Mr. BALDWIN. Thank you.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Schwengel.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Fugate, I want to join in what has already been said about the fine statement that you have presented this morning, and the fine way in which you have presented it. It has been the result of hard work and thorough study and thinking on your part, and of those who worked with you.

I note in your statement you lay great stress on this matter of research. It occurs to me that this is in agreement with what a lot of other people have said about this problem, and I just wondered, is it not your opinion that we ought to start now doing a lot more research in this whole area to find ways and means to cut down the costs of this program, and to find ways and means better to sell the public on getting the program implemented at an early date?

Mr. FUGATE. Congressman, I think that that is of the utmost importance. One of the problems of water pollution control is that it is different now than it was 25 years ago. Many of our communities are using pollution control plants and sewage treatment plants which were designed and constructed 25 years ago. They are hoping they are doing a job now on the pollutants that are present not only in our municipal sewage, but in our industrial sewage, and particularly in industrial sewage. There is this field of so-called exotics and the insecticides, and the various new chemicals which are being used in agriculture, which are ultimately carried into streams and which are pollutants, and the effect of which or elimination of which are most difficult. Or the detergents which we use in our homes, which is a new development and which I am sorry to say go right through our modern secondary sewage treatment plant. They have not found a way to eliminate detergents from water. Neither have they found that it harms the human system particularly to take in detergents with their water, and we all do.

But there is an example coming right out of the home, and not out of industry. The detergent is not affected by the present sewage treatment plants or practices. Research is the only way that we can do that, and I think coordinated research is the only answer.

We have many industries, and large industries, which can finance research programs on their own waste disposal problems. The fact that they can do it, and other industries do it likewise, is an economic waste if that research could be centralized and pushed and brought to some succession of stages, so it would be accessible more quickly, and available for analysis more quickly. Therefore, the research provisions contemplated by the amendments for these laboratories and the division of labor between our local testing laboratories, are pretty elementary, of course. The State laboratories and then, finally, the regional laboratories, and the Taft facility at Cincinnati can, I think, solve many of the pollution problems arising from these new pollutants that we must learn to cope with if we are going to solve this particular problem.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. That being the case, I take it you would be in favor of strengthening this section dealing with research in this bill? Mr. FUGATE. I think that the research provisions in the present bill should be satisfactory, I believe. I do not believe we should by

law exclude any particular facility from a particular research project if they want to get into it. I think we should attempt to consolidate research in certain areas, in certain facilities, and cut out the duplication and waste that does go with duplication.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. I think this is a good point. I have read with interest this section that deals with research in this bill, but this assumes that we are going to set up a separate agency in the Federal Government to do this research in five or six different areas, which is what I believe it calls for.

Let me ask you this question: Do you not think that this bill would be stronger and better if we would provide that this be done in cooperation with municipalities and the States? There is a good precedent for this.

Mr. FUGATE. Yes.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. We have done this cooperative research in the highway building program in cooperation with American Association of State Highway Officials' tests, at least the major phase of which has been completed now. Would it not be well for us to invite leaders like yourself, who have had long and evidently successful experience in this field, to sit in some kind of advisory capacity to this research phase that needs our attention, and which we must stress?

Mr. FUGATE. Congressman, I hesitate to admit here that there may be some value in any bill introduced in the Senate, but I think S. 120 contemplates a research program with university facilities, or some similar thing. Laboratories, regional laboratories, would of necessity be located near where the personnel and facilities are already interested in this particular field, and the coordination of those facilities with these facilities contemplated by the amendments here would result in much faster treatment and better pollution treatment and pollution abatement.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Would you object to extending or amending this section of the bill to provide for municipal cooperation and State cooperation in the research programs?

Mr. FUGATE. Not at all.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. And even to the extent of allowing, as we do in the American Association of State Highway Officials' tests-by inviting and maybe requiring the State municipalities to cooperate with it not only by furnishing their talent and experience, but in order to help finance it?

Mr. FUGATE. I think, Congressman, that one of the things that should be done is that every municipality such as mine should be compelled to make tests within our abilities and within the resources that we have available; to do it regularly and according to scientific standards so that the data will have relevance, whether it comes from New York, California, or Kansas; and that that be furnished to and compiled by the State, and from the State to the Federal, so that the information we will accumulate will be comparable, and referable item to item in areas, and be of value in this research problem.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. You spoke also in your testimony about the need for model legislation. Have you been aware of the activity, the interest, and the work of the Council of State Governments in this area?

Mr. FUGATE. Yes. Very.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Do they not have some legislation to recommend? Mr. FUGATE. It is my understanding that there is model State legislation now that has been adopted in perhaps 30 States, and if I can speak as a lawyer, I think the necessity of eliminating the 50 different variations that are possible in a single statutory provision is important in any field, and this is one of them, just as it is in many other fields in which we are used to dealing with them.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. This is where the States themselves could furnish some leadership.

Mr. FUGATE. Very definitely.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Through their present organization and through better cooperation with municipal people like yourself, which I think has been lacking in years past, but which I think would be welcome if you would make your wishes and desires known to the Council of State Governments. I have served on that council for many years when I was an Iowa legislator, and I know they hold out great promise in this type of thing, and they invite you to work with them.

Mr. FUGATE. I agree with the Congressman, and if they are willing to receive it I will be glad to furnish them copies either of this presentation or assist in any other way I can and cooperate with them in that

venture.

Uniform laws and model legislation is a field which is growing. I know it is good and it should be encouraged. We are too interrelated in all aspects of our life, you in Iowa and we in Kansas, or in California. There is no need of maintaining complexities needlessly in this particular civilization, and this is one field we have been talking specífics on here, and that might have been a philosophical approach to it, but it is necessary. Our life is too complex in many areas now, and if we can eliminate some of these needless complexities, we will have a better community and a better country.

