situation; not necessarily that one, but the general situation. We would like you to prepare for the committee between now and 30 days from now, a list of the plants where closure has occurred attributable (or allegedly attributable) to pollution or environmental problems.

Second, a list where closure has been threatened or suggested because of environmental or alleged environmental pollution problems. As part of those lists, you may wish to supply any commentary on what your analysis of those plants is, on the basis of data that you have available or can gather from the field. We would welcome that information, as well.

That is, at the very minimum we would like the list, the location of the plants, the date that it did in fact close or the date which it was indicated that it might be closed, but more than just the sterile list and the amplification of it, and the number of employees working at each of such plants.

Mr. TAYLOR. We will be very glad to do that, Senator.

(The information promised was not available at time of publication.)

Senator EAGLETON. Senator Baker?

Senator BAKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Taylor, I won't cover all of the range of subjects that you covered in your statement.

I would like to focus first on the statement you made with respect to emission standards from stationary sources as distinguished from pre-existing sources.

You made the point, as I understand your statement, that while the 1970 act provides emission standards for new stationary sources, it does not make provision for emission standards for existing sources. This, in effect, provides a method for offending industry to relocate plants and to shop for a location where the ambient air quality envelope had not yet filled up and where there is a little room for them to pollute.

This gets, of course, to the very basic problem that this committee has been concerned with ever since I have been on it, the fundamental debate over whether or not the United States ought to adopt an ambient air quality concept; that is, a standard or standards based on the average quality of the atmosphere in a given region or whether regulation ought to be on an emission standards basis, or, in effect, a prohibition against the discharge of pollutants in the atmosphere regardless of how clean or how dirty the atmosphere is.

You take the position that it ought to be on an emission standards basis. We have been exposed to this question for a long time, and I won't express my own view now except to ask that you give me a thumb-nail sketch for existing sources. Just a general overview of how you would write the legislation.

Let me hasten to add, I am not going to burden you with my views on it; you are not talking to a hostile interrogator. I am sympathetic to your view.

Mr. TAYLOR. That is very reassuring, Senator. I know it is an honest question and I will try to give you my best thinking on it for whatever value it might have.

We had much the same problem, as Senator Eagleton will recall. in the Occupational and Safety Health Act, where the question is whether there will be a program after the fact to remedy a situation,

or whether it will be a preventive program. We felt that controlling the environment in a plant should be a preventive program, so there were provisions written into the Occupational and Safety Health Act which would provide that when standards had been promulgated on a particular toxic substance, management would be required, if this was the kind of substance that needed monitoring, to provide monitoring so that every polluting source would be measured.

I think such monitoring can be done for external pollution since the same plants that are producing pollutants that go into the outer environment also pollute the work place environment which is a microcosm of the total surroundings.

Senator BAKER. Would you implement this through State agencies or Federal agencies?

Mr. TAYLOR. I think, first of all, you would want to set up the basic matrix for finding out who emits and what and how much is being emitted. My understanding is that present monitoring systems that are now around the country do not.

By industry, there is no power in the act to require this to have a monitoring device on a pipe that releases pollutants into the water. You therefore don't have an idea of what the problem consists of either in its entirety nor of its ingredients.

When this is done there will be knowledge of what kind of pollutants go out, how much, and where it is located, what industries, the kind and geographical location of industry. You start on that basis and then determine what to do about establishing standards and controls to keep the water from being degraded by these sources. In other words, attack it at the source.

Senator BAKER. Isn't this essentially what we are doing now with plans we require for States and regions? While the Federal Government establishes and retains the authority to judge the ambient quality of the air in a particular region or airshed, we require the States of that region to inventory point sources of pollution, identify the content, and establish emission standards.

Mr. TAYLOR. That is under the Clean Air Act.

Senator BAKER. What, in addition to that, are you proposing?
Mr. TAYLOR. I would say-

Senator BAKER. To answer my own question, are you proposing then that we do this on a uniform nationwide basis instead of an airshed or region basis?

