formation needed to evaluate pollution situations and make proper recommendations for correction. The power to subpena in such instances is a necessity.

Mr. Chairman, President Johnson said in his message, and I quote:

It is true that we have often been careless with our natural bounty. At times we have paid a heavy price for this neglect. But once our people were aroused to the danger, we have acted to preserve our resources for the enrichment of our country and the enjoyment of future generations.

This statement is particularly appropriate for this committee, for you have been, over the years, pretty much the conscience of the country in your efforts to achieve clean water.

We applaud and we support your efforts and we recommend speedy enactment of your bill with the amendments we have suggested. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Are there any questions on my right?

Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Wright?

Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratuate the Secretary, our former colleague, with whom all of us here have had many discussions and associations in the past.

I think you have made a very fine statement and I want to express my pleasure in welcoming you here to the committee, and having you back on the Hill.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you, Mr. Wright. I am always glad to be back.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Clark.

Mr. CLARK. I want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who was our colleague for a number of years, and I want to commend him for his statement. I think it is very good and very worthwhile to this committee.

I should say that I have had my doubts on section 2 of this bill, but if your Secretary, Mr. Celebrezze, would say that you would be the director, I would be very happy to support it 100 percent.

Mr. QUIGLEY. I think I had better say, "No comment" on that. Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Edmondson.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment the Secretary, too, on his splendid statement.

I am particularly pleased by his recognition of the fact, as indicated on page 4, that if we do increase the ceilings that are in effect on these individual project grants, that we are going to be able to handle fewer projects in the future and that some increase in the authorization is definitely going to be needed.

I just wonder if the Secretary would comment on the propriety of putting that increase into effect now, since we are talking about ceiling increase now, in order to maintain the volume of projects in the future that are needed for sewage treatment.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Well, Mr. Edmondson, as I indicated in my statement, I think we recognize that we cannot have it both ways. You cannot increase the individual project ceiling and keep the overall ceiling firm and not reduce the number of projects.

Up to now we have moved in one direction. But on the basis of experience under this program, there is increasing evidence that the construction grant program has been most effective. There is no question that the amount of construction that has gone on in the sewage treatment area in this country in the last 6 to 8 years has increased threefold or fourfold. But I think if you examine the record, the construction program, as it has functioned to date, has been largely a godsend and a blessing for the large towns and the small cities.

I think the really small towns, the small town with maybe only 2,500 people, that have a very small tax base, have not generally been able to take advantage of the program, as they have not been in a position to come up with the 70 percent in order to qualify for the Federal Government's 30 percent.

On the other hand, our larger cities-and I think this has been dramatized by Governor Rockefeller's recent announcement on the water pollution situation in the State of New York-our larger cities have not found the $600,000 ceiling particularly attractive. It does not give them enough help to move them closer to their goal.

One other generalization I would make, I would say that the accelerated public works program demonstrated that the cities, large or small, in our economically depressed areas of this country, did not find the regular construction program as attractive as we would have hoped they would. It was not until, under the accelerated public works program where we were able to make as much as 50, or in some instances, 60 percent of the Federal dollars available, that many areas that are economically depressed were able to move, simply because talking to them about 30 percent meant nothing, because they just could not, in their economically depressed condition, do much about raising the 70 percent.

So we have a problem here. I think there is a general recognition of it in the Senate action, in the chairman's bill. I think there is a general recognition of it on the part of the administration. But what we are suggesting is that we would go ahead with the more modest increase under the present ceiling as provided for in the Senate bill and then next year, as we face up to the overall problem of extending the program beyond fiscal 1967, that we really think through what the new ceiling ought to be and that maybe we give some hard study to whether the formula ought not to be revised in ways that would make it more effective or more attractive to those cities and towns that up to now have not been able to take advantage of it.

Mr. JONES. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. EDMONDSON. Yes.

Mr. JONES. How many projects have been dropped due to the expiration of the accelerated public works program?

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Jones I cannot answer that. Clearly there were projects that could not go forward as we used up the accelerated public works fund and no more

Mr. JONES. And had been approved?

