Mr. QUIGLEY. I do not think I have come prepared this morning, Mr. Chairman, to make recommendations along this line. I appraised this session as an opportunity to give a status report, to point up some of the progress we have made and to highlight some of the problem areas that remain.

Senator MUSKIE. I understand you are probably inthe same process we are in, understanding to lay the factual foundation for developing conclusions and recommendations, but I did want to make that clear for the record.

Mr. QUIGLEY. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. I am not here with specific recommendations for revision and extension or changes in the present program.

Senator MUSKIE. In your statement, Mr. Secretary, you made reference to the need for storage in Federal reservoirs to regulate stream flow for the purpose of improving water quality.

I would like to build up the record on that point as I indicated in my questions of the previous witness.

Do you have any summary of the studies which would indicate for the record the extent to which this technique is used, how expensive it is, the projections for the additional requirements for facilities and their projected costs?

Do you have any information of that kind at all?

Mr. QUIGLEY. We will supply whatever information we have, Mr. Chairman, for the record of this committee. I am not quite certain how much specific experience we have had in this area because this was a new concept introduced by the 1961 act. I am not ready to say how many reservoirs there are on the line right now in operation that had this concept worked into it. There is a long leadtime from planning to actual construction and operation.

Senator MUSKIE. I would consider that many of these reservoirs would be part of multipurpose projects.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Usually they are. This is one additional purpose that is now built into them.

Senator MUSKIE. Frankly, I do not conceive of this as being a substitute for treatment, but I certainly can appreciate the fact that on certain streams at certain times of the year even well treated sewage does not have a sufficient water carrier and that we need stream augmentation in those instances.

Mr. QUIGLEY. I think this is the clear intent of that provision of the law, it is not to be used as a substitute for pollution treatment. We recognize that there are some streams in some areas of the country in some times of the year, July and August most likely, when even with the best treatment available you still do not have enough water in the stream to get anywhere near the proper dilution and this is where flow augmentation is to be used.

Senator MUSKIE. Yes. I am reminded by the staff that another use for stream augmentation is to dilute heat pollution. I assume this is valuable.

Whatever you can give us on this point for the record, because we do try to make these records a source of knowledge and information as well as an education for the members of the committee.

Mr. QUIGLEY. We will supply for the record what information we have on the operation and effectiveness of this phase of the program. (Subsequently the following information was supplied for the

record:)

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,
Washington, D.C., June 6, 1965.

Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, Committee on
Public Works, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: We are pleased to respond to your request of May 20, 1965, made at the hearings of your committee, for information indicating the extent to which the provision of storage for streamflow regulation for water quality control is used and its costs. From information provided by the Corps of Engineers, we have prepared two tables which are attached for your consideration. Table 1 gives data on projects completed prior to the enactment of the Water Pollution Control Act of 1961 (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.). Table 2 lists reservoirs completed or under construction since 1961.

Testifying before the Subcommittee on Natural Resources and Power of the Committee on Government Operations of the House of Representatives on Wednesday, June 12, 1963, Mr. Eugene Weber, Deputy Chief of Civil Works for Policy, Office of the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army said: “* * during the severe drought of the 1950's, the Fall River Reservoir in Kansas vitally needed water supply and dilution of wastes involving six municipalities and prevented the complete shutdown of three refineries and other key industries of the area." Continuing in his testimony in reference to future needs for water quality control storage, Mr. Weber said, "In the projections developed by Resources for the Future for the 1961 report of the Senate Select Committee on Natural Water Resources, it was estimated that by 1980, the United States would need about 94 million acre-feet of additional storage for flood control and about 315 million acre-feet for water quality control and other purposes dependent upon low-flow regulation. By the year 2000, it was estimated that about 446 million acre-feet would be required for the latter purpose."

Commenting on the corps' program to 1980, Mr. Weber continued, “Accordingly, the Corps of Engineers has recently estimated that the programs for which it has planning responsibility should be formulated to provide 320 million acre-feet of reservoir storage capacity by 1980. Much of that capacity will be needed for water quality control. Such a program of reservoir storage would require a cumulative expenditure for reservoir construction, totaling about $15 billion by 1980. This means increasing the program from the current annual rate of about $1⁄2 to about $12 billion by 1980."

The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has worked closely with the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation since 1961, advising on the need for and value of storage for streamflow regulation for the purpose of water quality control. One hundred and sixty-four water quality control studies have been completed as of June 30, 1965. Storage was found to be needed in 67. The value of benefits attributable to water quality control storage in these totals $21,077,000 per year. Benefited water uses include municipal, industrial, and agricultural water supplies, fisheries (both fin and shellfish), recreation, such as swimming, boating, water skiing, and esthetics.