I am frank to say, that is the only difference I can see between what you said and what we now do.

Mr. TAYLOR. I think you could administer on a regional basis where you have certain areas that have particularly marked characteristics of air movements and traffic and all of the other things that go into producing air pollution situations.

But in terms of having a national picture of what is being dumped into the water or emitted in the air, you need a count and a count has to be made as you would take a census. I know it is an enormous task but there is an enormous amount of air and water pollution being produced and you want to know who does it and what kind. Without monitoring, I don't see how you can regulate properly, and any artifiial, geographic, or any other differentiation I don't think should be used.

Senator BAKER. I agree with you.

I don't think that a plant that may no longer add to the burden of atmospheric pollution in New York City should be permitted to move to Colorado just because there is room on the outside to pollute a little

further.

Mr. TAYLOR. In addition to that, Senator Baker, it seems to me at least as far as concerns the large corporations, that in terms of control and techniques, it would be to their advantage to operate against a single standard rather than have a diverse set of many, many different standards, control techniques, and implementing plans among the States. With a uniform national standard, one type of equipment would apply to any similar situation and affect a similar problem regardless of whether General Motors is in California or the State of Maine.

Senator BAKER. We have evolved a very important distinction: the need for uniformity of emission standard requirements from airshed to airshed to make it impossible for industry to shop and locate an area where requirements for containment are not as stringent or strict as they might be in other locations.

Does your statement imply that you would prefer a uniform system of emission standards nationwide to avoid the migration of industry on a forum shopping basis?

Mr. TAYLOR. I recall reading an article in Fortune magazine a year or so ago where it took a poll of the large corporations as to whether they would prefer to have uniform Federal standards or whether they would like to go State by State. About 59 or 60 percent of the respondents indicated they would prefer uniform Federal national standards. I think it is to their own best interest.

Senator BAKER. Do you propose under this plan that the proposed national standard be minimum or preemptive?

Mr. TAYLOR. I think they should be preemptive. Otherwise, you are going to run yourself into the back door into the same kind of situation, nonuniform.

Senator BAKER. That is, in effect, what we have now, a minimum standard requirement, although we call it a criterion.

What is left to the States or to airsheds or to local autonomy to do if we set the emission standard here on a nationwide basis? What is the continuing rationale or justification or desirability of having any local involvement at all?

Mr. TAYLOR. I hate to go back to the Occupational Safety and Health Act and continue to bring up one thing because I have been involved in it, but this statute establishes a State-Federal program, whereby if the States satisfy certain requirements, they can pick up the enforcement of the act but they have to operate against national Federal standards. I think the same principle could be invoked here. As long as the States maintained compatability with the Federal Government's program and met Federal standards, there would be no problem.

They would have enforcement involvement but they would not be in the standard-setting end of it.

Senator BAKER. I think that part of your statement touches on the area that is most likely to be our principal area of controversy for the next few years. I think you have made a contribution for the record in that respect.

May I ask one further question, Mr. Chairman?

On the Refuse Act, which you touch on in your statement-you say the Refuse Act should be amended to remove its administration from the Corps of Engineers to EPA and to cover interstate and intrastate navigable waters, underground waters, lakes, estuaries, the contiguous coastal areas, and appurtenances.

Do you mean all functions of the Refuse Act should be transferred from the Corps of Engineers to EPA?

Mr. TAYLOR. Insofar as the permit system is concerned.

Senator BAKER. Do you propose that we stop there and continue. to have enforcement under the Refuse Act on a case-by-case ad hoc judicial basis or do you have any further suggestion on administrative procedure under the Refuse Act? Or is that beyond the scope of your statement?

Mr. TAYLOR. You caught me. I haven't thought that one out. I don't want to burden the record with random thoughts.

Senator BAKER. In previous hearings, we have had testimony to the effect that judicial means of enforcement under the Refuse Act is superior to the administrative means under the Clean Water Act.

