committee in 1956 was that this was not basically a problem of a city of a million and a half people. As far as a bond issue was concerned, it could market that bond issue. That is the reason why the committee at that time made the distinction.

It is hard for me to figure out how a million and a half people are not interested enough in their own health to provide for their sewer requirements.

Mr. MATTEI. Unfortunately, the city of St. Louis, or a great many of these voters, are not bothered by the pollution of the Mississippi River. The Mississippi River is not, I might add, a recreational center. People don't swim in it. If they go boating they go boating north of the city of St. Louis, just above where the city discharges into the river, and the only people bothered are the people downstream.

So to sell a program that we should spend $100 million of this money, which is what we will have to tell the voters, so that Cape Girardeau, or a few other towns downstream, won't be bothered, is a very tough proposition to do.

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Mattei, if I may follow the same course of reasoning, you do have a serious problem and we are mindful of it. So is the Department and the administration, and specifically the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare was very much aware of it. He has been discussing this with his staff people and I believe he will have comments to make on this same problem.

Of course, we here do have a limitation of funds. For example, the allocation to your State of Missouri, should we get the full amount of $125 million a year, then your allocation for Missouri will be a little better than $212 million, and if you have a large project there, with so many municipalities and subdivisions included in your district, you could pretty well take up your full State's allotment for 3

years in a row.

Mr. MATTEI. Probably.

Mr. BLATNIK. On the other hand, you have communities serving more people at a lower per capita cost, and it may be a very critical area where it discharges directly into the Mississippi River.

It is a problem, but there are pressures from two sides on it. Again I assure you that I know, and I want the committee members to know, you made a special trip here to present this particular aspect of your problem to the committee. We are very much aware of it and will give it full consideration and discussion.

Mr. MATTEI. Yes, sir.

Mr. KAISER. I might add, if I may, and we will not take but another minute, that I think your subsection, providing that a project which will serve more than one municipality will be covered by the commissioner allocating to each municipality to be served by such project, certainly solves our problem. The other way, if you take into consideration that we have over 94 municipalities which in our area is the only efficient way to serve and take care of the sewerage problem of the Metropolitan St. Louis area-there is much resentment if they feel that they can stay out and get a much bigger percentage. So I think it solves this problem.

Secondly, we are not here advocating a flat percent for any sewerage treatment works. We know that the Federal Government cannot participate in any program like that, and with you we do not believe that that was the intention of this act.

I believe this new section will take care of our problem.

Mr. MATTEI. There is one more thing I think we can talk about, and one which we are certainly 100 percent in favor of, which is the research section of the bill. We think it is marvelous. It is a very fine thing. It was brought out at the conference in December, that is, at the President's conference in December, and I think it is a very fine part of the bill.

There are many things that could be expanded upon and researched on. We are working very closely with the Universal Match Co. in St. Louis. That has an AEC grant to see if they cannot immunize the bacteria, or the harmful ingredients in the water by the use of atomic radiation of some kind. We hope that this will be a cheap solution to a very serious problem. They have contacted us about the possibilities of putting in a pilot plant, and we have agreed to it. We are going to work closely with them.

The other thing which I would like to do is thank the committee for permitting Mr. Kaiser and me to appear. I want to take this opportunity to thank the very fine personnel that you have, who have assisted us in our appearance here and given us every consideration.

Thank you very much. I will be very happy to answer any other questions.

Mr. ROBISON. May I ask one more question, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Robison.

Mr. ROBISON. Mr. Counsel, when you talk about 50 or 60 municipalities, do you actually mean a town, city, village, or county government, or are you referring to such things as sewerage districts, or drainage districts, or sanitary districts?

Mr. KAISER. I would say that the 94 includes some existing sewer districts that have still outstanding bonds, but we own their sewers now. I would say conservatively we have 50 cities, towns, and villages, plus the metropolitan unincorporated area of St. Louis County. As you might not know, St. Louis County is plagued by many, many small communities, but some of them are quite large. University City I would say is 55,000. Florissant is 40,000. There are several in the 20,000 to 30,000 class also.

