namely, the conservation of water resources for the use and benefit of the Nation. We must face the fact that present jurisdiction does not extend to many important segments of some of the major waterways of the country. In addition to the illustrations above, the Missouri River from the Kansas State line to just about St. Louis is an untouchable area under the act. The greater part of the Hudson River is excluded, as are important reaches of the Tennessee, Columbia, Colorado, and Merrimack Rivers.

The enforcement provisions of H.R. 4036 are intended to correct this situation. It does so by making Federal enforcement procedures available whenever there is pollution affecting the health and welfare, whether or not there is interstate pollution. Federal jurisdiction in this kind of pollution situation, however, would be exercised only upon request by a State or by a municipality, with State con

currence.

This is not a sweeping takeover by the Federal Government in the field of pollution control. It merely makes available to the States the resources, facilities, and power of the Federal Government's enforcement procedures in a case involving pollution of navigable waters. Such an extension of Federal authority would serve to improve serious pollution situations which are also of great national importance although not endangering the health or welfare of persons in a State other than that in which the discharge originates.

In addition to expanding Federal enforcement jurisdiction, H.R. 4036 provides for clarifying and strengthening the role of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare in the enforcement process by providing that the findings and recommendations of the hearing boards-after the public hearing-shall be the Secretary's findings and recommendations except to the extent modified by him and by providing for the issuance of an order-instead of a notice-by him for abatement of any pollution found to exist. To afford adequate protection for the parties of interest, the bill provides that an appeal from the order can be taken to the U.S. court of appeals and the court's review would be on the record. However, if any appeal is not taken within 60 days the Secretary's order would become final. Such orders will be enforced by U.S. district courts in civil actions brought by the Attorney General at the request of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Other provisions dealing with Federal enforcement procedures make discharges from Federal installations subject to administrative findings and recommendations in Federal water pollution abatement actions conducted by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Finally, H.R. 4036 establishes a $25 million enforcement construction grants fund to be available for financially hard-pressed communities which might be required to construct treatment facilities as a result of Federal enforcement action. These funds would be available over and above the regular State allotment of construction grant funds.

POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH

Water pollution research is of prime importance. It provides the fundamental intelligence on the causes of water pollution. Although existing law recognizes research as a basic Federal water pollution control responsibility, present levels of research have remained low.

To stimulate Federal research in this field H.R. 4036 authorizes the establishment of field laboratory and research facilities including the establishment of regional laboratories throughout the country. The problems of water pollution vary from region to region and we must begin to zero in on the particular pollution problems of the different sections of the country if they are to be solved. This can best be done in research facilities located in the area near institutions of higher learning.

H.R. 4036 also authorizes special study of Great Lakes pollution problems.

STATE AND FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION

Under existing law, $3 million in grants for States and interstate agencies is authorized to assist them in meeting the costs of establishing and maintaining adequate water pollution control programs. These are matching grants with the States required to provide from one-third to two-thirds of the costs of their programs. In the more than 4 years these Federal grants have been in operation they have stimulated and encouraged significant progress in State and interstate water pollution control programs. Among the effects of these grants on

State programs have been increased appropriations, technical and supporting staff, water quality monitoring activities, stepped-up enforcement and expanded research.

Despite this progress, the current State and interstate expenditure rate of $10.6 million must be increased in order to make a significant impact on the Nation's pollution problem in the next decade. Lack of current data on the condition of waters in most of the States, information on industrial wastes, and new control techniques, as well as the qualified personnel to carry them out, remain serious problems. Continued Federal financial support of State and interstate water pollution control programs is essential to consolidate and build upon the gains stimulated by the first 5 years of the grant program. The present program expires June 30, 1961. H.R. 4036 authorizes the extension of this grant program on an indefinite basis with an increase in Federal participation from $3 million to $5 million.

To administer this ambitious undertaking by the Federal Government to clean up the Nation's waterways, H.R. 4036 authorizes the establishment of a new operating agency within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to be known as the Water Pollution Control Administration.

