5 million for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968. The bill would increase the grants for the fiscal years 1968 and 1969 to $10 million each.

This is the source of funds for the payments of 50 percent of the administrative expenses in the development of comprehensive plans for water pollution control and abatement under title II. It is also

the source of funds for expenses of the States and interstate agencies [p. 28]

in carrying out their responsibilities for construction grants, water quality standards, and enforcement.

REIMBURSEMENT

The bill provides for reimbursement for the construction of any treatment works initiated after June 30, 1966, in advance of the availability of funds for a grant, subject to the following qualifications:

(1) The Secretary must approve the project prior to commencement of construction, except for projects initiated after June 30, 1966, and before the date of enactment of this act which he may approve subsequent to commencement of construction. (2) The State or appropriate agency which constructs the project must submit an application to the Secretary, approved by the appropriate State water pollution control agency, for a grant for the project.

(3) Upon his approval of the application, the Secretary is authorized to make a grant for such project to be paid from future appropriations.

(4) All provisions of the act must have been complied with to the same extent and with the same effect as though the grant were to be made for future construction of the project.

(5) The approval of the project by the Secretary, or the making of a grant, shall not be construed to constitute a commitment or obligation of the United States to provide funds.

This reimbursement provision applies to grants made under the authority of section 8, as amended, and does not apply to grants made under title II of the clean rivers restoration program.

HEARING BOARD AND REPORTS

The bill adds two provisions relating to the hearing board procedures in section 10 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which deals with enforcement measures against the pollution of interstate or navigable waters. The bill declares that it shall be the responsibility of the hearing board to give each person contributing to the alleged pollution or affected by it an opportunity to make a full statement of his views to the hearing board. The bill also requires that in connection with any hearing the Secretary is authorized to require any person alleged to be contributing to water pollution to file a report concerning the character, kind, and quantity of such discharges, and the measures taken by the alleged polluter to abate the pollution. Penalty for failing to comply is set at $100 per day.