istrator are simply for scientific information or whether there is some compulsion that the States follow certain guidelines that may be included.

As stated in other parts of this letter, any reference to groundwater wherever found should be striken. There is such a reference in line 11 of this subparagraph (d). Scientific information will be valuable anywhere, whether for surface or groundwater, but any implications of Federal control of groundwater should be removed.

Page 16, (e), beginning on line 16. This subparagraph might clearly state that the dissemination of information does not imply an instruction to the States. Page 16, (f) (1), beginning on line 27. This subparagraph should clearly state that the dissemination of information is simply for its scientific value. It is very tempting for an Administrator to take a paragraph such as this and interpret it as giving him powers to control certain activities which he, in fact, has not been given the power to control. We are especially sensitive that subparagraph (D) and (E) may be construed as giving the Administrator or the Federal government powers over waste disposal by injection or any phase of groundwater management.

Page 17, Section 302 (a) (1) on line 13. As with other time factors set forth in the Act, it is unlikely that the Administrator can, within three months, maturely and carefully make the various determinations required throughout the nation. Further, for the States to respond within three months may well be completely impractical. Further study should be given to the time requirements of States where changes are required of them. As a side issue, there has always been disagreement as to the precise definition of "interstate" waters.

Page 18, (b), beginning with line 7. For the first time, by statute rather than regulation, this subsection seeks to establish Federal powers over the states own intrastate waters. This should not be allowed, however desirable in theory it may be. Texas long ago enacted intrastate standards and we should not now be subject to the Federal power on a matter which should be reserved to the states.

Page 18, (c), beginning on line 29. With regard to this subparagraph, the comments above on subparagraph (b) apply.

Page 19, Section 302 (2) on line 4 is opposed in principal not only because there should be no Federally established minimum standards, but because the procedures under Section 301 for developing and reviewing basic technical data are inadequate. Can you imagine requiring under law that the Houston Ship Channel should provide for the protection within the major industrial portion of the Ship Channel of shellfish, fish and wildlife, and recreational activities. The United States is too large and too varied and there are too many special cases for a blanket statement like this to be workable.

Page 19, Section 303 (a)(1)(A), on line 14. In this section the attainment of national minimum water quality standards is incompatible with our comments above that national minimum water quality standards cannot yet be set on a workable basis. With regard to (b) of this same section and subsection, effluent limitations should be set by the State rather than by the Administrator or Federal law. In subparagraph (C), the reference to groundwater should not be construed as giving the Federal government or the Administrator any jurisdiction.

With regard to (C) and also (F), the judgment with regard to monitoring should be reserved to the state.

Page 20, (H), line 14. In this subsection, the degradation of any present water quality is over-idealistic. In small streams everywhere no waste can be put into a stream without some amount of degradation. An absolute policy statement of this kind paints everyone into a corner. Accordingly, this statement should be removed.

Page 20, (J), line 20 gives the states some flexibility for continued changes in their inventory and priority ranking of waste treatment needs. In the past, a requirement of this kind has been used over-rigidly.

Page 21, Section 304, beginning with line 27, is an objective towards which this state and other states has worked and will continue working. It is unlikely, however, that non-point sources can be brought under realistic control or that plans can be completed for their control of any predictable time schedule. The whole field of overland runoff is sufficiently complex that investigation and evaluation should go on for a considerable period of time before there is established a blanket requirement that a firm plan be made. As a matter of fact, the problem may well be worked on in bits and pieces and controlled in bits and pieces long before a complete plan is possible.

59-068 0-71-pt. 4-17

Page 22, (F), line 13, should be stricken in its entirety until this matter can be evaluated further. The entire question of the Texas Water Plan and the use of fresh water generally in a water-short state would be severely hampered by placing controls in the hands of the Administrator of this kind. The whole question of navigation and navigation dredging would be placed in a status of uncertainty. We do need to think about these things and work for their control, but to place them into this bill at this time would be damaging in this State and would subject the state to the control of the Administrator on a far-ranging basis.

