water for these purposes will increase as wastes increase from concentrated urban populations and industries.

We urge this committee to do everything within its power:

(1) To provide for the comprehensive development of water resources by the construction of maximum-use multiple-purpose works; and

(2) to provide for recognition of all purposes wherever applicable in water resources projects, including the purposes of navigation, flood control, power, irrigation, watershed management, water supply, low flow augmentation, pollution abatement, conservation, and recreation.

We must protect and improve the water we have and we must find more water. That is the price of survival.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks as a representative of the American Municipal Association.

I will ask the chairman's indulgence, if I might make a few personal observations and not as a representative of the American Municipal Association. They are appended to the full statement which is before you.

Mr. BLATNIK. If the members will turn to page 31 of the full report of the mayor's testimony.

Mayor, if you will please proceed with your individual comments? Mr. FUGATE. Thank you. I do this because our city of Wichita has recently been classed as a metropolitan area. We have all of the problems that go with this increased growth, one of which was long standing, and that was pollution abatement and pollution control.

The former mayor, who sits at my left, and I have worked together for many years in our city in developing a water supply and water resources program that involves supply and control of pollution abatement, and I am pleased to say that our city is one of the very few large communities in this country-and I think you can count them on one hand-which completely treats its sewage. We have a new secondary sewage treatment plant, and now we have a level of 85 to 90 percent effective treatment.

Mr. Chairman, as a former mayor of a city that has just gone through 25 years of pain and travail to solve its water problems, I am aware of the urgent need for coordinated research, enforcement and financing of water resources and pollution control projects at the municipal, State, and Federal levels.

The authority of the Federal Government should be increased, not for the purpose of establishing an overriding bureaucracy that will extend into every State and city, but for the purpose of establishing clearly the Federal authority and responsibility over (1) interstate waters, (2) navigable streams and their tributaries, and (3) underground water reservoirs in such manner as to permit the Federal authority to prescribe general levels of research, education and training, intelligence, enforcement, and financial assistance. Water resources facilities are too scarce, water trained personnel and technicians are too few, and water intelligence is too limited to permit their indiscriminate use or waste. Fifty different States going off in all directions will not produce 50 good answers to the problems of water quantity and quality. Add to this confusion the uncoordinated activities of several thousand cities, industries, and other water users and polluters and you will have this confusion compounded.

The legislation should be brought up to date and Federal authority should be established clearly over all water resources insofar as pollution control and allied functions are concerned. Control of pollution in ground water reservoirs is of particular importance. This field is comparatively new. The quantity of water available, the rapidly increasing rate of withdrawal, and the difficulties of detection and abatement of pollution all combine to make it desirable that there be no question concerning the exercise of the full authority of the United States.

The Federal Government should develop "model" water control legislation for adoption by the various States and, to the extent possible, the adoption of such legislation should be associated with Federal grants and/or financing.

State legislatures should be encouraged to adopt legislation authorizing States and cities to participate in river basin projects and within that framework to provide for:

(1) Cost sharing by municipal and State governments of appropriate portions of present and future benefits of maximum-use multiple-purpose works;

(2) coordination of intrastate research, training, and intelligence at State levels presumably with State boards of health or water pollution control boards;

(3) pollution control on all waters in a manner supplementing river basin programs established by the Federal Government;

(4) development of appropriate water management ordinances with respect to environmental sanitation, sewer use and levels of pollution control, all on a present and continuing basis, such ordinances to be adopted and placed in effect by their constituent_municipalities as a condition precedent to receipt of Federal or State assistance and approval of State permits for municipal sewage discharges and sewerline extensions.

In connection with Federal grants or financing to municipalities, they should be encouraged to adopt ordinances to supplement Federal and State legislation and within that framework:

(1) to provide for pollution controls at the local level applicable without exception to all pollution originating in or flowing through municipal limits;

(2) to provide appropriate regulations governing sewer use; (3) to provide appropriate regulations governing environmental sanitation;

(4) to provide appropriate regulations governing use of industrial

sewers:

(5) to provide appropriate standards for operation of municipal sewage treatment works;

(6) to provide appropriate standards of inplant pretreatment of industrial waste before acceptance in municipal sewage systems.

Most municipalities are staggering today under an accumulation of general obligation debt. While some States have recognized the importance of pollution control and water supply projects by exempting them from statutory debt limitations, it is clear that an increase in the ad valorem tax structure is not desirable.

A better solution may be the use of revenue bonds for financing the municipal share of cost of constructing water and sewage works.

Certainly it would have the advantage of being outside the property and income tax fields and the users of the service would pay the bills. Taxpayers and water and sewer users may not be the same persons and if not the freeloaders are imposing a heavy burden on the taxpayers.

Few bonds other than general obligation bonds enjoy the certainty of payment that is present in water and sewer revenue bonds, and this fact is reflected in the favorable interest rates. Maturities should be extended to a minimum of 50 years with provision for additions or extensions for modernization purposes.

Long-term revenue bonds of our cities for water development and water quality pollution control purposes should be immediately marketable under a Federal system of guarantees such as FHA-guaranteed mortgages or guaranteed loans for defense production purposes. In addition, a Federal finance agency similar to a "Water Resources Finance Corporation" should be authorized to discount, purchase or collateralize such bonds for loan purposes. Federal grants in aid and Federal assistance in financing should be accomplished on the river basin basis if possible, and with each State bearing its proportionate share of the cost of each project as it relates to an overall river basin water development and pollution control program.

In any event, this cardinal rule should apply to all Federal financing, whether by loan, grant, subsidy or other means. No Federal money should enable any project to continue water pollution practices. The adoption of water management and quality controls on a present and continuing basis should be a condition precedent to the application for Federal funds, and this requirement should be applied to public works projects also.