It is apparent on its face that this legislation goes far beyond the usual public health legislation in that it assigns to an agency of the Federal Government the responsibility for controlling water pollution to conserve water for all usespropagation of fish and aquatic life and wildlife, recreational purposes, industrial and agricultural-including irrigation-supplies, and other legitimate purposes, as well as public water supplies and protection of the public health. In short, water pollution is no longer primarily a health problem. It is a resource problem with health overtones, and I have, therefore, reached the conclusion that the administration of the program should be upgraded by the establishment of an independent operating agency within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. I do not intend that my proposal be taken as criticism in any way of the present administration of the program by the Public Health Service. They have done an admirable job, and are to be commended. However, it is time to move on in the fight against water pollution and all it entails. This goes far beyond the area of environmental health. It gets to the core of our very existence as a world power. Such a problem requires the concentrated and undivided attention that only a new operating agency can give it. Mr. BLATNIK. As our first witness and leadoff witness we are very pleased to have a very knowledgeable, informed, and experienced public official in municipal affairs, known and respected throughout the country, who is appearing here on behalf of the American Municipal Association. This witness is Mr. Justus Fugate, former mayor of Wichita, Kans., and now a member of the board of the Wichita city commissioners, and also the chairman of the committee on water resources of the American Municipal Association.

Mayor Fugate, will you please take the witness stand? We are very pleased to have accompany the mayor his longtime friend and colleague in the profession of law, and also our friend and colleague, a present Member of the House of Representatives from Kansas, Congressman Garner Shriver.

Congressman, will you come forward and make a brief introduction of your mayor to the committee. We have known the mayor personally and of the good work he has done. His testimony will speak in his own behalf by the time he has completed, I am confident.

of that.

STATEMENT OF HON. GARNER E. SHRIVER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS

Mr. SHRIVER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, as the Member of Congress from the Fourth Congressional District of Kansas, it is a genuine pleasure for me to present to you the first witness

at this hearing, a man who, through the years, has been a leader in the matter of the solution of water pollution problems, and particularly so in our part of the country.

Mr. Justus Fugate has been and is a member of our city commission, the governing body of the city of Wichita, Kans., which is my hometown. He is a former mayor of our city. He has been the water resources chairman, and is at present the water resources chairman of the American Municipal Association, and was that association's delegate to the President's Conference on Water Pollution last December.

Mayor Fugate represents a city that has solved its sewage disposal problem by the use of the secondary treatment program-one of the few cities in the country that has actually solved this problem.

It is a real pleasure for me to present as the first witness at this hearing Mr. Justus Fugate of the city of Wichita.

Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, Congressman Shriver.

Mayor Fugate, we welcome you this morning. I have gone through your statement and it is very comprehensive and well done, obviously given a lot of care and special thought. It is most comprehensive and we shall include the complete statement in the record following your verbal testimony, which I understand you will give in more summary form which is printed for the convenience of the committee in the green summary statement.

If the members will pick up their green copies of the summary statement, Mayor Fugate, we will begin with your testimony.

STATEMENT OF JUSTUS H. FUGATE, FORMER MAYOR OF WICHITA, MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF WICHITA CITY COMMISSIONERS, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES OF THE AMERICAN MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION, ACCOMPANIED BY A. E. HOWSE, FORMER MAYOR OF THE CITY OF WICHITA

Mr. FUGATE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to express my appreciation to Congressman Shriver, my longtime friend and a member of the bar, as I am. We have differed many times as lawyers do, but most of the time we are together, and in this particular type of public problem we are again together. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Justus H. Fugate, former mayor of Wichita and present member of the Board of Wichita City Commissioners.

The city of Wichita is one of the 13,000 municipalities comprising the American Municipal Association.

During the 37th Annual American Municipal Congress held in New York in November 1960 it was my privilege to serve as chairman of the committee on water resources charged with developing a national water resources policy reflecting the experience of thousands of municipalities extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from Canada to the gulf and comprising the considered best judgment of municipal officials as to a solution of the water crisis facing us today.

In discussing H.R. 4036, we need to understand the gravity and the proportion of the water crisis facing our country today. We need to understand that control and abatement of pollution provides

the quickest and indeed the only immediate relief for our present desperate situation; that water pollution control is an essential part of any long-range water program which can be successful only in direct proportion to the effectiveness of pollution control and abatement measures; that effective water supply and pollution abatement programs can be developed only on a river-basin basis irrespective of municipal limits or State boundaries; that no municipality, regardless of intent or capability, can solve water supply or pollution problems by itself; and that a single recalcitrant municipality or industry will make it impossible for its neighbors to help themselves.

