as detailed in the Water Quality Act. Without firm approval of standards and plans, state authorities, municipalities and industries are reluctant to act to meet standards which can be changed at any time. Firm "ground rules"-water quality standards and implementation schedules-must be established in order to justify the substantial investments of time and money required to meet the standards.

Senator Muskie, in S. 523, has proposed periodic state review of water quality standards, a review we support. A five-year period would seem appropriate in view of the current five-year amortization for industrial capital expenditures on pollution control.

However, this review must be complemented by prompt Federal action, either fully approving or disapproving the proposed standards. Such Federal action on the water quality standards submitted by the states in 1967 should be taken immediately. The elimination of "moving targets" as standards will greatly accelerate effective water pollution control programs. If the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency disapproves these standards, the Water Quality Act provides for sufficient Federal authority to act in the absence of responsible state action. However, the Administrator must first take a firm position on the state water quality standards submitted in 1967 if abatement of water pollution is to proceed. Unconditional approval of state standards-or disapproval precipitating Federal action-is a necessary next step toward meaningful water quality improvement.

The 1970 Clean Air Act amendments incorporate deadlines for administrative action by the Environmental Protection Agency. This principle should apply also to the water quality program. I hope that such deadlines will be added to the Federal responsibilities under the Water Quality Act.

LEGISLATIVE DANGERS

The major proposals (S. 523 and S. 1014) now before your Committee contain substantial dangers. Your chief task may well prove to be the elimination of these dangers from the final bill approved by the Committee.

DANGER TO THE PRINCIPLE OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, AND TO ALL THE STATE PROGRAMS BASED ON THIS PRINCIPLE

All states now have water quality programs for the waters under their jurisdiction. Water quality standards have been used as an effective means of providing for public participation in the choice of water quality goals-in effect, the use of the water resource. Such standards are effective in protecting water from thoughtless abuse, judging costs and benefits, and weighing the effectiveness of pollution control actions.

Specific effluent limitations, designed to achieve water quality standards, are necessary items in any implementation plan. Both bills, but in particular S. 1014, place too much emphasis on rigid establishment of these effluent limitations. S. 1014 discusses Federal effluent standards for "minimum acceptable levels of treatment."

The chief argument against these Federal effluent standards is that they will be so unresponsive to regional problems that they could, in fact, impede real progress. For each water basin, state and/or regional authorities must set discharge limitations on individual waste sources in order to achieve the adopted water quality standards. Many states utilize a yearly permit system to enforce these discharge limitations. Due to changing conditions (increasng population, shifts in land use, flow variations, etc.) in each basin, these discharge limitations must be flexible in order to effectively achieve the quality standards without undue hardship. The time-consuming process of Federal approval will largely destroy this flexibility.

Both bills contemplate some form of control by the Administrator of EPA over discharge limitations. By vesting approval and/or enforcement powers over discharge limitations with EPA, regional and state authorities will be unable to respond swiftly to changing conditions in the water basin because of the required Federal action. In addition, the need to simplify Federal administration will probably lead to great pressures for uniform national discharge limitations, thus seriously imperiling the status of water quality standards. At the Federal level, the administrative ease associated with enforcement of uniform discharge limitations will overshadow the need for adequate water quality. This would present serious obstacles to the prevention of pollution.

DANGER TO STATE WATER RIGHTS AND STATE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Both bills extend Federal participation in water pollution control efforts substantially beyond the interstate waters now covered by Federal law. While recognizing that there is a Federal role in the establishment of quality standards for interstate waters, beginning in 1963 this Committee, together with the House Public Works Committee, carefully studied Federal authority over intrastate waters. Because of the acute interrelationship between water quality (hence water use) and the development of river basins, the principle of Federal intervention into strictly intrastate situations was rejected.

Both S. 523 and S. 1014, by delegating final approval authority over intrastate water quality and over point source waste discharges to the Environmental Protection Agency, will concentrate considerable economic planning powers in the office of the Administrator. This authority could give the Administrator substantial power over the use of intrastate waters and over the location of new sources of discharge-both municipal and industrial. Each state would then be dependent upon the Administrator for its economic future. For example, Federal regulation would be extended to intrastate waters used for irrigation (regulating salt content) and to "contiguous" waters where coastal states now lease mineral rights.

Since water quality standards are the true measure of our success in protecting our environment and in providing for adequate water usage. Federal enforcement action should be directed against violations of the established water quality standards. The actions are detailed in the Water Quality Act. Federal efforts to enforce quality standards, coupled with rapid, unconditional approval of appropriate state standards are essential to prevent and control pollution.

DANGER TO OUR TOTAL ENVIRONMENT

Related to the preceeding discussion on uniform effluent standards is the prob. lem of language similar to "latest available technology."

Given finite resources, as a society we must balance our desire for a high quality physical environment with our demands for adequate housing, proper nutrition, sufficient energy, mobility, jobs-in short, our standard of living. Water quality standards provide one of the key interfaces between the physical environment and our social and economic needs. The proper allocation of our limited resources to provide the best total environment for man is the function of these quality standards. Undermining this balancing process through requir. ing "latest available technology" on all new sources will mean that resources which should be used to satisfy man's other needs will be diverted. While this diversion may improve the physical environment, it must degrade the quality of life-our total environment.