In no case do we substitute streamflow regulation for treatment or other control at the source. Flow regulation assists in improving water quality over and above that which is considered of practical attainment by treatment or process changes and the needs for storage for streamflow regulation are predicted on this premise. The necessity to provide treatment to abate heat pollution is considered of importance equal to treatment of other pollutants. Thank you for the opportunity of supplying these data.

Sincerely yours,

JAMES M. QUIGLEY,

Assistant Secretary.

TABLE 1.-Multipurpose projects with specific provisions for water quality control constructed before 1961 1

Operated for navigation low flow and pollution abatement in the Monongahela River.

2 $1,500,000 Operated 1943-49 for temperature control in Mahoning Valley for power and steel production. Now operated for flood control as well as low flow in the Youngstown area about 50 miles downstream.

(3)

1 "Water Pollution Control and Abatement" (pt. 1B, National Survey), p. K37, hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, 88th Cong., 1st sess.

Operated for navigation low flow and pollution abatement on Youghiogheny River above Pittsburgh.

Supplies low flow of 50 cubic feet per second to sustain sanitary conditions downstream to Salina, Abilene, and Topeka.

Provides water supply and pollution abatement for 6 towns and rural areas along the Verdigris River.

Provides pollution abatement in Clarion River Valley.

Storage used jointly for water supply and pollution abatement in Red River of the north at Fargo, N. Dak.

Provides water supply and pollution abatement for 4 towns and rural areas along Verdigris River.

TABLE 2.-Multipurpose projects with water quality control storage provided under the Water Pollution Control Act as amended (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.)

Source: Information provided by Corps of Engineers, June 28, 1965.

Senator MUSKIE. Mr. Reed, would you proceed with your statement.

STATEMENT OF PAUL W. REED, CHIEF, CONSTRUCTION BRANCH, DIVISION OF WATER SUPPLY AND POLLUTION CONTROL, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased for this opportunity to appear before your committee and present this report on progress in construction of sewage treatment works.

The Federal sewage treatment construction grants program, begun in 1956, provided a real impetus to the control of water pollution. Prior to the enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, construction had fallen below the level necessary to provide for expanding population and to replace the aging facilities of an earlier era. While the 1956 act had a very beneficial effect on the abatement of pollution from municipal wastes, it did not go far enough in certain respects. Construction of needed treatment facilities increased-but not enough.

The $250,000 maximum grant limitation was too low to attract larger projects and did not encourage nearby communities to join together in the more effective and less expensive multimunicipal projects.

The statutory formula for the allotment of appropriated funds between the States did not consider the variation in water pollution problems among the States, and a mechanism for balancing funds with need was desirable.

In 1961, the Congress amended the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to:

First. Authorize increased annual appropriation of $80 million in fiscal year 1962, $90 million in fiscal year 1963, and $100 million for the fiscal years 1964 through 1967.

Senator MUSKIE. What was the original figure that was proposed in the Senate bill that we had that year? Do you remember?

Mr. REED. No: I do not.

Mr. QUIGLEY. I want to say $100 million but that is reaching back in my memory. I could be wrong. I recall that this was one of those instances where the Senate figure was accepted.

Senator MUSKIE. I do not mean the final Senate figure. As I recall, we had quite a go-around in the executive session in this bill trying to keep the figure up high and we had to drop it.

The House bill was high when it was before us. What was the House bill?

Mr. QUIGLEY. $70 million, I think was the Senate figure.

Senator MUSKIE. All right. I will get that later, there is no point in searching for it here.

(The information is included in Governor Rockefeller's statement.) Mr. REED. Second. Increase the 30-percent grant limitation from $250 to $600 thousand.

Third. Encourage communities to construct joint rather than separate projects by applying the individual grant limitation to each community's share of the cost of such projects up to a total of $2.4 million.

Fourth. Require the reallocation of unused State allotments to States having projects which could not be approved because of lack of funds. Prior to reallocation, additional grants may be made to projects where the need is due in part to any Federal institution or Federal construction activity.

From the beginning of the program to April 30 of this year, a total of 6,141 projects have been approved for grants of $652 million. Senator MUSKIE. Does that figure include the accelerated public works?

Mr. REED. It does.

Senator MUSKIE. Was the figure we got earlier accurate, $108 million?

Mr. REED. $108 million, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. Yes.

Mr. REED. Local communities have contributed an additional $2.5 billion to meet the total project cost of $3.1 billion.

Approved projects will serve a population of 53 million, and will improve the quality of water in 55,000 miles of streams. Currently there are 1,400 applications for grants being processed or reported to be in preparation. These applications would require $174 million in grants in support of projects costing $879 million.

Senator MUSKIE. Do you have a table by States which will show the breakdown by States?

Mr. REED. We can provide that, sir. (The document referred to follows:)