Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I am grateful for the work of this committee in focusing public attention on this most important aspect of wise and equitable planning for the optimum use of our natural resources. Mr. MONAGAN. Thank you very much, General.

Mr. Indritz, have you any questions?

DREDGING BY CORPS OF ENGINEERS IN DELAWARE RIVER

Mr. INDRITZ. General, have you any plans for modifying your dredging activities to reduce turbidity in the Delaware?

General DALRYMPLE. We have noted the statements of some of the witnesses having to do with turbidity caused by dredging. Of course, as dredging operations are improved and as equipment becomes better, this is lessened to a certain extent, but we will not solve the problem immediately.

We consider that this turbidity is of a temporary nature. In our specifications we restrict the contractor to allowable fines which he may permit to return to the stream, and by close inspection we try to reduce this and keep it within limits.

Mr. INDRITZ. Are you devising new methods of preventing the leaching of dredged material from riverbanks into streams?

General DALRYMPLE. There, again, the provision that is called for in the specifications permits the return to the navigable stream of not more than a certain percentage of fines. Several of our disposal areas, as you probably know, are away from the stream itself, and in the cases where we use hopper dredges, which still cause some turbidity due to the dredging operation, the sediment is actually taken out to sea and dumped, where we do not have this problem.

Mr. INDRITZ. Have you developed equipment which vacuums up the material so that you don't have an increased siltation or turbidity as the result of the dredging activity?

General DALRYMPLE. You may be referring to a conventional dredge that we converted not too long ago in order to permit it to pump out directly, instead of going out and dumping at sea. This operates on the Delaware River. After filling its hoppers with dredged material, the vessel proceeds to the disposal area. There it pumps out the material to a rehandling vessel from which it is pumped directly ashore to the inland disposal area. This process assures positive retention of the dredged material and prevents its return to the estuary. Mr. INDRITZ. Is the corps planning to develop additional equipment of this type?

General DALRYMPLE. Yes, sir; we have plans to convert additional dredges in a like manner.

Mr. INDRITZ. How many such dredges will you have within the next 2 years?

General DALRYMPLE. We have only one in the North Atlantic Division now, the Comber. We are planning to convert one other within the next 2 years.

Mr. INDRITZ. How many dredges do you have, altogether?

General DALRYMPLE. In the North Atlantic Division we can call upon the services of four. However, within the corps itself, there are 15 hopper dredges, not including the New Orleans used in recent years for rehandling.

MONITORING STATIONS

Mr. McCLORY. Do you have any monitoring stations other than the temperature monitoring equipment at the Walter Dam which you mentioned on page 2 of your statement?

General DALRYMPLE. The equipment is in the process of being installed now at the Francis E. Walter Dam and the Prompton Ďam. The Prompton intake is being modified to permit temperature control of reservoir releases.

Mr. McCLORY. Will these measure anything except temperature? General DALRYMPLE. That is all, sir.

Mr. McCLORY. That is all.

Mr. RANDALL. I am not certain 'hat I understan the seriousness of this problem of turbidity. It is simply stirred up. Doesn't it settle rapidly? What is the story on that?

General DALRYMPLE. The problem, of course, in the estuary is compounded by the salin ty that exists there.

Mr. RANDALL. That is the reason it doesn't settle?

General DALRYMPLE. Where the fresh water comes in contact with the salt water, the suspended material tends to precipitate out. However, once you stir up the material, it has a tendency to

Mr. RANDALL. Remain in suspension, where elsewhere it would settle?

General DALRYMPLE. Normally, this is the case.

Mr. RANDALL. That is the reason for the problem in the saline water.

Mr. MONAGAN. Thank you very much, General, for your testimony. We appreciate having had you with us this afternoon.

Our next witness is Mr. Samuel S. Baxter, water commissioner of the city of Philadelphia.

Mr. Baxter, we will insert your full statement in the record, if there is no objection, and then you may proceed with the summary of that statement in any manner you wish, sir.