There is emerging now the outlines of debate on whether the judiciary or executive department is better able to carry out the purposes of clean air and clean water. Of course, the Refuse Act and Clean Air and Clean Water Act both outline the dimensions of that controversy. I wonder if you had a comemnt on that.

Mr. TAYLOR. It seems to me that this kind of debate always arises over any kind of regulatory bill where the Congress is beginning a program or expanding one-whether or not it should provide citations for violations through the administrative process with the Administrator being the last resort, after which it goes to the Federal appellate courts, or whether there would be created an independent Commission to handle enforcement by adjudication.

We have favored all along a direct administrative approach on this whereby there is due process for a person who is aggrieved by the final action at the conclusion of the administrative process, in the case this Administrator of the EPA. The person could then take the matter to an appellate court. We would favor the latter approach. Senator BAKER. Thank you very much, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator EAGLETON. Senator Buckley?

Senator BUCKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Taylor, I have one question.

In your statement you stated that 50 conferences that have been held so far show no results of cleanup of the waterways involved and schedules adopted by the affected localities and industries are not being met.

Do you have any views on why there seems to be no effective implementation of these schedules?

Mr. TAYLOR. I think there are two reasons, I am not sure which is more important.

In some of the time schedules which are adopted as a result of conferences, attempts to meet them have been made, at least by the communities involved. Sometimes there have been unfortunate results from bond elections. Sometimes these communities plan construction in

anticipation of Federal matching grants in order to get the plants started and the matching grants are not forthcoming, or are long delayed.

A great deal of the lack of success of the conference method is attributed to the fact that not enough resources have been made available to localities as far as meeting their municipal responsibilities for abating water pollution. That was one of the reasons why "Crusade for Clean Water" was started back a couple of years ago when President Nixon followed President Johnson by asking for only $214 million against a billion-dollar authorization with $3 million in grant applications standing at the door.

This is one of the major reasons why areas have not been cleaned up. The other is that I think the Federal Government and State enforcement agenices have been lax, and have allowed these conferences to be rescheduled and dates to be set back time and time again not to mention failure to enforce interstate violations.

Senator BUCKLEY. You believe there is a lack of adequate money, in other words?

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes.

Senator BUCKLEY. Thank you very much.

Senator EAGLETON. Thank you very much, Mr. Taylor. We appreciate your presentation.

Senator EAGLETON. We will now hear from the conesrvation panel consisting of Mr. Ted Pankowski of the Izaak Walton League, Spencer Smith of the Citizens Committee on Natural Resources, and Louis Clapper, National Wildlife Federation.

Gentlemen, you may identify yourselves and proceed in any order you wish.

Mr. PANKOWSKI. Apparently. I have been chosen, on an ad hoc basis, to lead off. I appreciate the courtesy of my colleagues. I am Ted Pankowski, of the Izaak Walton League of America.

To my left is Mr. Spencer Smith of Citizens Committee on Natural Resources.

To mv right is Mr. Louis Clapper, Conservation Director for National Wildlife Federation.

I am prepared, Mr. Chairman, to either read the statement as presented or to read certain portions of it depending on the Chair's wishes. Senator EAGLETON. The statements of all three witnesses, if they are not read, will be printed in the record in their entirety, following their oral testimony, and they are at liberty to highlight them for us.

STATEMENT OF TED PANKOWSKI, IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF

AMERICA

Mr. PANKOWSKI. I am Ted Pankowski of the National Staff of Izaak Walton League of America.

We appreciate your invitation to testify this morning. As you know, the league has a deep history of involvement in the Nation's water pollution abatement efforts beginning with its founding in 1922.

This year, as a result of the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and, hopefully through changes being recommended to the committee, we think the Nation may well see a breakthrough as important and far reaching as those which occurred in 1956, 1965, and 1969 and the citizen's crusade for cleaner water.