Our heritage is unparalleled, but if we look about us carefully it is obvious that we have frequently been careless in the way we have treated it. Too many of our forests have been reduced to blackened ruins by fires; too many of our streams have been poisoned by pollution; too many foul odors make a stench of the pure mountain air.

Vital not only to natural beauty but to the enjoyment of a healthy, happy life is the maintenance of an abundant supply of clean water. This important fluid occupies an exalted status throughout the world, and people everywhere are acutely conscious that it is vital to life. But perhaps because of its basic nature and abundance, water is too often taken for granted. The great quantities of water have lulled us into its misuse and waste.

People everywhere are now awakening to the fact that supplies of water are not limitless. Even though most of the earth's surface is covered with water, much of its population is suffering from or faced with serious water shortages. In West Virginia we share the dilemma of trying to supply our people and our industry with the water they need. While our state's population has not grown as has that of others, reliable, high quality water supplies continue to provide a challenge.

Much of West Virginia's history and development is tied closely to its streams. The waterways provided a means of travel through the mountains that were a barrier to early explorers. The fact that much of our industrial development is concentrated along major streams like the Ohio, Kanawha and Monongahela Rivers attests to their central role in the life of the state.

The concentration of people and industry along these rivers presents difficult problems of supplying water for both industry and people without placing an undue burden on either. These challenges are compounded by the years of mining activity in West Virginia that have left hundreds of abandoned mines that continue to discharge poisonous acid wastes into our streams.

The problems of water pollution in the United States are well known and the efforts to correct them will be time-consuming and expensive. The plight of Lake Erie is familiar to all. This important body of water is now almost devoid of life and it is estimated that making it clean again will cost from $10 billion to $100 billion.

There are other stories that reflect the plight of our streams. There were once 33 streams in the United States with salmon runs; now there are six. The Hudson River is one of the nation's most severely polluted, and the lovely San Francisco Bay is in danger of becoming nothing but a garbage dump.

In West Virginia, there are many residents of the Kanawha Valley who remember the time when there were beaches all along the river. Contamination has made swimming in the Kanawha a hazardous activity for years.

Some 360 million gallons of polluted water pour from old mines into West Virginia streams every day, turning them from crystal clear into a rainbow of poison.

Situated as we are, West Virginia contributes to and is affected by the growing pollution of the 22 river systems in the United States. It is estimated that by 1980-nine years from now-we will be producing enough sewage and other water borne waste to consume, in dry weather, all of the oxygen in these river systems.

So, the demand for clean water forces several challenges on all Americans. Our water needs may force us to make some very difficult decisions in the near future, and they could well result in a higher price for the water we use. Cost is an obvious and unavoidable factor in eliminating pollution, and I believe most people are willing to pay it.

But even beyond economic considerations lies the possibility of drastic changes in the traditional American way of life, if we are to cope successfully with our mounting water problems.

The use of water, for instance, may have to be curtailed if supplies adequate for the basic necessities are to be provided. Some areas have already had experience with reducing the consumption of water during periods of drought, and it is not inconceivable that water use restrictions could become a permanent way of life. Unrestricted air conditioning, lawn watering or car washing may become things of the past for many citizens, an ironic end product for an economic and social system that prides itself on providing an increasingly high standard of living for all people.

An integral part of managing our precious water supplies is the recycling and reuse of water. Adoption of methods to recapture water previously disposed of would have the double benefit of reducing pollution and increasing the supply. Then too, water supply problems could lead to an acceleration of encouraging a dispersal of population. If areas of high population concentration can not obtain adequate water supplies, then it might be necessary to restrict population growth and channel it to where there is enough water. It is further possible that companion restrictions will have to be instituted to control the location and water consumption of industry.

Radical solutions? Possibly, but the time may be approaching when the old, leisurely ways of dealing with problems are no longer valid.

The availability of good water in adequate quantities is, after all, a life and death matter. If it takes extreme measures to assure this supply, then there is no alternative but to adopt extreme measures.

Crisis situations require strong, positive actions, and I fear we are moving toward a crisis of the environment, including water, and that disaster may be avoidable only by radical action.

To help people and communities provide and maintain clean water supplies the Federal Government has initiated a number of programs in recent years. The Water Resources Research Act of 1964 authorizes Federal assistance in the establishment of state water resources research centers. River basin commissions are being created by the Water Resources Council under the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965.

The Water Quality Act of 1965, the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966 and the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1969 all are aimed at carrying out a national policy of enhancement of water quality.

The amount of Federal funds to help communities with their water problems has grown dramatically, and this year $1 billion is available to assist in the construction of local sewage treatment facilities. The Congress already has before it proposals to provide even more money.