Mr. QUIGLEY. They were in the pipeline and would, had the funds continued, the program continued, undoubtedly be reached and by now in many instances would be under construction. In some instances, some of those projects were able to qualify under the regular program. In other instances, they are just kind of hanging fire be

cause the communities do not have the ability to come up with the local money.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Can I read into what you just said that you believe there is going to be support for further accelerated public works programs or for legislation to bring this grant percentage up to 50 percent? Because I sure would feel a lot more enthusiastic about raising this percentage, this amount of money that the big cities can get. I recognize the need for it. But I would feel a lot more enthusiastic about it if I thought you were also going to move to support this accelerated public works program and to make the funds available in these smaller cities and towns to meet this sewage treatment requirement in those areas.

I think it is very urgent and, to my way of thinking, it is the key, the indispensable key to handling this water pollution problem in a lot of areas in the country.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Edmondson, I do not think it is fair or accurate to read either of those two possible conclusions into what I have said. I think there is a clear recognition on the part of the administration of this problem. I think the experience we had under the accelerated public works program pointed out one possible solution. I think this could be the way that ultimately might be determined that we would go. But what I am pointing out, however, is we also recognize that maybe another approach to this problem, and maybe from the point of view of our water pollution control program, the better approach, would be to revise the ceiling and the formula on the overall ongoing program.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Could I get verification on another part of your statement here, on page 5, when you talk about the question of the desirability of public hearings on establishment of water quality standards. When you continue and say: "The practicability of which would, in the final analysis, be subject to court reviews in any event." are you suggesting that you do not believe these public hearings for establishment of water quality standards are desirable?

Mr. QUIGLEY. I do not know if they are desirable or undesirable. What I think I am suggesting is there might be merit and wisdom if the members of this committee would take a hard look at the procedure as it is now spelled out or now proposed, and consider whether that could not be streamlined; and, at the same time, still come up with some relatively good and reasonable and sound standards, which as I pointed out, in the final analysis are going to be subject to court review.

In other words, I would hate to see the standards section become law and then find out that we are bogged down in a maze of legalisms and dilatory tactics and protracted public hearings. Because I think the clear intent and purpose of the standards section, as I understand the intent of the sponsors, is to have us move forward and practice a little preventive medicine. Let's catch some of our streams before they become polluted.

Mr. EDMONDSON. I think there is merit in that.

Mr. QUIGLEY. I think this committee will criticize us if 3 or 4 years from now we have not done too much on standards except have a lot of hearings.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Would you be agreeable to the addition to the bill of a provision with regard to court review that would make it clear that the court review provision by the Administrative Procedures Act would be followed?

Mr. QUIGLEY. Well, I think inherent in the bill as it is now written is the idea of court review. Now, whether it is in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act or not, I think there is not any question that there is no provision for court review and there should be.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Do you see any objection that you know of to having the clear statement in the law that the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act would apply with reference to the court review?

Mr. QUIGLEY. I have not, and it is so provided for in the Senateapproved bill. Clearly there ought to be, there must be the right of court review. Everybody should be protected from arbitrary action on the part of any administrator, even if I happen to be the administrator.

Mr. DORN. Mr. Chairman, I want to welcome our colleague back before the committee and commend him for his energetic devotion and dedication to public service.

I would like to ask the Secretary whether or not any conferences have been called between States at their request by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare or the Public Health Service in the last few years concerning pollution of interstate streams?

Mr. QUIGLEY. Yes, Mr. Dorn, there have been conferences. I think there have been a total of 34 conferences that have been held since the act has been on the book, and it is my recollection-I will verify this and supply it for the record that 14 of those were called at the request of a State, not necessarily both States involved, usually it is the downstream State that is suffering the ill effects of the pollution that has invited us in. In a number of cases, of course, Governors have invited us in to hold a conference on streams that flow solely within their State boundary but the States have not hesitated to exercise their prerogative and invite the Secretary to call conferences and where they have, in every instance those conferences have been held.

(The information referred to is as follows:)

ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS

Of the 34 actions initiated to date, 21 have been brought on Federal initiative to abate pollution of interstate waters. Thirteen actions were taken at the requests of State water pollution control agencies or individual Governorseight on interstate waters, two requested by Governors to extend to both interstate and intrastate waters, and three requested by Governors on intrastate waters only.