Page 24, Section 306, beginning on line 8 should be stricken in its entirety. Water quality management and effluent control is not susceptible to this cook book type of approach.

Section 307 (a) and (b) on Page 26, beginning with line 1 should be carefully studied. This could be a case of overkill, even though the materials listed should be discharged with extreme care. For example, bromine is not greatly different from Chlorine and some persons recommend its use as a disinfectant in preference to chlorine. The discharge of chromium in appreciable levels is unwise, but to specify no discharge at all may be unwise in view of its wide use in industrial cooling towers. In short, this section, or at least subparagraphs (a) and (b) should be given public distribution and scrutiny to determine, in fact, if absolute prohibition is feasible.

Section 308 on Page 27, beginning with line 10 is a necessary paragraph insofar as the subject matter is concerned, but the section should be rewritten to lessen the direct involvement between the entity discharging the waste and the Administrator. We note that subparagraph (b) (1) on line 39 provides for the state to carry out the procedure, but as specified elsewhere, the Administrator has too much power in determining what suitable state procedures are.

Section 309 on Page 28, beginning with line 13 is necessary subject matter. but the section is written with too much emphasis on Federal enforcement powers. In short, the state's ability to determine for itself the method of obtaining compliance and when to prosecute and when not to prosecute is rather clearly set aside by this section. The Federal government should be concerned with the overall attainment of reasonable objectives, but this paragraph makes it appear that the Federal government is eager to get into the enforcement field.

Section 17 on Page 32 is too complex for a quick review. Some legislation along this line is undoubtedly necessary, but as we have commented throughout this letter, the paragraph gives essentially no latitude to the states for independent judgment. In this connection, subparagraph (2)(A) beginning on Page 32, line 32, might give the Administrator more power and jurisdiction than is intended. Section 19 for most purposes is about the same as the present section on the same subject matter, i.e., the control of sewage from vessels. There is a clear need for Federal requirements relative to the control of sewage from oceangoing ships and from tugs and barges in interstate traffic. There is also a need for uniformity where cabin cruisers are carried from state to state as might be true when people travel on vacation. Nevertheless, the state is almost prevented. except with the permission of the Administrator, from controlling pleasure craft pollution on streams and lakes within the state. Some of the regulatory power on pleasure boats should be returned to the states.

Section 402 on Page 37 is questioned as a whole and seeks, I believe, to replace the permit system under the 1899 Refuse Act. Even though subparagraph (d)(1) on Page 40, line 4, authorizes the Administrator to delegate his responsibility to a state, the Act as a whole would set aside the state's own permit system by requiring that the content of the state permit be the same as that which would have been required of the Federal government. The State should be free to determine for itself the nature and content of waste discharge permits issued by it. Further, in this State of Texas, because of the magnitude of the task, we combine a mandatory permit system with a rule or regulation system and this subparagraph considers only a total mandatory permit system.

Subsection (e) on Page 40, beginning on line 18 is a policy matter best left to the states.

Section 403 on Page 40, beginning with line 26 is opposed on the basis of other comments made on the unsuitability of minimum standards.

Section 504 on Page 44, beginning on line 5, gives emergency powers to the Administrator as though the states simply did not exist. This paragraph should be rewritten to re-establish the state as having an opportunity to deal with any problem prior to any intervention by the Administrator.

Section 505 on Page 44 on line 20 is too complex for a simple comment, but on the whole this state opposes unlimited civil action by private persons or citizens' suits as they are sometimes called. The Texas statutes have ample protection built into them so that citizens do not lose their essential rights with regard to combatting water pollution.

Section 510 on Page 48 beginning with line 46, seeks to preserve certain states' rights, but, in fact, only allows the state to operate within the framework of Federal decisions. The statement with regard to state authority in the existing Act is far better than this present proposed statement.

