first year of the present Federal program, similar contract awards increased 58 percent to $351 million. In 1958 similar contract awards increased 75 percent over the 1952-56 average to $389 million. In 1959 and 1960, similar awards have averaged $350 million, which reduction may be due in part to the steel strike and general cutbacks in public construction. However, contract awards for the 4-year period 1957-60 have averaged nearly $360 million annually, or an increase of 62 percent over the 5-year period 1952-56 before the present Federal grants program became available.

We understand that as at January 31, 1961, a total of 2,581 grants have been made in the aggregate sum of $213 million, supporting sewage waste construction projects totaling $1.245 billion. In other words, as was pointed out by the honorable chairman of this committee, John A. Blatnik of Minnesota, the author of H.R. 4036, every Federal dollar expended in the grants program has been matched by $4.50 in local funds. This is truly a remarkable record, an outstanding example of productive cooperation between Federal and municipal governments and ample justification for increasing the annual authorization for construction grants from $50 million to $125 million, and for increasing total grant authorization from $0.5 billion to $1.25 billion.

The proposal to increase the maximum grant to 30 percent of the project cost or $600,000, whichever is the lesser, is an improvement of the present limitations. However, we believe that a maximum limitation of 33% percent is more appropriate and that no limitation should be placed on the amount. The facts of life being as they are in respect to pollution, it should be pointed out that large urban populations cause pollution of a quantity and character disproportionate to smaller populations and requiring treatment works and techniques at a cost also disproportionate to smaller works. The proposed increase in project cost limitation from $250,000 to $600,000 is a step in the right direction, but we would urge the committee to consider complete removal of the cost limitation as an action more consistent with the character of the problem.

H.R. 4036 permits projects serving more than one municipality to receive a grant equal to the pro rata total of each project's allowable grant. Communities must be encouraged and permitted to join together to build common sewage treatment works. The construction of individual water and sewage treatment facilities by each municipality is absurd and especially is this so when cities are crowded together and are dumping waste into a common water supply source. Pipelines are simple to construct and are easy to operate. Whenever possible, consolidation of sewage treatment works should be encouraged both intrastate and interstate. The economics of cost, the shortage of qualified personnel, the increased efficiency of operation, the improved health benefits, as well as the increased water supply facilities, all indicate the desirability of consolidating sewage treatment works. Further, H.R. 4036 authorizes the reallocation of unused State grant allotments to States where applications for funds have exceeded their regular allotment. Certainly this permissive action is obviously in the public interest and requires no amplification. The maximum permissible amount of Federal grants should be made annually and, in view of the critical nature of our water supply and pollution problems

and the corresponding 4-to-1 ratio of expenditures which exists between Federal grants and private funds, it is not in the public interest to allow unused State allocations to remain idle. It may be assumed that, if this reallocation procedure is approved, an appropriate safeguard will be established to prevent the allocation of such unused funds for a single or a few communities for political purposes. Insofar as improvements in the Federal enforcement procedures are concerned we recognize the necessity for such changes and we consider the provisions of the bill as a step in the right direction.

It should be pointed out, however, that our 1961 national municipal policy with respect to improvements in Federal enforcement procedures actually goes further than the provisions of the bill in that we have urged

the comprehensive control of pollution on all surface, coastal and underground waters in accordance with a program to be established, directed and enforced by the Federal Government in coordination at the State and municipal levels.

It is clear that municipal authority is confined to city limits and that State authority ends at State boundaries. Federal authority must be used to control interstate pollution and that authority should be definite, conclusive and applicable either upon the authority of Federal officials or upon the request of any State or municipality aggrieved by pollution.

This is not to say that Federal authority should not be used on intrastate pollution matters. It is to say that primary enforcement and/or intrastate activities should be left to the States and to the municipalities without bureaucratic duplication at the Federal level. The level of enforcement should be prescribed by a Federal agency and Federal authority should be available when States or municipalities are unwilling or unable to act effectively.