In conclusion, it is clear that we should be shaping a broad national water policy with the river basin as the unit for development and administration. Water resources policy and water quality management are so interrelated as to make it impossible to discuss one without the other. We should adopt stringent pollution control measures now at the city, State, and Federal level and we should develop these controls further in the light of experience and new situations. This will require more action than we have had, more reason than we have shown and considerably more understanding and courage than we have used so far in attacking this problem.

That concludes my presentation, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your attention.

Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, Mayor Fugate.

May the record show that accompanying the mayor is also another former mayor of Wichita, Mr. A. E. Howse.

Mr. Howse, we are privileged to have met both of you gentlemen yesterday, and I appreciate your joining Mr. Fugate in his presentation this morning.

Are there any questions on my right?

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, in my long experience here I have never heard a finer nor more thorough statement. I am thoroughly in accord with the purposes of this bill.

Now, this is a purely academic question, but I was just thinking as you were speaking there, if you use a primary and then a secondary treatment system and if you clean up the waters 95 percent, what are

we going to do about the other 5 percent? Can we ever reach anywhere near perfection, or does that mean if you drink this water after there is 95 percent purification, that the municipality will add a chemical such as chlorine, or something of that sort, to take care of the remaining 5 percent? That is purely academic, but it has been running through my mind.

Mr. FUGATE. Thank you for that question.

We bring water up to a high standard in our community and other communities. The low-flow augmentation principle that I mentioned in my presentation is of tremendous benefit in having the 5 percent residual pollution that cannot be eliminated, in having it brought to 21⁄2 percent, or, in cooperation with the so-called self-purifying effect of streamflow, the augmentation of a water supply in a stream very quickly brings it up to potable standards, where ordinary chlorination, and not to a very high degree, makes it highly potable.

That is one of the purposes in a multiple-purpose water projectthe maintaining of a minimum streamflow to aid in the abatement of this residual pollution, which present techniques are unable to conquer. It is important that we have that purpose established in multiple-purpose works.

Mr. DAVIS. You take a river and as the water moves down there is sunshine that hits part of it, and then there is aeration, if that is the word, as it moves along. Is that right?

Mr. FUGATE. That is correct, Congressman.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you.

Mr. BLATNIK. Are there any further questions on my right?

Mrs. BLITCH. I would like to ask what is the normal amount of chlorine? The witness said in order to bring it up to perfection they add or are required to add a normal amount of chlorine. What is a normal amount of chlorine?

Mr. FUGATE. If I remember correctly, it is 0.3, and I think that is in parts per million.

Mrs. BLITCH. That is, according to the pollution of water they have to increase the chlorination?

Mr. FUGATE. Yes. Some waters, and as I go about the country I always notice when the water is very heavily chlorinated. If you take a glass and pour it from one to the other glass you get a characteristic odor.

Mrs. BLITCH. Yes, I have experienced that myself.

Mr. FUGATE. The heavily chlorinated waters show up very quickly. It is possible to purify water by the use of chlorine so that it is potable for our consumption, and yet we have one community in our State where they flatly refuse to chlorinate for the reason that industrial uses in that community will not permit the use of chlorinated water. Their water is pure to their standards. They think there is no danger in using it.

So this is a complex matter. Sometimes when you overchlorinate you make it unsuitable for industrial use, whereas when

Mrs. BLITCH. You do not adopt the attitude that chlorination has any part in the purification of water?

Mr. FUGATE. No. I know of no connection between chlorination and purification, or potability of water. As I understand it, it is a medicinal problem there.

Mrs. BLITCH. That is all.

Mr. FUGATE. Thank you, Mrs. Blitch.

Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Baldwin.

Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Fugate, you have mentioned the urgent need, and I don't think there is much question about it, for the attack on the problem of water pollution throughout the country. You have stated that you are in full accord with the bill here, which would increase the Federal contribution for this purpose from $500 million over a period of 10 years to $1,250 million.

What action has the American Municipal Association taken to see if the States would be willing to share in this large increase in costs? That is, the local municipalities are putting up the largest amount. They are certainly putting 70 percent, if not more, in under the previously authorized law. This law would require the Federal total contributions to go up by $750 million. The States under this law now, in fact, are not required to do anything except a little research, and they are not even required to do that. We just say that we will make a small amount available to them if they want to go into that field.

Has the American Municipal Association taken any steps to see whether you can bring the States into the picture and get them interested enough to participate financially?

Mr. FUGATE. To answer that honestly, I would say we have presented the problem locally to our State, and we have asked that it be presented locally in each of the other States. There again you have a problem of getting 50 different jurisdictions each to participate on some basis or other in a program; and whether each State participates or leaves it all up to the local community, as they do substantially, or as they do in Kansas, is, I think, probably a matter which properly could be undertaken.

If a condition of the Federal grants is made that there be State participation also to an extent, I think the self-evident benefits of this program and the progress that has been made would, for instance, enable the State of Kansas to go along with that, because we have a very, I think, forward-looking administration of the water pollution control program in our State.

I must say that I would think it would probably not be successful in some States.

Mr. BALDWIN. Do you not think as a matter of equity and as a matter of realism that if the problem is sufficiently serious so that the Federal Government should come into the picture as we have, that the States should likewise be drawn into the picture and be asked to make a financial contribution?

Mr. FUGATE. Of course. Basically the answer is this: That the States have said the contribution shall be made at a local level, and they have not seen fit to contribute on a State level, or as a State project. The funds, of course, would come from the State, from the same people ultimately, whether

Mr. BALDWIN. That would be true with Federal funds also.

Mr. FUGATE. That is true. There is no doubt about that. The States have seen fit so far to confine their interest to administration, to research, and to enforcement, and the State share has been furnished by the local communities.