Mr. ROBISON. To carry it out further, in New York State we call them district corporations, but they are not actually municipalities. I refer to sewer and water and drainage districts. One of our rural towns may have, for example, half a dozen, or 10 or 15 or 20 of these district corporations. I don't think the intent of the proposed change here would be that each of those would be entitled to be called a municipal subdivision.

Mr. BALDWIN. Let me read the section in the 1956 act that defines it. This is section 11 (f). It says:

The term "municipality" means a city, town, borough, county, parish, district, or other public body created by or pursuant to State law and having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial wastes or other wastes.

That part "and having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial wastes or other wastes" may raise a question there, because I assume you have removed that jurisdiction from the province of the different towns.

Mr. MATTEI. That is right.

Mr. KAISER. Exactly.

Mr. BALDWIN. And so you are the only one that has jurisdiction over it.

Mr. KAISER. That is right. In other words, we are firmly convinced the intent here was, let us say, if the Los Angeles Sanitary District took on three agencies that have their own sanitary sewers and discharged into interceptor and treatment works, it is very clear. The only thing that did worry me was exactly the point you did raise in that we own all of the sewers. It is one municipal corporation, and I think in the narrow sense a municipality is a city, town, or village. Period. It does not include the other districts.

In our law you do include various districts in your broad definition of a municipality. Your technical point on that is the only thing that worried me. We are 100 percent in accord with it, and it would solve most of our problems, and we believe we could bear our 10-year plant program very easily if we fit that section.

Mr. BALDWIN. The committee is going to have to resolve the question in executive session, as to exactly what we mean under the new wording, and whether we will apply the definition in 11(f) to the old bill, or modify it, as I understand it.

Mr. KAISER. Thank you very much.

Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you gentlemen very much, and good luck. Mr. MATTEI. Thank you, sir.

Mr. BLATNIK. The next witness is another very dear friend of ours, Mr. Milton P. Adams, executive secretary of the Water Resources Commission of the State of Michigan.

Mr. Adams, it is a real pleasure, and again I thank you for standing by our change of schedule this morning, which was done for our convenience and at a great discomfort and inconvenience to you. appreciate it very much.

We

Needless to say, Mr. Adams is an old friend of the committee and of the Chair. He has been truly at times a quarterback and at other times a flying fullback in driving through the line when we have had this problem before us in the past. His counsel and technical experience, his practical knowledge and judgment and foresight, have been of great help to the Chair in the early days in coming to a better understanding of the problem and the course to be pursued. Likewise, Mr. Adams has been a great help in explaining to his associates in the States what our intentions were, and our effort to engage in a joint venture and enterprise.

Mr. Adams was a very articulate member of the President's Water Pollution Control Advisory Board, created by the act of 1956, and he was most instructive and most helpful, and has given great leadership.

We welcome you with a warm welcome, and it is a real pleasure to see you again, Mr. Adams.

Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

STATEMENT OF MILTON P. ADAMS, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, MICHIGAN WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION

Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. You really poured it on, Mr. Chairman, and I don't know whether you will feel the same way when you have heard all of this

statement, but you know you and I have a reputation over the years of laying it right on the line as we believe it to be. Maybe we are wrong, but that is the way we should do it.

Your agenda list fails to mention, I think, that I am speaking here today also for the State and interstate water pollution control administrators. There are 50, 1 for each State, and there are 7 representatives, 1 for each of the interstate agencies.

My statement runs to 12 pages. My conclusions are on the 12th page. I discuss specific problems in this bill as we see it after the first two pages.

However, also for the information of this committee, I have appendix 1 attached to my statement, which is a report of a canvass made by these State and interstate water pollution control administrators.

Does each member, I wonder, have a copy of my statement?

Mr. BLATNIK. Yes, we do.

Mr. ADAMS. This was made known to me, Mr. Blatnik and his office and to Mr. Dingell, our Michigan Congressman, and the administrators.