Several Federal activities address themselves directly to the water problems of West Virginia, particularly those caused by acid mine drainage. The Water Quality Improvement Act authorizes demonstration projects to aid in the elimination of this pollution source. There are efforts to mount such a project in northern West Virginia to prove that a comprehensive program can be carried out with existing technology and that it can be justified economically.

Our state also is the potential beneficiary of the first attempt to create a program of water resources for an entire region. Under the 1969 amendments to the Appalachian Regional Development Act, a $2.6 billion program has been proposed for the 13-state Appalachian area that takes total development into consideration in recommending water projects on a long-range basis.

The protection of water cannot be divorced from other environmental matters. The central importance of water in our life means that all environmental matters must be considered as they relate to each other. This, in fact, is the very essence of ecology, a science which deals with all aspects of nature and their close interaction with each other.

Water, for instance, must be considered when viewing the impact of electrical power production on the environment, for the water used in the power plants becomes heated and thus can inflict rivers and lakes with damaging thermal pollution.

Water is used in solid waste disposal not only as a carrier of waste but as a purifying agent in waste treatment plants. Likewise, the burial of solid waste must be planned so as not to contaminate natural water supplies. And water is an ingredient in the cleaning of air in industrial operations.

No single level of government or group of citizens can end pollution alone. The task is so large, so wide-spread and so expensive that it will take the concentrated energies of everyone, if it is to be successful.

A personal commitment by citizens as well as a corporate determination by industry is needed. So long as people are reluctant to provide proper community facilities and industry continues to dump its wastes into our stream, neither West Virginia nor any other state can have the clean water necessary for a healthy, prosperous future.

Senator EAGLETON. Mr. Venema, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF M. P. VENEMA, CHAIRMAN, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. J. W. HAUN, VICE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING, GENERAL MILLS, INC.; AND DANIEL W. CANNON, DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS

Mr. VENEMA. I am M. P. Venema, chairman and chief executive officer of Universal Oil Products Co., Des Plaines, Ill.

I am vice chairman of the board of directors of the National Association of Manufacturers and serve as chairman of its Environmental Quality Committee.

I am accompanied by Dr. J. W. Haun, vice president and director of engineering, General Mills, Inc., on my left; and Mr. Daniel W. Cannon, director of environmental affairs, National Association of Manufacturers.

I would like permission to submit my prepared testimony for inclusion in the hearing record. However, I will briefly comment on it at this time.

Senator EAGLETON. Your entire statement will be made a part of the record at the conclusion of your remarks.

Mr. VENEMA. The purpose of this testimony is to comment on proposed amendments to section 10 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act on behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers, a voluntary association of business concerns, large and small, located in every State, vitally interested in sound water pollution control

measures.

In this testimony, we are particularly concerned with (1) the opportunity, to comment on proposed water quality criteria; (2) proposed establishment of uniform national effluent standards; (3) mandatory pollution control techniques for new manufacturing plants; (4) requirement of a Federal certificate prior to construction of a new manufacturing plant; (5) mandatory use of closed-cycle systems; (6) due process of law in regard to enforcement orders; (7) confusion and uncertainty due to citizens' suits; (8) confidentiality of trade secrets and secret processes.

I will touch on just a few of these points.

S. 1014, in proposed subsection 10(d) (4), calls for the EPA Administrator to issue regulations providing specifications for effluent limitations.

It appears that these would be uniform national effluent standards on an industry-by-industry basis.

We believe that effluent limitations needed to achieve the water quality standards for particular bodies of water should be established by regional, State or local agencies, recognizing local conditions. National effluent standards unrelated to local conditions could impose large unnecessary cost and thereby result in unforeseen economic dislocation.

Therefore, we strongly urge that the subcommittee not recommend legislation authorizing the EPA Administrator to establish specifica

tions for national effluent standards. In this regard, the provisions of S. 523 in proposed subsection 10(b) (1), which calls for effluent requirements to be incorporated by the States in their implementation plans, are preferable to those of S. 1014.

S. 523, in proposed subsection 10 (e) (1), would require the Administrator to issue regulations to insure that any person building a new facility shall use the latest available pollution control techniques.

We believe that the role of Goverment should be to establish standards and allow flexibility for companies to choose a means by which to achieve compliance with the standards and therefore we strongly urge that this provision be deleted.

Also, this proposed section 10 (e) (1) of S. 523 would require a person constructing a new facility to get a certificate of compliance from both the Administrator and the State pollution control agency. Such dual regulation creates costly and burdensome redtape and paper work.

Today, in the vast majority of States, industrial companies must submit plans and specifications and secure a permit from the State pollution control agency prior to construction of any new facility which would discharge waste water.

Further, an industrial company must secure a Federal permit from the Corps of Engineers under the Refuse Act of 1899.