The need for the proper establishment and strong enforcement of water quality standards cannot be overemphasized. Concern over the physical environment must not lead to an overreaction which would neglect the fact that man, unlike flowers and trees, requires not only a suitable physical environment for life, but also those social and economic factors which make life worth living. Lack of Federal authority over intrastate water quality and point source discharges does not suggest that pollution of intrastate water will result, just as the past few years have shown that Federal authority (poorly administered) has not been a panacea for interstate water pollution problems. Under the Water Quality Act, states were encouraged to adopt water quality programs for their waters, and each state now has an agency to handle water pollution control. Most states have ongoing programs, several of which have been significantly more effective than the joint Federal-State programs for interstate waters. States have been able to develop new concepts for dealing with water basins entirely within their jurisdiction.

Another form which this danger to state economic development assumes is the "non-degradation" provision contained in both bills. The issue of non-degradation has concerned the National Chamber for several years. In essence, nondegradation stipulates that, regardless of water quality standards adopted after public hearings, no water body will be allowed to decline from its present level of water quality, even if that level is well above the approved quality standards. While non-degradation is absolutely necessary to improve the condition of presently low quality waters, its application to high quality waters presents major difficulties.

A national policy of non-degradation will tend to concentrate population and industry in areas already under substantial environmental pressure. Since 100% treatment (complete recycling) is not now within the scope of our technology, a non-degradation policy will force new waste sources-municipal, industrial, and agricultural-to locate in areas where existing sources are reducing their waste discharges rather than in areas where there are presently no waste discharges. If these sources were to locate on high quality waters, some degradation would necessarily occur, but as long as the adopted water quality standards were enforced, no pollution would result. This principle of non-degradation will lead to continued underdevelopment of our non-populous areas and increased environmental strain on the heavily populated and heavily developed sections of the country.

RIVERS AND HARBORS ACT OF 1899

Many of the dangers outlined in the proposed legislation apply also to the Administration's planned implementation of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Much of the Administration's bill, S. 1014, is designed to give legislative sanction to the permit system for industrial discharges which would proceed under the 1899 Act. This permit system, and the proposed regulations to implement the system, flies in the face of much of the fine work on water quality standards accomplished by this Committee over the years. Firm direction from Congress must be given to Federal efforts in water pollution control. I urge that you use the present legislative opportunity to bring the Administration's proposal back into line with water quality standard programs.

SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION

Because of the proven effectiveness of the Water Quality Act in encouraging state water quality programs, and because the full potential of this Act has not been realized due to failure to implement the Act fully and properly, the National Chamber urges the members of this Committee to insist that the Water Quality Act of 1965 be given a chance to perform as effectively as this Committee envisioned when it drafted the legislation in 1965. This failure in the implementation efforts, which must rest with those officials who in the past have been responsible for the Federal program, has adversely affected not only the interstate water quality programs, but also the intrastate efforts designed to complement the joint state-federal program. Improvements in the implementation of the Water Quality Act are necessary to continue water quality efforts. To this end the National Chamber urges this Committee to adopt measures which would: 1. increase the level of Federal funding;

2. force prompt unconditional decisions by the Administrator on state water quality standards submitted for review;

3. require periodic review of state water quality standards (as in S. 523). By taking this action, and by rejecting proposals which would undermine the thrust of the Water Quality Act or impose Federal control on the development of the states and their waters, the members of this Committee will accelerate and improve the national effort to abate water pollution.

59-068 0-71-pt. 3-5

FLOOD AND POLLUTION CONTROL IN METROPOLITAN CHICAGO

Prepared by the City of Chicago Department of Public Works,
MILTON PIKARSKY, Commissioner

Index

I. General Aspects of Urban Runoff and Water Pollution by Combined Sewer Overflow.

II. Flood and Pollution Problems in Metropolitan Chicago.

III. Proposed Projects for Controlling Flooding and Pollution.

IV Chicago Underflow Plan.

V. Summary and Conclusions.

VI. Bibliography.

I GENERAL ASPECTS OF URBAN RUNOFF AND WATER POLLUTION BY COMBINED
SEWER OVERFLOW

The fall of rain and snow through the atmosphere cleans the air by dissolving out contaminants and physically washing out particulate matters. The flow of waters over the land in the form of runoff to watercourses adds further soluble and insoluble natural contaminants to the water cycle. Even the percolation of waters into the soil and their eventual flow into watercourses and lakes adds soluble and insoluble substances which may or may not be of a pollutional nature. Thus even without the effect of man's urban existence, nature creates pollutional conditions.

The urban environment magnifies these pollution producing conditions. The air washing of the urban atmosphere contributes more and more diverse pollutional substances to precipitation. The drainage of the urban area adds contaminants that far exceed those nature-induced pollutants added to runoff by solution and erosion in open non-urban areas. The conversion of pervious open land to impervious urban surfaces, such as roads, walks, streets, roofed structures, parking areas, shopping centers, and airports, produces greater faster runoff along with scour pollution. The use of water for public and industrial services produces waste waters containing the waste products of human life and living as well as industrial processing.

