Water Pollution, Hearing, 89-1, 1965

Joaquin Valley. It now appears, after years of study, that both Federal and State diversions to San Joaquin Valley and southern California will be accomplished by the use of a conveyance canal, named the Peripheral Canal, constructed along the easterly portion of the delta. The canal will provide positive and absolute control of Sacramento River flows, and therefore the means to completely cut off these flows. It is these flows, as pointed out previously, which control water quality in the San Francisco Bay-Delta system.

If Federal and State Governments operate the Peripheral Canal so that Sacramento River flows cannot directly enter the delta along with releases into the delta from the Peripheral Canal itself, a serious water pollution problem is not only imminent but certain. We can see the situation in the western delta becoming parallel to the one which now exists in south San Francisco Bay-no flushing action to move pollutants out of the system and through the Golden Gate. We have been told by both the Bureau and the State of California that they are planning to operate the Central Valley project and the State water project so that the anticipated outflow from the delta will be in the neighborhood of from 1,500 to 1,800 cubic feet per second. It is the opinion of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, this manner of operation will be seriously detrimental to our county's interests.

What we are trying to bring before this subcommittee is the fact that current Federal and State water resources development planning poses serious threats to our county. Both these levels of government are planning to not only deplete our offshore supplies but, in addition, to return a portion of these same supplies taken from the delta, in a polluted form. We are referring, of course, to the proposed joint Federal and State construction of the San Joaquin master drain which will be carrying agricultural wastes containing toxic chlorinated hydrocarbons, nitrogenous and phosphoric compounds, plus the threat of treated industrial and municipal wastes.

Contra Costa County has long contended that the problems we have outlined above can best be solved by augmenting low outflows in the delta by the controiled release of waters from upstream storage, both in the San Joaquin River Basin and in the Sacramento River Basin-an operational procedure originally proposed as the principal function of the Central Valley project. We believe the best means of accomplishing this purpose is by the provision for an increment of storage in each reservoir constructed upstream of the delta. These flows would not only improve water quality for users in the delta but would provide offshore supplies for municipal and industrial use, enhance the anadromous fishery, and preserve the assimilative capacity o fthe San Francisco Bay-Delta system, at least until such time as an interceptor drain is constructed to the

ocean.

The abrogation by the Bureau of Reclamation to practice salinity control in the western delta constitutes strong justification for the formulation of Federal legislation and policies that will provide releases of stored water in order to maintain the value of the offshore waters of the San Francisco Bay-Delta system.

We therefore strongly recommend to the subcommittee that the provisions of Public Law 87-88 be extended and applied to salinity control and that the subcommittee take the initiative in this regard.

Senator MUSKIE. Then, Mr. W. T. Burns of the California Manufacturers Association.

STATEMENT OF W. T. BURNS, A MEMBER OF THE INDUSTRIAL WASTE COMMITTEE OF CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT CRAMER

Mr. BURNS. Senator Muskie, may our statement become a part of the record?

Senator MUSKIE. Indeed it may.

Mr. BURNS. We have had a great array of experts, and I'm just an old plant industrial operator, but I would like to have had a chance to make a few comments.

Senator MUSKIE. Would you like to take a few moments now?

Contra Costa County has long contended that the problems we have outlined above can best be solved by augmenting low outflows in the delta by the controlled release of waters from upstream storage, both in the San Joaquin River Basin and in the Sacramento River Basin-an operational procedure originally proposed as the principal function of the Central Valley project. We believe the best means of accomplishing this purpose is by the provision for an increment of storage in each reservoir constructed upstream of the delta. These flows would not only improve water quality for users in the delta but would provide offshore supplies for municipal and industrial use, enhance the anadromous fishery, and preserve the assimilative capacity o fthe San Francisco Bay-Delta system, at least until such time as an interceptor drain is constructed to the

ocean.

We therefore strongly recommend to the subcommittee that the provisions of Public Law 87-88 be extended and applied to salinity control and that the subcommittee take the initiative in this regard.

Senator MUSKIE. Then, Mr. W. T. Burns of the California Manufacturers Association.

STATEMENT OF W. T. BURNS, A MEMBER OF THE INDUSTRIAL WASTE COMMITTEE OF CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT CRAMER

Mr. BURNS. Senator Muskie, may our statement become a part of the record?

Senator MUSKIE. Indeed it may.

Mr. BURNS. We have had a great array of experts, and I'm just an old plant industrial operator, but I would like to have had a chance to make a few comments.

Senator MUSKIE. Would you like to take a few moments now?

Mr. BURNS. Yes, I would.

Senator MUSKIE. Mr. Burns, do you have a position with the California Manufacturers Association?