We respectfully request that the subcommittee could perform a valuable service by examining the dual system of Federal regulation presently existing under the Refuse Act of 1899 and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

We believe it would be undesirable to require a Federal certificate as a condition precedent to construction of a manufacturing plant. We made this same point last year in regard to air pollution control regulation, and we are pleased that such a requirement was deleted by the conferees from the Clean Air Amendments of 1970.

In regard to the issuance of enforcement orders by the Administrator, we believe that the provisions of S. 1014 are preferable to the provisions of S. 523 because subsection 10(f) (1) of S. 1014 provides for notice to the person and the State water pollution control agency prior to issuance of the order and subsection 10(f) (3) provides for a public hearing upon request within 15 days of receipt of the order. The order would not become final until after the hearing.

We believe these provisions constitute desirable procedural safeguards and help insure due process of law.

S. 523 in proposed subsection 11 (i) provides for bringing lawsuits for enforcement of the act by any person on his own behalf. To open the door of an already crowded court system to litigation by persons who have not suffered damages could result in whimsical and harassive lawsuits.

Therefore, we urge that the subcommittee not recommend this type of provision.

In conclusion, I would like to say that NAM shares a national concern for protection of the environment and will cooperate in efforts to implement any new legislation adopted by the Congress. (Mr. Venema's prepared statement follows:)

59-068 0-71-pt. 2- -10

PREPARED STATEMENT OF M. P. VENEMA

My name is M. P. Venema. I am Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Universal Oil Products Company, Des Plaines, Illinois. I am Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors of the National Association of Manufacturers, and serve as Chairman of its Environmental Quality Committee. I am accompanied by Dr. J. W. Haun, Vice President and Director of Engineering, General Mills, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota, and by Daniel W. Cannon, Director of Environmental Affairs, National Association of Manufacturers.

The purpose of this testimony is to comment on proposed amendments to section 10 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act on behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers, a voluntary association of business concerns, large and small, located in every State, vitally interested in sound water pollution control measures.

In this testimony, we are particularly concerned with:

1. Opportunity to comment on proposed water quality criteria.

2. Proposed establishment of uniform national effluent standards.

3. Mandatory pollution control techniques for new manufacturing plants.

4. Requirement of a federal certificate prior to construction of a new manufacturing plant.

5. Mandatory use of closed-cycle systems.

6. Due process of law in regard to enforcement orders.

7. Confusion and uncertainty due to citizens' suits.

8. Confidentiality of trade secrets and secret processes.

Both S. 523, in proposed subsection 10 (a) (2), and S. 1014, in proposed subsection 10(d)(2), would require the Administer to issue water quality criteria. However, S. 1014 would require these to include analytical and test procedures, and in proposed subsection 10(d) (6), would require that proposed criteria be published in the Federal Register with interested persons being allowed 45 to 60 days to submit written comments prior to final promulgation. We believe the provisions of S. 1014 are preferable in this regard, because opportunity to comment frequently results in the adoption of regulation substantially improved over the original proposals. Therefore, we urge that, if the Subcommittee recommends issuancse of water quality criteria by the Administrator, the criteria should include analytical and test procedures, and opportunity for comment by all interested persons should be provided before final issuance.

S. 523. in proposed subsection 10(b) (1), provides for State implementation plans to include effluent requirements. However, S. 1014, in subsection 10(d) (4) would have the EPA Administrator himself establish "specifications for effluent limitations." These would be uniform national effluent standards on an industryby-industry basis with some distinction made between new and existing plants. We believe that effluent limitations needed to achieve the water quality standards for a particular body of water should be established by regional, State or local agencies, recognizing local conditions. A great problem with certain national pollution standards is that they may be too weak for some areas and too tough for others. This could result in surprising and harmful economic and social sideeffects.

The recently proposed national ambient air quality standards issued under the Clean Air Amendments of 1970 may illustrate this point. In some aspects, they may not be tough enough for non-industrial States which rely heavily on tourism and recreation for jobs and revenues, while they may be too tough for the larger cities in the Nation.

These cities may have to take drastic steps in the direction of population density control, transportation control, and economic development control in order to achieve these national ambient air quality standards. In fact, serious problems as to efforts to improve central core cities may be created if transportation into and out of them has to be restricted, if housing developments have to be restricted, and if industrialization efforts to bring manufacturing plants and jobs into ghetto areas have to be curtailed in order to achieve national ambient air quality standards.

All that has just been said about national air pollution control standards, we suggest, applies equally to national water pollution control standards. National effluent standards unrelated to local needs and conditions could impose large, unnecessary costs, and thereby result in unforeseen economic dislocations. Therefore, we strongly urge that the Subcommittee not recommend legislation authorizing the EPA Administrator to set national effluent standards. In this regard, the provisions of S. 523 are preferable to those of S. 1014.