done in terms of changing our tax policies so that our tax policies encourage the attainment of our objectives, provide incentives for pollution abatement, and so that our tax policies in general encourage conservation rather than discourage it.

I think that this whole field is very important, because I think that American industry will take up the challenge and will do the job if we will give them a little help. I think that we may be surprised at what we can turn up on that front.

But the provisions I think in this legislation are well conceived. Secretary Quigley is the one who must administer this problem and I would leave the details up to him. I just make the general appeal to this committee again this morning, that I think this is very vital legislation. I commend the committee for the work that it has done in the past on this problem and the pioneering that it did a few years ago in getting this program started. I am delighted to be here with the committee this morning.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

You referred to one area we have never considered and that is the matter of the tax laws.

Mr. Secretary, you are referring to some form of depreciation, or some form of tax writeoff for that part of the industrial installations that is constructed solely for the abatement of pollution caused by a particular plant; is that not correct?

Secretary UDALL. Well, Mr. Chairman, there are various proposals that have been mentioned. The one you mention, is a prominent one that might be used.

We, in many ways, use tax policy not only to produce revenue, but to serve other national purposes, and I think this is an area that is long overdue. It relates not only to water pollution, but to many other aspects of the beauty of the country, the conservation of our resources, and so on. I think you will find this is a primary discussion topic for the White House Conference that the President is calling for May, and we are already at work on it in the executive branch.

I am sure that you people are giving this some thought. But I think this is an area-we in the last 2 or 3 years have been doing a lot of revising of our tax laws, tax structures, to serve important new national purposes-that certainly deserves very close analysis. Mr. BLATNIK. Any questions?

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Thompson of Louisiana.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to compliment the Secretary on his ability to state his purposes in such a brief manner. But I do want to say this, Mr. Secretary, your work involving this committee is complemented by the work you and your staff have done involving another committee on which I serve, the matter of migratory waterfowl. I do believe this to be most important. The two purposes can be served.

Secretary UDALL. I think it is very important that the Congressman is on this commitee, because these two programs are interrelated, as he and I well know. The problems we deal with in conserving wildlife and waterfowl are similar. These wildlife and waterfowl resources depend upon water that is usable, just as human beings, and this is a very important part of our conservation responsibility.

Mr. THOMPSON. I do want to compliment your staff on the complete cooperation they have been giving to us in our efforts on this committee and the other one on which I serve.

Mr. BLATNIK. Any questions on my left?

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I have one or two.

I want to welcome the Secretary before the committee.

He touched on some of the aspects of the legislation. Of course he did not touch on other aspects of it, and I am sure the distinguished Secretary knows there have been differences of opinion with regard to what the effect of this legislation might be if we in fact take from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare the administering functions and put them in the hands of the new Assistant Secretary. Are you testifying for that proposal on behalf of the Administration in that I understand your administration, at least last year, was not strongly in support of changing that function? Or are you leaving that to some other Department?

Secretary UDALL. No, I will let Secretary Quigley testify primarily on that. However, it is my understanding the administration does favor this proposal and I would say, as an administrator that handles very similar problems, that I think this is a very important step forward to give it this focus.

I hope the Congress does enact this provision as part of this legislation.

Mr. CRAMER. Well, of course, I for one, for instance, introduced, with the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota, the initial Water Pollution Control Act a number of years ago. It has been my objective to try to assist in any way I could to make sure it is strengthened in the future, related to accomplishing the objective; but at the same time, encourage the States and not discourage them to participate in the program, because I think most of the evidence we have before us clearly indicates that if in fact the State do not carry their fair share of the burden, that this program will not succeed.

Do you generally agree with that?

Secretary UDALL. I think there is no question but that the States must play a major role.

If I may say so, I think one of the most exciting things, just to strike a bipartisan note, that I have seen in recent weeks, is the plan that Governor Rockefeller is presenting in the State of New York. This is something I think every member of this committee, if you have not read it, ought to get hold of and look at, because I think this is a very bold approach to the problem, talking about really cleaning the rivers up now and paying later. I like this as an idea. I think this is a good example of State action. The States must act, there is no question about it.

Mr. CRAMER. Of course, in 1961 we passed substantial amendments to the Water Polution Control Act. The Federal enforcement measures against pollution were substantially broadened and strengthened at that time.

The question that occurs to me is now that strengthened authority of the Federal Government, in conjunction with the States, is just getting underway under the present administrative setup, what disturbs me and did last year in considering this matter, particularly in view of the lack of enthusiastic support by the administration for the

change, is whether we would be doing more damage than good in reshuffling just reshuffling is one. Now are are talking about another administrative reshuffle.

Are we not doing more damage? We keep reshuffling administrative agencies. Once they get into a program, they get moving and begin to accomplish worthwhile activities, we take them off of it, give them a different function and shift the function to a new political appointee, as Assistant Secretary of HEW.

Do you not think serious consideration has to be given to this big reshuffie of administrative authority?

Secretary UDALL. Congressman, I think it would be better for me to let Secretary Quigley handle this question. I simply would like to say, however, that in my own Department, and I think this is the only way you can run a Department, that I have Assistant Secretaries who supervise all the main areas of action, and this is the only way that we can really make an imput from the top and get the kind of action that the President wants.

Mr. CRAMER. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BLATNIK. Question, Mr. Baldwin?

Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Secretary, it is a pleasure to welcome you again before our committee.

I would like to ask you a specific question, if I may. We have had a very serious problem in the San Francisco Bay area. I am sure the Secretary is aware of it. Unfortunately, the problem has been aggravated by one of the Bureaus of the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Reclamation. This involves the terminal point at the San Luis reclamation drain.