Mr. BURNS. My companion is Robert Cramer, and we are both i members of the industrial waste committee. Our purpose, of course, is to be helpful to you, first, and, in the end, help ourselves.

As we go through this statement, one of the points I would like to make is in the review of the proposed Federal legislation, we see no definition of the words "contamination" and "pollution," and it has been our experience here in California-and we understand elsewhere in the Nation-where these terms are not defined, it leads to confusion and misunderstanding.

We would like to emphasize that we have been a part of the water quality control program and supported it over the years, and that speaking as a member of industry and a plant operator, we are pleased with the regional control boards of the State of California in all respects. Also, I'd like to read our statement.

My name is W. T. Burns. I am works manager for Kaiser Refractories, a Division of Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. at Moss Landing, Calif., and a member of the Industrial Waste Committee of California Manufacturers Association. My purpose is to give you the CMA comments pertaining to the phase of this hearing which deals with "the seeking of information on the extent to which water quality standards have been set and met," as indicated in the May 10 release of your special subcommittee.

CMA has a genuine interest in, and sincere concern with, water pollution control and legislation to bring it about. Through its industrial waste committee, which consists of representatives from 112 manufacturing concerns in the State, our association has played a leading role in the development of sound water pollution control methods in California by promulgating and supporting improvements over the years in the California Water Pollution Control Act leading to continual upgrading of the quality of California's waters.

The California law is designed to prevent contamination and pollution which are defined in the State law, as follows:

"Contamination" means an impairment of the quality of the waters of the State by sewage or waste to a degree which creates an actual hazard to the public health through poisoning or through the spread of disease. "Contamination" shall include any equivalent effect resulting from the disposal of sewage or waste, whether or not waters of the State are affected.

"Pollution" means an impairment of the quality of the waters of the State by sewage or waste which does not create an actual hazard to the public health but which does adversely and unreasonably affect such waters for domestic, industrial, agricultural, navigational, recreational or other beneficial use, or which does adversely and unreasonably affect the ocean waters and bays of the State devoted to public recreation.

These definitions can be considered as the guides for setting general water quality standards. Their presence in the California act has minimized conflict and misunderstanding between the discharger and the people who regulate him, and has promoted an atmosphere of understanding and cooperation which is so necessary to the rapid and efficient solution of actual water pollution problems.

We note in our study of Federal water pollution legislation that a definition of "pollution" does not exist. It has been our experience in California, and we also understand this is true on the national level, that constructive consideration of water pollution has been hampered where the term under consideration is not defined.

The California definition can, of course, be attacked as can any definition, but it seems to us most difficult for anyone to argue against the inclusion of a definition of the problem which a law seeks to alleviate.

We have noted in our study of Federal legislation that there is a tendency to consider the setting of water quality standards on a "broad brush" or national basis. Our suggestion is that different waters be treated as separate entities for the purpose of establishing standards of water quality so that each standard will be meaningful as to the particular body of water to which it is to apply. This approach recognizes that beneficial uses and thus economic uses of waters vary greatly State by State, multistate region by multistate region, watershed by watershed, and, therefore, standards of water quality must vary accordingly. Taking cognizance of this, the California act divides the State into nine regions, each with its own control board. Each board determines for its area the beneficial uses to be protected and the discharge requirements necessary for their protection. The total effect of the control activities of these nine regional control boards is extremely effective control of water pollution in the

entire State.

Another point with respect to water quality standards, regardless of whether a standard is set by a region, a State, or by the Federal Government, we feel strongly that a report should be prepared which will provide the scientific and other bases upon which the standards for each body of water are established. The report would serve to illustrate the necessity of the standard adopted and assure those affected that it was based on scientific procedure rather than arbitrary action. Further, it would tend to generate support for the standards by the people, municipalities, and industries affected.

An example of what we mean is that the State of California Water Quality Control Board has published a report entitled "Water Quality Criteria" which has proved to be a necessary and exceedingly valuable reference book in the California water pollution control program. This report was prepared by Jack Edward McKee of the California Institute of Technology, and Harold W. Wolf of the U.S. Public Health Service.

In summary we would certainly recommend, based upon our experience in California, that any State or the Federal Government, in order to promote understanding and cooperation between the discharger and the people who regulate him, define the water quality problems they want solved, approach the solution on a regional basis, and set water quality standards on the bases of scientific facts and standard analytical procedures in a published report available to the discharger.

Thank you, Gentlemen.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you, Mr. Burns.

Mr. BURNS. Senator, just prior to the summary, we mentioned this very complete report that is brought forth by the State of California,

« Previous Continue »

Books