My appendix No. 2 consists of our proof as we see it of the inadequacy of $50 million a year to stimulate work in a State such as Michigan.

If we could look at that first-and I am trying to save your time, Mr. Chairman, and the committee's time, and make way for the next witness as soon as I can

Mr. BLATNIK. You take what time you need, Mr. Adams, because we will be very interested even though we may have to leave in a minute. Take whatever time you need.

Mr. ADAMS. Thank you.

The second of the three pages in this appendix shows in the bottom line across that we are still leaving out as many as we had at the beginning of the program. We started with 24 and we still have 24.

But look under the unsuccessful applicants, please. Under my right-hand column headed 1961. I think that there are 8 that were able to get grants in 1961, but out of the 24 that were left out I think there are 4 in there that applied every year of the 5 years it was possible, and 8 of them for 3 years.

We are not getting enough money into this grant program considered in relation to the next page, which shows that there were 15 projects of all types in Michigan constructed with the aid of any grants. They consist of an airport, a little township, or two or three or four little township plants, and so on.

Finally, my appendix No. 3, which I would bring to your attention and which I would ask to be made a part of this record, containing our attorney general's criticism of what he feels are the legal pitfalls in the draft of the enforcement section, and which he would ask be considered by the committee if you are going to take this up.

Mr. McFALL. Without objection, these appendixes will be included in the record at the conclusion of your statement.

Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Chairman and members, 2 years ago you received my statement on H. R. 3610. On March 29, 1959, I appeared before this committee in several capacities. My remarks on that occasion

together with attachments, are found on pages 112-130 of this committee's hearing record on H.R. 3610.

Today, with your indulgence, I discuss H.R. 4036 and other proposed amendments to Public Law 660-first, as the proposals are viewed by us in Michigan; second, to report as accurately as I can the sentiment encountered of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators. This group is currently served by me as chairman of their steering committee. Nearly a 100-percent return was obtained from my September 1960 canvass of opinion on the bills of the last Congress.

Through the courtesy of Mr. Blatnik, we were also given the opportunity to review in advance of their introduction in this Congress, your subcommittee's draft of such issues as expanded research, State and interstate program grants, waste treatment construction grants, stronger enforcement and the proposed change of administration. In somewhat modified form perhaps, these are now before you and this Congress in H.R. 4036 and related bills.

The results of my 1960 poll are pertinent to this hearing. Mr. Blatnik, the clerk of this committee, Michigan's Representative Dingell, and State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators are already aware of the outcome. As the answers will be referred to in my statement today, I would respectfully request that the questions asked and answers received appear as appendix 1 to my statement and become a part of your record.

An auspicious backdrop of events emphasizes the importance of your deliberations this week and next on the pending bills. May I list them:

1. Former President Eisenhower's veto of H.R. 3610 more than a year ago.

2. Recommendations of the National Conference on Water Pollution held here in Washington, December 12-14, 1960 (Public Health Service Publication No. 816).

3. Reports of the U.S. Senate's Select Committee on National Water Resources (some 33 or more publications).

4. President Kennedy's message on Natural Resources made to the Congress on February 23.

Undoubtedly you have seen or can be provided with the 48-page blue and white brochure entitled "Clean Water-A Challenge to the Nation." This sets forth the highlights and recommendations of the National Conference on Water Pollution. My statement will refer to, or incorporate, several of the recommendations.

The first of these presents a challenge both to you as Members of Congress and to us as Water Pollution Control Administrators, not to mention the millions of direct beneficiary users of the water resources of the Nation. It reads as follows:

That the conference express its conviction that the goal of pollution abatement is to protect and enhance the capacity of the water resource to serve the widest possible range of human needs, and that this goal can be approached only by accepting the positive policy of keeping waters as clean as possible, as opposed to the negative policy of attempting to use the full capacity of water for waste assimilation.

The hearings, the committee and staff work, and published reports of the Senate Select Committee on National Water Resources, represent a tremendous accomplishment. Without question they are the