Our population in 1900 was 75 million. Our population will reach 225 million by 1975 and 330 million by the year 2000. The municipal demand for water is sensitive to the changing habits of daily life and each turn of the screw of civilization requires more water. Thus, we have not only the problems of a rapidly expanding population but also the additional factor of substantial increases in per capita use. Until recently, water development projects were concerned almost entirely with water volume. Withdrawal of water in 1955 was 240 billion gallons per day, of which surface water sources supplied 80 percent and ground water sources supplied 20 percent. By 1975 we will be withdrawing 450 billion gallons per day. The present upper limit of our water supply is the average of 1,200 billion gallons a day. At first glance, it would appear that the water supply of this country is adequate but, because the supply is variable in time, in place, in quantity, and in quality, national and yearly averages do not reveal the fact that 45 percent of our municipal water supply is inadequate now. This means that 40 million Americans are teetering on the edge of a serious water shortage today.

In 1900 we used 40 billion gallons of fresh water daily. Consumption has risen to 270 billion gallons daily at the present time and will reach 650 billion gallons daily by 1980. The current estimate of usable fresh water in lakes, streams, and reservoirs is 650 billion gallons daily. As a country we will soon reach the limit of our water supply and, because water demands will continue to rise in accordance with population increases and per capita use, it becomes abundantly clear that water needs can be met only by continued reuse of the available supply.

The scientific borderline which we have set up between sewage water and drinking water is a precarious one. We live on the edge of a human or mechanical failure in our water purification works that could bring pestilence upon us and the danger grows every year. We have some 30,000 sewage and industrial outlets discharging waste into our streams. Of this number, 10,000 outlets drain municipal sewage systems serving more than 100 million people, and of this number more than 25 percent of the total sewage load has been dumped into our waterways without any treatment whatsoever. Many cities and industries are using our waterways for disposal purposes without any intention of complying with pollution abatement legislation and consider that paying a small fine occasionally is cheap disposal cost. This is not good citizenship; it is not good economics; and it is not good government.

68206-61

Pollution degrades the physical, chemical, biological, bacterial, and esthetic qualities of water, the degree depending upon the kind and amount of pollution in relation to the extent and nature of reuse. Pollution can be just as effective as a drought or a consumptive withdrawal in reducing or eliminating a water resource.

Generally speaking, water quality management can best be accomplished by the prevention, control, and abatement of pollution. The most effective assistance we can give ourselves in the immediate water crisis is to clean up the water we have. As increasing demands are placed against our limited supplies, more usable water can be provided by the prevention and control of pollution than by any other means. It seems clear that we cannot permit uncontrolled and indiscriminate use of our water resources by any one individual, any one industry, any one municipality, or any one State.

H.R. 4036 meets American Municipal Association objectives as set forth in section 32 of our 1961 National Municipal Policy Statement, a copy of which is attached for the information and guidance of the committee. Generally speaking, the provision of H.R. 4036 may be summarized as follows:

(1) Increased financial assistance to communities for the construction of waste treatment facilities;

(2) Improvements in Federal enforcement procedures;

(3) Improvements in water pollution research techniques and facilities; and

(4) Improvements in Federal and State administration of pollution control programs and procedures.

Insofar as financial assistance to communities is concerned, it may be that the greatest immediate need and direct benefit are related to Federal financial assistance.

Nearly 2,900 new sewage treatment works are needed to serve 19.5 million persons living in communities that have never provided treatment for their waste. Another 1,100 new plants are needed for 3.4 million persons in communities where treatment works built in the past have become overloaded or obsolete. In addition to these 4,000 communities needing new plants, another 1,600 communities have sewage treatment facilities requiring enlargement or the addition of new units or processes in order to serve adequately populations totaling more than 25 million.

This backlog is not the whole problem. Population growth and urbanization create new sewage treatment needs. Existing treatment works become obsolete. If municipalities are to catch up with treatment needs by 1965, they will have to spend $1.9 billion to eliminate the backlog, $1.8 billion to provide for new population growth, and $900 million to replace plants that will become obsolete. Insofar as industrial waste is concerned, it appears that some 6,000 construction. projects are needed at a cost of another $4.5 billion.

Under existing law $50 million annually is authorized in Federal grants to communities for assistance in constructing waste treatment facilities. This program has been in operation since 1956 and by any standard of measurement must be regarded as having been successful. During the period 1952-56, immediately preceding enactment of the Federal grant program, contract awards for sewage treatment plant construction averaged $222 million annually. In 1957, or during the