We have been surprised to find that the present law excludes substantial bodies of water from Federal enforcement jurisdiction. The degree of exclusion is alarming when we recognize that there are some 1,080 municipalities discharging wastes into 845 intrastate navigable waters. Conversely, it may be stated that of the 26,000 water bodies in the United States, only 4,000 are regarded as of interstate nature. The result, therefore, is that discharges into these exempt streams are not subject to the control of the Federal enforcement agency, but they remain the moral responsibility of a neighboring nation, they are the subject of solicitude of a bordering State, or they are the creature of an international treaty with another nation. We urge the adoption of uniform enforcement procedures applicable alike to all waters.

Provisions of the bill which clarify and strengthen the authority of the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to issue final orders in enforcement actions lie well within the scope of the Federal action contemplated by the American Municipal Association policy recited earlier above.

Enforcement procedures contained in the bill making discharges from Federal installations subject to administrative findings and to recommendations in Federal water pollution abatement actions conducted by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, lie well within the framework of the American Municipal Association's recommendations with respect to an enforcement program "to be established, directed, and enforced by the Federal Government with

coordination at the State and municipal levels." Obviously, Federal installations must be required to observe the same standards of pollution control improved on other levels of government, on individuals and on industrial establishments.

We have not considered directly those provisions of the bill establishing a $25 million enforcement construction grants fund to be available for financially hard-pressed communities required to construct treatment facilities as a result of Federal enforcement action. We understand these funds would be available over and above the regular State allotment of construction grant funds, but that they would not be available to those communities receiving Federal grants from funds appropriated pursuant to section 7 of the act. Situations will arise. in a bona fide manner where the use of these funds will be appropriate, and Federal assistance for increasing the general level of pollution abatement is well within the confines of official American Municipal Association policy.

Insofar as improvements in water pollution research techniques and facilities are concerned, we concur in the provisions contained in H.R. 4036.

The national water pollution problem is a complex one, involving many facets. Water is withdrawn for use over and over again for many purposes as it flows to the sea. Most of this water is taken for granted and is used freely for all purposes, including the disposal of waste materials. Because of this indiscriminate use, water is becoming badly polluted. The expanding need for water emphasizes the necessity of preserving its quality as our water demand rapidly approaches a final limit of supply.

Unless new methods of treatment are discovered the volume, strength, and complexity of future municipal waste can only result in the discharge of later and larger amounts of impurities into badly needed water resources. To do this we must develop new treatment processes, probably based on entirely new concepts and principles that will achieve what approaches conversion of waste waters to fresh water. This will require a major coordinated research program which must utilize the best minds in the country and be able to attract physicists, physical chemists, hydrologists, economists, and devotees of other skills that up to now have not been fully utilized in water pollution research.

It is clear that the Federal level must handle research with respect to the exotic materials or that portion of the research activity charged with pushing back the frontiers. In order to avoid the expense of duplicate effort, the Federal level should be free from routine research operations. Certainly the excessive cost of the more sophisticated equipment such as specialized instruments for the detection of radioactive wastes cannot be duplicated at the municipal level, or even at the State level. Until recently, expenditures for scientific water pollution research averaged less than $1 million a year from all sources. Even now, research expenditures total less than $6 million, of which the Federal Government spends $2.5 million, industry $2 million, and the remaining $1.5 million is provided by State governments, including university expenditures. This is an exceedingly small sum when compared to the great backlog of unsolved problems and the

rapid increase of new problems resulting from new technologies and changing living standards and patterns.

Water intelligence is a component part of water research. Successful management of water resources requires adequate information. The Public Health Service has established a basic data collection program, the national water quality network, which is now operating 62 stations on interstate streams in a proposed network of 250 to 300 stations considered necessary to provide minimum interstate water quality service. This water quality network should be expanded and should be applied on a mandatory basis to all municipalities and industries with a significant waste disposal load.