As a closing comment to a degree similar to my opening comment, this proposed statute is too detailed, too rigid, vests too many powers in the Administrator, and removes from the states their basic responsibilities.

Sincerely,

HUGH C. YANTIS, Jr.,

Executive Director.

Hon. JENNINGS RANDOLPH,

STATE OF VIRGINIA

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, Richmond, Va., August 2, 1971.

Chairman, Public Works Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR RANDOLPH: The proposed Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act concern me because, as presently printed, a new enforce ment system would be set up without first considering the merits of the existing state procedure.

I completely agree that we must require a discharge certificate that clearly defines the pollution load entering the receiving waters. We in Virginia have such a certification procedure, have had it for some time, and think the rest of the nation should follow suit.

Our certificate has merit and defines specific limits that may not be exceeded without penalty. It is enforceable, and has allowed us to take very positive and firm action.

We can, and have, effectively policed our own state. We believe our already established procedures accomplish the intent of your bill, and that the creation of a dual system is both unnecessary and wasteful.

I feel that it is essential to rewrite the Committee Print so that responsibility for cleaning up our waters is clearly defined. Accordingly, I suggest a rewrite to

(a) clarify the intent to recognize and support existing, approved state enforcement procedures;

(b) establish specific minimum requirements for standards and permits; and

(c) consider assigning "lowest practical value" language to the effluent requirements.

I appreciate the opportunity to communicate my feelings on this most important matter, and trust you will find the suggestions helpful.

Best wishes.

Cordially,

LINWOOD HOLTON.

STATE OF WASHINGTON

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, Olympia, Wash., July 10, 1971.

Re Water pollution control; Federal-State relations.

Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,

U.S. Senator,

Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Hon. JOHN SHERMAN COOPER,

U.S. Senator,

Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATORS MUSKIE AND COOPER: The State of Washington has, over the past several years, been placing substantial emphasis on the development of an effective water pollution control program. Our efforts have met, we think, with substantial success.

I am convinced, however, that if our nation's water pollution problems are to be fully solved, a concerted and cooperative effort by federal and state governments must be mounted. This approach, I am sorry to say, is not being achieved today. Due to a number of recent administrative actions and proposals for action at the federal level, by both the executive and the legislative branches, I am apprehensive that the possibilities for a combined federal-state effort, which is so necessary, are becoming smaller.

This letter is prompted by the reports given to me by James P. Behlke, Executive Assistant Director of our State Department of Ecology and Charles B. Roe, Jr., Senior Assistant Attorney General, as the result of a meeting they recently attended with members of your Senate Public Works Committee staff, Leon Billings and Thomas Jorling. This meeting, which was held in San Francisco, was called by your staff members to discuss proposed amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Act developed by your committee. At the meeting, I am advised, our state's representatives, as well as representatives from two other states, were given an opportunity to review the draft proposals being considered by your committee and provide comments related thereto. Further, I am advised that the reception given by your staff to the views expressed by our state's representatives was one of open-mindedness.

I wish to commend your committee and its staff for taking the approach of seeking seriously the advice of our state. I am in hopes that your committee will continue not only the practice of soliciting actively the views of our state but, most importantly, that after they are received they are considered fully.

Our state administration is dedicated to working together with the federal government in developing the most effective water pollution control program possible. While we have serious concerns about thrusts of the two bills presently before your committee (S. 523 and S. 1012) as well as the draft presented to Messrs. Behlke and Roe by your staff in San Francisco, we are now more optimistic that a bill will be reported out by your committee which will allow for a much needed joint effort in the control of water pollution. To this end I have requested that John A. Biggs, Director of our Department of Ecology, and Slade Gorton, our State Attorney General, and their assistants develop amendments to your committee's draft proposal for your consideration. These proposals, including the basis for recommending them, will be forwarded to you within the next two weeks.

Sincerely,

DANIEL J. EVANS, Governor.