STATEMENT OF SAMUEL S. BAXTER, COMMISSIONER, PHILADELPHIA WATER DEPARTMENT FOR THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

Mr. BAXTER. Thank you. I will read the summary statement, but I would like, if I may, to interpolate a few things which, after hearing all the testimony since this morning, I might like to comment on that are not in the testimony, itself.

Mr. MONAGAN. We'll be happy to have you do so.

Mr. BAXTER. This is a summary of the written testimony which has been presented for the city of Philadelphia, in connection with the hearing of this subcommittee concerning pollution abatement in the Delaware River Basin.

Philadelphia's interest in the rivers goes back to 1800, when the Schuylkill was first used as a source of public water supply. The Delaware has been used as such a source since 1851. I point out an interesting thing. Even as far back as 1800, the men who chose the Schuylkill River first chose it because it had less of a pollution problem than the Delaware. The pollution at that time was leaf decay, which was pollution, but nevertheless a factor 163 years ago in choosing a

source.

By the beginning of the 20th century, pollution in the rivers had become of real concern to Philadelphia. It affected its water supply, the operation of the port, and the general convenience and comfort of the citizens. A complete engineering report recommending sewage treatment for the city was completed in 1914.

Philadelphia made a start on its sewage treatment program at the time of World War I, and did some work during the 1920's, including the first section of the northeast sewage treatment works. During the depression years of the 1930's, very little work was done on sewage treatment. In the latter period, lack of money was a factor, but prior to that time the competition for money for public improvements found sewage treatment facilities far in the rear.

The general result was badly polluted rivers which affected the public water supply, raised criticism of port operations, and caused inconvenience and discomfort to citizens by foul odors which arose from the rivers.

Some work started in the 1930's which had a real effect on the future of the river. INCODEL began operation at that time, and the Pennsylvania Clean Streams Act caused Philadelphia to see what it could do to clean up the rivers. The city's constitutional debt limit was such that it was not possible to finance the needed work by ordinary borrowing procedures. As a result, the city enacted a sewer rent ordinance which became effective in 1946, and which made a direct charge for sewer and sewage disposal services. This direct charge made it possible to have the bonds declared self-sustaining, and excluded from the constitutional debt limit.

Beginning after World War II, and especially since the renaissance in the city following the new charter of 1952, Philadelphia has worked diligently to do its share in cleaning up the rivers. The northeast plant was placed in operation in 1951; the southwest plant in 1954; and the third and final plant at southeast in 1955. These are all plants that now treat 98 percent of our sewage, and by the end of next year, the entire sewage of Philadelphia will be treated. We believe that we are the oldest agency on the river that has kept records. From these records we believe that the degradation of the river has been halted, and that in some cases improvement has been made. Some examples of this are noted.

For the Delaware River at our Torresdale intake, the coliform index had figures of 42,460 for the 1948-52 period, and decreased to 26,940 in the 1958-62 period. In the same corresponding periods, the Schuylkill River at our Belmont intake showed a decrease from 36,800 to 15,520.

PHENOLIC WASTES IN PHILADELPHIA'S WATER SUPPLY

A second factor concerns phenolic wastes, which, in the past, had caused bad taste and odors in Philadelphia's drinking water. By ordinary taste and odor measurement, and by the decrease in chemicals used to combat phenolic tastes, there has been a decided improvement in this factor and trouble with phenols is no longer a problem. When we opened our slow sand plant at Torresdale back in the 1950's and prior, we used sodium chloride as the measure, but to indicate the improvements made in that particular item of taste and odor measured by the use of sodium chloride, in 1954 we used 164,000

pounds. By 1959, when we stopped that operation, it was down to 26, and today objections to the tastes of Philadelphia water, which used to be a name all over the country and were caused particularly by these phenol wastes, have practically disappeared.

Dissolved oxygen is a measure of water quality, and while there has been no marked improvement in this factor, there has also been not noticeable decrease in dissolved oxygen in the water.

We notice in the last 10 years we have more or less held our own. There have been variations in different years. Last year and this year were particularly bad years, but, nevertheless, the overall average for dissolved oxygen at different points on the river has held its own.