Forty States and the District of Columbia have been parties to these actions, of which four advanced to the hearing stage. Court action was subsequently initiated in one case and a court order issued.

More than 1,000 municipalities and a like number of industries have been included in the scope of these proceedings. They have included such large metropolitan areas as New York City, Detroit, the Kansas Cities, and St. Louis and such large corporations as Armour, Swift & Co.; Du Pont; Scott Paper; Vanadium Corp. of America; Olin-Mathieson; Crown Zellerbach Corp.; Weyerhaeuser Timber Co.; and others.

The pollution of well over 7,000 miles of streams and bays will have been abated when remedial facilities entailing the expenditure of an estimated $1.780 billion have been constructed. All types and sources of pollutants have been involved, including municipal sewage and industrial waste discharges such as food processing wastes, pulp and paper processing wastes, radioactive uranium milling wastes, and toxic chemicals.

ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS-FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

Actions taken on Federal initiative.-The 21 enforcement actions taken upon Federal initiative involved the following interstate water pollution situations: 1. Corney drainage system, 1954, Arkansas and Louisiana.

2. Big Blue River, 1957, Nebraska and Kansas.

3. Missouri River in the St. Joseph, Mo., area, 1957, Missouri and Kansas.

4. Missouri River in the Omaha, Nebr., area, 1957, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, and Iowa.

5. Potomac River in the Washington metropolitan area, 1957, District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia.

6. Missouri River in the Kansas Cities metropolitan area, 1957, Kansas and Missouri.

7. Lower Columbia River, 1958, Washington and Oregon.

8. Raritan Bay, 1961, New York and New Jersey.

9. Mississippi River, Clinton, Iowa, area, 1962, Illinois and Iowa.

10. Androscoggin River, 1962, New Hampshire and Maine.

11. Coosa River, 1963, Alabama and Georgia.

12. Pearl River, 1963, Louisiana and Mississippi.

13. Menominee River, 1963, Michigan and Wisconsin.

14. Lower Connecticut River, 1963, Massachusetts and Connecticut.

15. Monongahela River, 1963, West Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania.

16. Snake River, Lewiston-Clarkston area, 1963, Idaho and Washington.

17. Lower Mississippi River, 1964, Arkansas, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

18. Blackstone and Ten Mile Rivers, 1965, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. 19. Mouth of Savannah River, 1965, Georgia and South Carolina.

20. Mahoning River, 1965, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

21. Calumet Rivers, lower end of Lake Michigan, and tributaries, Indiana and Illinois.

Actions taken at State request.-State water pollution control agencies or Governors have requested Federal enforcement assistance in 13 pollution situations. Interstate pollution was concerned in 10 such requests, of which 2 also extended to intrastate waters at the requests of the Governors. Three actions involving only intrastate waters were brought upon requests of the Governors concerned.

1. Missouri River in the Sioux City area, 1958, South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas.

2. Mississippi River in the St. Louis metropolitan area, 1958, Missouri and Illinois.

3. Animas River, 1958, Colorado and New Mexico.

4. Bear River, 1960, Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah.

5. Colorado River and all tributaries, 1960, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, California, New Mexico, and Wyoming.

6. Holston River, North Fork, 1960, Tennessee and Virginia.

7. North Platte River, 1962, Nebraska and Wyoming.

8. Puget Sound-upper Columbia River, 1962, Washington; requested by Governor.

9. Detroit River, 1962, Michigan; requested by Governor.

10. Escambia River, 1962, Alabama and Florida.

11. South Platte River, 1963, Colorado; requested by Governor.

12. Upper Mississippi River, 1963, Minnesota and Wisconsin; includes interstate and intrastate waters at Governor's request.

13. Merrimack-Nashua River, 1963, New Hampshire and Massachusetts; includes interstate and intrastate waters at Governor's request.

Status of enforcement actions

1. Corney drainage system, Arkansas and Louisiana: This enforcement action was held under the Water Pollution Control Act of June 30, 1948. On June 9, 1954, the Surgeon General found that oil well discharges originating in Arkansas