Mr. THOMAS. They are all specializing in water pollution control? Mr. MCCALLUM. That is correct.

Mr. THOMAS. It is a nice program. You send them to school and then it follows that you are going to give them a job when they get through?

Mr. MCCALLUM. They will have already had degrees.

Mr. THOMAS. You have difficulty securing these people under ordinary circumstances?

Mr. MCCALLUM. It is hard to attract good students in the graduate schools in competition with the other stipends and offers they receive to go into industry and other more lucrative pursuits.

BELATIONSHIP TO TRAINING CONDUCTED BY NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Mr. THOMAS. Isn't Dr. Waterman taking care of your group pretty well over at the National Science Foundation?

Mr. MCCALLUM. Our experience doesn't indicate that they have very many applicants for this field.

Dr. ANDERSON. We are thinking here of the advanced training of basically prepared scientists.

Mr. THOMAS. That is all Dr. Waterman does. He has to have a B.S. before he even lets them file an application.

Dr. ANDERSON. We are thinking of preparing individuals for work in State and local agencies as well as with ourselves and in industry, in the particular fields of pollution control. This is the kind of training we are envisioning in this program.

Mr. THOMAS. That is all clear.

Why should not the National Science Foundation include this? The tests are rigid and it is on a competitive basis.

Mr. KELLY. They are developing research scientists through their programs but they have not to my knowledge gone into programs of applied specialization to our program. For example, in the National Institutes of Health in addition to the National Science programs, we have extensive fellowship and training programs specifically related to the missions of the National Institutes of Health. This is an extension of that concept to this specific program. I do not believe there is any conflict or overlap between this program and the National Science Foundation.

Mr. THOMAS. You expressed it much better than I. You send them to school and then you give them a job when they get through. The National Science Foundation doesn't go that far, does it? They just send them to school. It is pretty nice work, isn't it?

Mr. KELLY. There is an acute need for highly qualified manpower.

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE TRAINING PROGRAM

Mr. THOMAS. Wherein is the public's interest served?

Dr. TERRY. In training persons for a particular activity?

I think it is quite clear, sir, that where needs exist, both at the local, State, or National levels, and where we do not have persons trained to fill those needs, it becomes of considerable interest when these programs are of national interest, that the people be trained to fill these positions.

Mr. THOMAS. What different position are you in from any good engineering students? There is a demand for engineers. I do not know of anybody who picks out a group of engineers, as far as Government activity is concerned and sends them to school, trains them for a particular job and then gives them a job when they get out. That is exactly what you are doing.

Dr. TERRY. On the other hand, sir, you may look at industry. They are taking men who graduate from the schools of engineering, they are taking them and training them in the particular type of work they will be doing with that industry. Training programs are sometimes only weeks and sometimes they last for 9 months or longer, in terms of training them for specific types of work after they have had basic engineering training.

Mr. THOMAS. Isn't there any utility for services of these fine students after they have completed their studies, other than the Government? Dr. TERRY. Oh, yes, sir.

Mr. THOMAS. Then why should the Government assume the burden then?

Dr. TERRY. I do not think that the Government is assuming the burden except in a very minor respect in terms of overall training. Mr. THOMAS. All you are doing is sending them to school.

What is the period of time they will be in under subsidy, going to school?

Dr. TERRY. It will vary considerably, but a few weeks to a school year would be common.

Mr. THOMAS. Longer than a school year?

Dr. TERRY. Not usually, though some might extend beyond that, sir. Mr. THOMAS. Excuse me.

Go ahead with your statement.

GRANTS FOR STATE AND INTERSTATE PROGRAMS

Mr. MCCALLUM. With respect to grants for State and interstate programs the authority for annual grants of $3 million a year expired at the end of fiscal year 1961. Public Law 87-88 has extended this authority through 1968 and increased the authorization to $5 million a year. This request is for $2 million, which together with the $3 million in the regular 1962 appropriation would bring the total up to the amount now authorized.

DIRECT OPERATIONS

Now with respect to direct operations, an additional $2.2 million is required to begin direct operations called for by the new legislation. These include four activities:

(1) Augmentation of streamflow: In 1961, legislation places responsibility upon the Secretary, a new and specific responsibility, for making recommendations concerning the downstream pollution control needs for water storage in Federal reservoirs.

These amendments require the Secretary to make recommendations on these needs which are to be included in any report submitted to the Congress on planning Federal reservoirs. The work will be performed by a technical staff in the regional offices and it will require 15 positions and $200,000 for fiscal year 1962.

(2) Enforcement of water-pollution abatement: Under the amended act, enforcement proceedings may be initiated against interstate pollution by the Secretary upon his own determination or upon request of a State or municipality with the concurrence of the State. Federal proceedings are available for intrastate situations only at the request of the Governor.

This estimate includes 80 positions and $1.2 million. These resources will be placed in the regional offices and field stations nearest the places where pollution situations may exist. Current estimates under the new act place the number of streams and other water bodies at about 26,000. This is about six times the number that would have been potentially subject to enforcement under the previous act.

Mr. THOMAS. The new act makes it a violation to put pollution in any water, doesn't it? Doesn't the act use the word "any"?

Mr. MCCALLUM. It already is so under most of the State laws, but that is true, or could be, if the case is proven. It is thought that maybe 25 requests for enforcement proceedings will come about in 1962.

I would like to state here that it is the policy of the Public Health Service to encourage voluntary or State action and to this end we emphasize factfinding surveys to get the technical information to see just exactly what the situation is. All of these actions are conducted in close collaboration with State and local agencies and industries. This is the big problem in enforcement, obtaining the factual data. Our experience under Public Law 660 has indicated that when we have obtained the factual data and have sat down with the State and interstate agencies and the people they have invited to come to conferences, and have presented the facts around the table, that quite often the case had to go no further.