The Public Health Service in San Francisco made preliminary studies before actually making a comprehensive study in which they have said the proposed terminal point recommended by the Bureau at Antioch would be an extremely hazardous terminal point and did not feel in any case it should be there.

There is in this budget this year funds for $300,000 for the Public Health Service to make this study of the delta in San Francisco Bay, which the Public Health Service estimates will take about 18 months to determine how we can prevent pollution of the delta in the bay. All the agencies in the entire bay area, all the newspapers, alll the public bodies in the bay area, feel that study should be completed before a decision is made as to the construction of the drain and where it should terminate.

As a matter of fact, in the 18-month interim, the amount of drainage would be small because they are just starting out. Some temporary solution could be taken.

It is my understanding the Bureau of Reclamation, despite this fact, requested funds in the budget this year, although those funds were stricken out somewhere as they went through the administrative process, whether at your level, at the Bureau of the Budget's level, or the President's level.

You have testified, and I fully agree with your testimony, you have stated here:

For too long waterways have been used as sewers and dumps for wastes and refuse. For too long even so-called good waste disposal practice has been geared merely to the concept of limiting pollution loads to the assimilation capacity of streams. This is a negative approached. We must begin how to adopt a positive approach to insure clean water for these resources.

I fully agree with that.

And over on page 2, where you quote the President's statement, President states:

the

Though the setting of effective water quality standards, combined with a swift and effective enforcement procedure, a national program to prevent water pollution at its source rather than attempting to cure pollution after it occurs. Now, the issue in this case is that this drain will not only include waste but will include pesticides, and also residues from chemical fertilizers.

The proposed terminal point is above two fresh water intake points for the people in the city of Antioch and almost 250,000 people in central Contra Costa County who draw fresh water most of the year below the proposed terminal point of this drain, as proposed by the Bureau of Reclamation.

Now, the project serves about 1,500 people and yet the Bureau would risk the fresh water, the domestic water, of 250,000 people to terminate it as it proposes at the Antioch bridge.

Now, all we are asking is that the Bureau just hold off and the Department of the Interior hold off for a period of 18 months and not endeavor to request any funds until the Public Health Service completes its study of how we can prevent pollution of the delta and the bay.

I think this is a reasonable request and certainly in accordance with the President's message. I am wondering if the Secretary might be able to give us some assurance that the Department would be willing to take this position?

Secretary UDALL. Congressman, let me be very explicit and I am conversant with the problem, although I have not gone into it in depth, some of my people have-I think if the Federal Government is proposing to lead the Nation to new acts in this area, it ought to set the example. I do not think there is any question about it. And you are correct in this.

In other words, if the Federal Government is engaging in activities, it certainly ought to do a better job of pollution prevention and abatement, as far as its activities are concerned, than anyone else does. In other words, it should be an example and this is a problem where this arises.

It is my feeling, and I concur in your general statement, that we ought to come up with a solution to this problem. I think the State of California also must play a role in it and I think that we ought to get the answers before we go ahead.

It was my feeling, when the budget issue came to a head in the final stages, that we ought to wait. The San Francisco Bay area is one of the most beautiful areas of the country. It is in trouble. It is in trouble from pollution, from filling. It has all sorts of conservation problems. I think there is a very real big decision there, whether this is going to remain and be known as the most beautfiul bay in the country probably.

I think the Federal Government, insofar as the things that it does, ought to set an example, and I think we ought to get the answers and we ought to hold off from action until we get an action program that is soundly conceived.

Mr. CLAUSEN. Will the gentleman yield?

44-265-65--2

Mr. BALDWIN. Yes, I will yield.

Mr. CLAUSEN. I want to add my beliefs to what Mr. Baldwin has said. I represent the counties of Napa and Marin on the North Bay, and I have had much in the way of correspondence from the people in that section.

So I take it from your response that we can expect you to hold off, as far as the Bureau of Reclamation is concerned, until such time as the study is completed?

Secretary UDALL. I think we ought to finish the study. I do not know whether the study should be telescoped. I do not know whether it should take the actual 18 months, but I think we should go full speed ahead and get the answers, get a plan; and whatever the cost of it is, put the plan together and carry it out.

Mr. CLAUSEN. But can I tell my people, for the record here, that you endorse the idea of holding off on any further project until the time the study is completed?

Secretary UDALL. Until we complete the studies and come up with a plan, yes.

Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Secretary, I have discussed this with the Public Health Service and they said they can complete it in 18 months. The information they gave me was 18 months. Basically this is a reasonable period of time.

Mr. CRAMER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BALDWIN. I will yield.

Mr. CRAMER. I have another question I would like to ask the Secretary.

Regarding the statement in the next to the last two pages, No. 1, you indicate legislation should be enacted and will be submitted by the administration to insure adequate and swift enforcement measures:

Any acceleration of the present enforcement proceedings is not only highly desirable, but is necessary to prevent serious and continuing damage. and so forth.

Do I understand, then, that you expect to have submitted to the Congress in the near future in the request for additional legislation in this field procedures for enforcement on water pollution?

Secretary UDALL. This is my understanding, yes, Congressman. Mr. CRAMER. Do you not think, then, we are a little premature in considering this question, water pollution legislation, until that message comes up? Then we can consider the whole package at the same time, particularly when we are dealing with the subject of setting standards and enforcing them.

Do you not think we ought to have the full picture of what the enforcement procedures are going to be before we can make an intelligent decision really on what type of a standards section we want to write?

I am sure the Secretary is familiar with what was done last year. The other body enacted a different standards provision than the House voted out of this committee in that we required State approval; these standards were recommendations.

Of course, the wording of the bill before us makes those standards mandatory and requires State approval. That being the case, do you not think that we should get the full picture of what the enforcement