I hope I have answered your question, Congressman.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. You have.

Mr. McFALL. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. McFall.

Mr. McFALL. To take the question that Mr. Schwengel asked just a little bit earlier, Mr. Fugate, do these model State laws you referred to have to do with pollution control and pollution abatement? Is that right?

Mr. FUGATE. That is correct.

Mr. McFALL. You say there are 30 States?

Mr. FUGATE. It is my remembrance. I am not too sure about that, but I think so.

Mr. McFALL. Is there any correlation between the effectiveness of pollution control and the adoption of these laws by the 30 States? Before you answer that one, there is a second question you might consider. Would it be well in this legislation, or any Federal legislation passed in this field, that some sort of incentive for the adoption of model laws be included, and what sort of standards would you suggest, so that this might come about in Federal legislation?

Mr. FUGATE. I think that model legislation inevitably will result in better water pollution control progress and practices. It is my understanding that that is documented in the publication of the Senate

Select Committee on Water Resources which has just been published, and, incidentally, much of the material I presented here, and the facts and figures in relation thereto, have come from those particular publi

cations.

Sometimes from a local government standpoint we like to be led with a gentle hand, and at other times I am sorry to say it is necessary that someone take a club or a whip and beat us on our sore backs to get us to do things. I always think when you are approaching that type of a problem from the standpoint of the Federal Government, which is, as we know, getting larger and more powerful, and coming closer to each of us in our local communities year after year, that due to the power that is there, it should be used very sparingly, and we should develop the use of inviting them, the States, or communities to do this as a condition. Not necessarily a condition precedent, but a condition to start on this program.

For instance, a model approach to environmental sanitation for the wasteful use of water, which is a tremendous field. In many communities water is regarded as cheap, and I have told many people water is not cheap and it is going to be more expensive. There are many wasteful practices which need to be eliminated. They were eliminated for instance when Mayor Howse was mayor of our city. Tremendous steps were made in eliminating the useless waste of water just because it happened to be available and they thought it was cheap.

Also, making it more easy to get grants-in-aid on construction projects which the State and local governments have started on this road to proper water use and proper pollution control practices from the local level on up.

Mr. McFALL. You would conclude then that the Federal Government is more effective in those States that have this type of pollution legislation in a control body, and that the Federal Government probably gets more for its money than those States that have such a program?

Mr. FUGATE. I would think so. In my opinion; yes.

Mr. McFALL. Some sort of gentle incentive, perhaps, for putting it into the programs where we say that in 2 years from the date of the enactment of the law all States might have to have some type of legislation; or in 3 years.

Mr. FUGATE. Or two sessions of the legislature.

Mr. McFALL. Or some other period of time.

Mr. FUGATE. We have a saying, Mr. McFall, among lawyers, that it takes two sessions of our legislature in Kansas to get any major piece of legislation through. The first time you try to educate the legislatures and the second time, assuming you have validity, you get it through. Our legislature meets every 2 years and it takes 3 to 4 years of what you could call leadtime in an approach such as you outlined; but I think it is essential because the water which starts on the eastern slope of the Rockies, or the Arkansas River, as we say in Wichita, flows through Colorado and flows through Kansas and leaves 60 miles south of us and goes into Oklahoma, and out of Oklahoma into Arkansas and into Mississippi.

The treatment of that water and the use and reuse of the water, as it flows along, is going to be essential to the solution of this problem. Every community along the line of that flow of that particular stream must contribute its share of the control of pollution, so that the water is not wasted and is not lost. One single community or one single industry can make the work of its neighbors useless.

Mr. McFALL. How would this apply to underground waters? I can see the application of it to interstate waters flowing interstate on the surface, but do you also include the underground waters in your State?

Mr. FUGATE. The underground water reservoirs are characteristic of some areas of the country and are unknown in others. For instance, they are characteristic in the area around Wichita and in the valley of the big Arkansas River. East of us they have no underground water reservoirs, and when I say east, I mean 20 miles east they do not have any.

There is another local saying that there is more water underground in the valley in this great river than there ever is above ground in the streamflow. By percolation the water which starts in Colorado percolates slowly clear through Kansas and Oklahoma, and the pollution which may occur at an industrial plant in putting industrial wastes into a water strata in Wichita, or outside of Wichita, may show up 10 years from now in Ponca City.

A friend of ours lives some 90 miles south of us. That means that pollution must be controlled where it occurs and not where it shows up. If your underground water supplies are polluted you inevitably turn to other water sources for your water, and if the water tables, for instance, are lowered as we mine water in certain underground water reservoirs, we turn inevitably to the above-ground water supplies and reservoirs and streams, and when we do that we infringe upon the rights of the people below us in other States and other communities.

Therefore, I say these underground water reservoirs, which in certain parts of the West, for instance, and I understand in certain parts of the East along the coast, are very valuable, must be protected. So far I do not think that their importance has been fully recognized. Mr. McFALL. Thank you.

Mr. FUGATE. Thank you very much.

Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, Mayor Fugate.

At this point the complete statement of Justus H. Fugate will be placed in the record.

Thank you, Mayor Howse, for your cooperation and assistance.

Mr. FUGATE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

Mr. BLATNIK. We are running a little behind. I apologize to the many witnesses who have been waiting patiently.

I notice we have the Honorable Edith Green of the great State of Oregon with us this morning. She is one of the great supporters of water pollution control programs, who has shown a deep, effective, and helpful interest in this legislation.

Mrs. Green, would you please take the witness stand? I understand you have a very prominent county official with you and we would like to give you the opportunity to introduce him.

68206-61-3