Philadelphia is keenly aware of the economic factors involved in water pollution, since we use the rivers for water supply, for disposal of our liquid wastes, for an important port, one of the largest in the world, and for industry and recreation. We have continually maintained the point that all of these factors must be balanced in developing a pollution abatement program in the river. We are aware that pollution abatement is not a local problem which can follow political boundaries. For 50 years or more, we have had contractural arrangements with municipalities outside the city limits to handle and to treat their sewage. At the present time 8.2 percent of the sewage which we treat comes from outside the city. We see the possibility of the need for extending this type of cooperation.

For many years we have worked with State and Federal agencies on matters which concern the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers. We have maintained excellent relations with the U.S. Geological Survey, with which we have had a continuous working contract since 1949, and with the U.S. Public Health Service and the Corps of Engineers.

At the State level, the official and personal relations with the State department of health and the State sanitary water board have been excellent. At times there may have been differences of opinion, but in nearly all cases these differences have been of a technical nature, which kind of difference we think is desirable.

In recent years, the Corps of Engineers produced a report on the Delaware River. It was an excellent report, in which the city in general concurred. We did point out that, mainly because of time and money factors, the report was not complete in its discussion of quality factors in the Delaware estuary. As a result of this, the Philadelphia Water Department, together with Federal and State agencies, worked for the instigation of the present quality survey now being undertaken by the U.S. Public Health Service, and we are cooperating in the survey.

Some measure of what sewage treatment does can be gained from the fact that the city's sewage plants now remove each day 240 tons of suspended solids and keep these solids from reaching the river. At the same time, biochemical oxygen demand removal amounts to 180 tons of oxygen daily, which is approximately one-half of the dissolved oxygen which on an average day reaches the tidal estuary at Trenton from upstream sources.

I would interpolate here and say, beginning at that point, that working jointly and with both city and Federal money, we have developed a system of monitoring on the river which not only installed devices that

could measure various quality standards, but we also have actually developed them with manufacturers, developed industries that did not exist before we started this particular program.

PROBLEMS OF FINANCING TREATMENT PLANTS

Financing sewage works probably raises more problems than the actual technical matters of design and construction. Some cities pay nearly all of the costs themselves, while other cities and industries have claimed that the costs are too high. On the basis that pollution abatement is a benefit to the State and the Nation, we have had the Federal aid for construction of municipal sewage plants, and the State aid in Pennsylvania for the operation of such plants. The relative balance among Federal aid, State aid, and local participation can be debated from any viewpoints and will probably change as time goes on. And I think they are good when you try to hammer out what is an ultimate solution. We do point out that many cities have already financed their own sewage treatment plants, and that the sewer rent method of paying for these plants has grown.

Every day and each day the BOD-biochemical oxygen demandwhich we remove before the sewage goes into the Delaware River, amounts to 180 tons of oxygen every day. This probably is getting into technicalities, but one measure of this 180 tons can be seen from the fact that at the present time-that is in August when the flows at Trenton are low, and speaking in very general fractions-this is probably twice the amount of dissolved oxygen that is coming down from the stream above the tidal estuary.

We strongly feel that the best way to obtain pollution abatement is by complete cooperation among the various levels of government and industry, together with the support of interested civic agencies. This entails some enlightened self-interest on the part of those who must use the rivers for disposal of their liquid wastes. It requires in some cases that enforcement measures and sanctions be used. In the Delaware Basin in Philadelphia we believe that these methods have worked. We believe that the rivers have improved. We also believe that more can be done.

In our own case, we have spent over $83 million on sewage treatment plants since 1946 and intend to spend $10 million more in the next 6 years. We believe enough in the condition of the river today and in the future that we have spent over $50 million in the past 5 years in building water treatment plants, not sewage treatment, on the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers inside the city limits.

PENNSYLVANIA GIVES ANNUAL GRANT TO MUNICIPALITIES OPERATING TREATMENT PLANTS

Something which I had not heard mentioned here today is the fact that the State of Pennsylvania gives an annual grant to every municipality which operates a sewage treatment plant in the amount of 2 percent of the capital costs which are invested in those plants. This is an annual grant, which indicates the interest of the State in operating sewage treatment plants.