The discharge of these waters into receiving waters constitutes the major water pollution problem. The ever-increasing amounts of such pollutants and the growing complexity of these water-borne wastes have created a deepened concern for the safety and usefulness of the nation's water resources.

There is a direct relationship between the cleanliness of the urban environment and the cleanliness of storm-water runoff-or, conversely, between poor urban housekeeping and the pollutional effect of runoff waters which come in contact with urban-created street and land debris and aerial pollutants. Regardless of the sources of urban pollution of this nature, the connecting link is the street inlet structure to the separate storm sewer or the combined sewer. The relationship between urban cleanliness and water pollution appears obvious; what is not so obvious is the extent of this relationship and what can be done to eliminate or reduce it. So little has been done in the past to correlate the influence of street debris and air pollutants with the delivery of these contaminants to separate storm or combined sewers, precipitation, and runoff, that the problem must be approached as a relatively unexplored area of urban operations.

Separate storm sewers, as well as combined sewers, are potential recipients of the type of urban pollution. In addition these separate storm conduits are utilized as discharge points for other wastes not classified as "out-of-doors" pollutants that are the result of urban environment conditions. These other waste waters include: so-called clean waters discharged from cooling and refrigeration systems, contaminated waters from stack-washing operation in commercial and industrial establishments, and surreptitious or illegal discharges of actual waste waters from commercial and industrial operations into separate storm sewers. Indeed, it is not unknown for municipalities to provide relief for surcharged sanitary sewers by diverting their excess flow into storm sewer systems. In

some cases, illegal discharges of individual septic tank systems have been made into convenient separate storm sewer lines. In combined sewers, waste discharges can be considered, more or less, as indigenous components of the combined sanitary storm-water flows. In the case of separate storm sewers, these pollutants are not treated and they add a burden to receiving waters. Thus, combined sewer overflows constitute a significant part of the nation's total water pollution problem. It is important to recognize, however, that the overflow problem must be evaluated in terms of the total effects on water and land resources from all overflows, discharges and spills of waste waters, not as an isolated and unrelated source of water pollution.

Despite current concern over the problems of combined sewers and their overflows, U.S. communities continue to build combined sewers to replace and extend sewer systems. Active programs to eliminate or minimize the volume and strength of overflow wastes are impeded by the high cost of such projects and the inconvenience to urban life and activities.

In the case of multiple community regional operations, some of the communities which utilize joint facilities are sewered as separate systems but they discharge separate sanitary flows into combined collection sewers of older central cities. This separate sanitary sewage thus becomes combined wastes and contributes to the overflow problem "by association." This general problem also occurs frequently in communities which have both separate and combined sewers. The flow from the separate sanitary sewers enters the combined sewers, thus contributing to overflows.

Executive infiltration into combined sewers usurps valuable sewer capacities and increases the frequency and duration of overflows. Infiltration frequently exceeds design and code limits. Correction of excessive infiltration could reduce the overflow problem by providing increased in-system capacity for the storage of more combined sewage flows.

While sewer separation has been advocated as a positive method for eliminating combined sewer overflows, and separation projects are reported to be the most commonly used corrective measure, most separation work has been carried out on only portions of sewer systems, seldom involving the entire system.

Sewer separation is not the panacea of all combined sewer problems. Other overflow corrective measures have merit, not only in terms of comparative cost to separation, but also in terms of cost and convenience to property owners and the general public. Other than sewer separation, surface control, storage and off-system treatment are considered to be promising methods of reducing or eliminating the pollutional effects of overflows.

II-FLOOD AND POLLUTION PROBLEMS IN METROPOLITAN CHICAGO

A. The flood control problem

Since the end of the Second World War, Metropolitan Chicago has undergone a period of extensive urban development. This development has caused a tremendous increase in the impervious area and larger surface runoff during storm periods. To alleviate local flooding of basements and underpasses throughout Chicagoland, hundreds of millions of dollars have been expended in the construction of new sewerage. While greatly reducing the undesirable storage of water in basements and underpasses, a new and increasing problem of flood control in the rivers and canals is becoming apparent.

During the heavy storm period of October 9-11, 1954, the Union Station and other downtown buildings were flooded. To reduce the flood stage in the river, the locks at the mouth of the Chicago River were opened allowing polluted water to enter Lake Michigan. This was the first time since the locks were constructed in 1938 that they were opened to permit river water to flow into the lake.

Since that time the locks have been opened during storms of July 12-13, 1957, September, 1961 and August, 1968. The frequency of requiring lock openings to the Lake for river flood control is greatly increasing, and will continue to increase as new outlet sewer capacity is added.

The normal and desirable outlet for all storm water is to the southwest along the Sanitary and Ship Canal to Lockport, the Des Plaines River through Joliet to the confluence of the Kankakee River and through the Illinois River Waterway System to the Mississippi River.

The Sanitary and Ship Canal designed for a capacity of 10,000 cubic feet per second was completed in 1900. Because of drawdown of the water surface at Lockport during heavy storms, the Canal has been able to handle a peak discharge, for short periods of time, of up to 24,000 cfs.