Education and training are component parts of water research. Two types of training generally are available in this field. First is the so-called inplant training, which should be a requirement of all municipal sewage treatment works. A condition precedent to Federal aid could be established wherein adequate inplant training programs are carried out on a current and continuing basis. Second is the academic training available largely through universities and colleges. Here again we find a field in which duplication of effort and overlapping activities should be subordinated to Federal coordination, establishing training levels for the municipal, State and Federal Gov

ernments.

We concur with the provisions of the bill authorizing the establishment of regional laboratories in different sections of the country. We assume that these regional laboratories will not be used as duplicate facilities for routine activity. We hope they will be used for the purposes of conducting advanced research on the unusual problems pertaining to the individual regions and that they will serve to coordinate the municipal and State research activities including the best use of State college and university activities.

We concur with the proposal contained in the bill authorizing a special study of the waters of the Great Lakes. We believe our comments outlined hereinbefore are adequate in the explanation of this position.

Insofar as the improvements in the Federal and State administration of pollution control programs and procedures are concerned, we are in general agreement with strengthening the present Federal position.

Certainly the primary and/or first level of enforcement, research, and administrative responsibility should remain in the States and their constituent municipalities. These efforts should not be duplicated by an expanding Federal bureaucracy. However, our own position as outlined in our remarks hereinbefore with respect to improvements in Federal enforcement procedures may go further than the provisions contained in the proposed legislation.

We concur in the provision for Federal grants to States and to interstate water pollution control agencies for the administration of their programs and for an increase in Federal participation from $3 million to $5 million. Under existing law, $3 million in grants is authorized to assist these governmental bodies in meeting the costs of establishing and maintaining adequate water pollution control programs. These Federal grants supplement State funds and have stimulated and encouraged significant progress in water pollution control pro

grams at the State level. The recommended increase of $2 million for these purposes is nominal indeed.

We recommend the establishment of a separate water pollution control organization having status equal to the importance of the problem. We do not presume to advise the members of this committee specifically as to the establishment of a water pollution control administration within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. We have no wish to reflect unfavorably upon the Public Health Service, which organization has performed admirably within the limits of funds and personnel made available by the Congress and should be commended for its efforts in the fields of public health and environmental sanitation. This organization's knowledge and skill should not be lost in the vital field of water pollution control. The fact remains, however, that water pollution is not now primarily a health problem. It is a problem directly affecting our existence as a nation and involving the use of water for all the essential purposes, including municipal and industrial water supply, flood control, navigation, irrigation, low flow augmentation, hydroelectric power, conservation, and recreation.

So far our comments have been restricted to provisions of H.R. 4036. At this point we ask the indulgence of the committee in the following suggestions for their consideration while the legislation is under study.

It is axiomatic that a healthy and sound industrial base is essential to the general welfare of our people and is vital to the defense of our country. Industry should not be penalized by present tax laws, most of which were written long before there was any recognition of the impending water crisis. Industry should be encouraged in every possible manner to invest the billions in plants equipment that must be constructed in water pollution control works. We urge the committee to recommend to the Ways and Means Committee an amendment to the Internal Revenue Code

(1) to permit Federal income tax credits to reimburse industries for costs of constructing nonproductive waste treatment works installed to eliminate water pollution in accordance with State and/or local laws and ordinances; and

(2) to permit 5-year depreciation of productive or profitcontributing waste treatment works.

We should point out for consideration of the committee that largescale accelerated tax amortization programs have been approved by the Congress on various occasions in connection with the defense effort during the past 20 years and particularly in the construction of special purpose facilities or facilities subject to a rapid rate of obsolescence.

Water resource projects should be designed and planned in such manner as to maximize the net benefits for flood control, hydroelectric power, navigation, irrigation, water supply, conservation, recreation, salinity control, and low-flow augmentation purposes. Unfortunately, these latter two purposes have for the most part been overlooked in water resources programs and projects developed to date. It is clear that the indiscriminate use of water for dilution and low-flow augmentation purposes cannot be permitted to substitute for the construction of waste treatment faciliies. It is clear also that the essential use of