(3) Research: The 1961 amendments authorize annual appropriations of $5 million, but not to exceed a total of $25 million for these three specific research purposes:

1. Development of methods and procedures for evaluating the effects on water quality and water uses of augmented streamflows to control water pollution that is not susceptible to other means of abatement;

2. Improve methods and procedures to identify and measure the effects of pollutants on water uses, including those pollutants created by new technology; and

3. Find practical means of treating municipal sewage and other waterborne wastes to remove the maximum possible amount of physical, chemical, and biological pollutants in order to restore and maintain the Nation's water of a quality suitable for repeated reuse.

All three things must be done to make the water safe, which is the only way we can meet the growing demand for water.

This estimate requests $500,000 to begin work on these problems. (4) Construction grant services: In view of the increased workload resulting from the additional $30 million for construction grants and in view of having to make certain for the first time that the DavisBacon Act is complied with, there is requested an additional $200,000.

73884-61-27

BUILDING AND FACILITIES, PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE

Mr. MCCALLUM. The second appropriation is for "Buildings and facilities, Public Health Service."

The 1961 amendments provide for the establishment of field laboratories for research, demonstrations, field studies, and training relating to the control and prevention of water pollution. The act specifies that one shall be located in each of the following sections of the country:

Northeastern, Middle Atlantic, Southeastern, Midwestern, Southwestern, Pacific Northwest, and the State of Alaska.

These field laboratories will pinpoint research on major sectional problems; they will provide prompt, high-quality laboratory services for control operations. They will work closely with State and local governments and with industrial organizations.

This estimate includes $1.6 million for the acquisition of sites, planning, and design for seven laboratories.

GRANTS FOR WASTE TREATMENT WORKS CONSTRUCTION

The third appropriation is for "Grants for waste treatment works construction." The new legislation authorizes appropriation of $80 million for grants for waste treatment works construction for fiscal year 1962. This is an increase of $30 million over the previous authorization. Grants are made to municipalities for projects certified by the State water pollution control agencies

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. McCallum, may I suggest you have a good statement there, but I imagine you have covered it in your primary statement which is going to be in the record and the details you are now giving are in your justifications, so to save your time and the time of everyone let us file it for the record and we will print it verbatim and let us go on to your specific estimates.

Mr. MCCALLUM. Very well, sir.

(The remainder of the summary of Mr. McCallum's statement follows:)

GRANTS FOR WASTE TREATMENT WORKS CONSTRUCTION

Grants are made to municipalities for projects certified by State water pollution control agencies on the basis of water pollution and financial needs. The maximum grant to a single municipality is 30 percent of the cost of the project or $600,000, whichever is smaller, except that the aggregate of grants to several municipalities participating in a multiple-sponsor project may not exceed $2.4 million.

Under the previous act, up to July 1, 1961, more than 2,700 projects had been approved for grants of $225 million to aid in sewage treatment works construction costing $1.3 billion. Local investment in these projects has been in the ratio of $5 to each dollar of Federal funds.

There are now pending some 1,500 applications requiring $127 million in Federal funds. The States have reported that more than 5,100 communities serving 42 million persons, need new sewage treatment plants, enlargements, or additions to existing plants. The total cost of the construction to meet these needs is estimated by State officials to be $2 billion.

The additional $30 million requested to bring the 1962 appropriation to the $80 million authorized will finance about 230 additional projects. This will increase the total number of projects for 1962 from 570 to 800.

Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to answer questions the committee may have.

BUILDING AND FACILITIES

Mr. THOMAS. We have for "building and facilities," $1.6 million, sites and planning. It is water pollution field laboratories and as Í called to your attention a while ago, the justification is silent as to the number and location.

You have said there will be seven and you told where they were. Name them again.

Mr. MCCALLUM. Northeast, Middle Atlantic, Southeast, Midwestern, Southwestern, Pacific Northwest, and Alaska.

Mr. THOMAS. I think there is a lot of interest in this program and I may state that our colleague, the Congresswoman from Oregon, Mrs. Green, is quite interested in this and Senator Kerr from Oklahoma is quite interested in this.

There will be seven of them. This is for sites and planning. This is the downpayment on the seven. What are the seven going to cost to finally get them operating and what is going to be the operational cost on each one of the seven? Will you have them all the same size? Mr. MCCALLUM. No, sir, they would not be the same size.

Mr. THOMAS. How much land will be required for each laboratory? Mr. MCCALLUM. We think about 10 acres and the average cost would be about $2.5 million.

Mr. BOLAND. That is going to be quite a building.

OPERATIONAL COSTS

Mr. THOMAS. What will be the operational costs per laboratory after you get them constructed?

Mr. MCCALLUM. We have estimates on that.

Mr. THOMAS. What is your horseback opinion? You can straighten it out for the record.

Dr. ANDERSON. $2.5 million, sir, is for the building and basic equipment, as I understand.

Mr. MCCALLUM. That is right.

Mr. THOMAS. What is your operational cost now? How many people will be employed, and so forth, in each one of your laboratories? Mr. MCCALLUM. There would be from slightly less than 100 to a little over 100.

Mr. THOMAS. In each laboratory?

Mr. MCCALLUM. Not necessarily in each one. That would be the

average.

Mr. THOMAS. Where do you plan to locate these, in big cities, small towns or where?

Mr. MCCALLUM. We haven't had operational funds to really get into the details of planning, but they should be where it would facilitate working with universities.

FUNCTION OF THE LABORATORIES

Mr. THOMAS. What will be the exact function of these laboratories, now?

Mr. MCCALLUM. The primary job in these laboratories will be to carry on our direct Federal operations. This field is becoming a very technical one and we need resources more than one can provide