I am from West Virginia. We mention in the paper here in some detail that we actually-and this is a quotation from the Public Health Service writings-and let me read it to you and perhaps it will answer your question a little bit better. This appears on page 7 of my full report.

The report of the West Virginia Water Resources Commission for the fiscal year 1960 is of special interest in view of the economic difficulties which are currently being encountered in that area:

Figures recently released by the U.S. Public Health Service show that West Virginia ranks ninth among the 50 States in money spent for sewage treatment works construction during the calendar year 1959. The amount of $11,054,099 was topped only by California, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, and amounted to an expenditure of over $5 for every man, woman, and child in the State.

These were expenditures where each local community or municipality had to finance its own sewage treatment works without any help from the State, or Federal funds either. This was before the enactment of Public Law 660, when we actually got into this program.

Now that you have started this subject, I will risk the thunderbolt by saying this: Actually those programs were delayed very seriously while the mechanism of this Public Law 660 got underway. I have heard people who actually are on commissions, both the regional commission that we are answerable to, ORSANCO, the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission, with West Virginia being a signatory to that eight-State compact, and also our own State commission. They have found by actual study that some of the programs that were actually being planned and that financing was started on, and which were then held up waiting for Public Law 660 to get into effect, actually cost more because of the increase in prices while they were waiting, than the actual Federal grant meant.

Mr. CRAMER. That is a very interesting point, and, of course, that was a point raised in the hearings last session and the session before on the proposed increase of Federal grants-whether the local communities or municipalities were actually holding up work in anticipation of getting additional Federal matching moneys, rather than going forward. Therefore, instead of being an incentive, perhaps the program was a deterrent.

Mr. Ŏ. C. THOMPSON. Actually, it was, if I may take the case of West Virginia, where in my own hometown of Charleston they had already gone through the mechanics of getting financing started and a bond issue had cleared, and so forth.

Another city I won't name here dragged their feet and they are still dragging their feet.

Mr. CRAMER. Waiting for more Federal money?

Mr. O. C. THOMPSON. That's right.

Mr. CRAMER. In other words, they are waiting for this $50 million to be increased to $100 million or $125 million?

Mr. O. C. THOMPSON. That is right. And that is why I thought when you raised the original question I thought you were talking about this provision of H.R. 4036 which is rewarding people who are deliberately holding back.

Mr. CRAMER. I think that is a very interesting observation, and particularly as it relates to the 1956 act. Then, in your opinion, the deterrent effect of the 1956 proposal, which was considered for some

time and, of course, this increase has been considered ever since 1958-in your opinion the effect of that initial act in 1956 was a deterrent that resulted in a cost increase due to the delay, which cost increase was in an amount that exceeded the amount of the Federal grant?

Mr. O. C. THOMPSON. In some cases. I certainly would not want to make any broad statement that it would cover that entirely. But in some specific cases, yes, it actually did that.

Let me make myself clear. You may notice we did not come out and stress any opposition to these grants-in-aid. We feel that this practice has been so thoroughly established that it is too late now to go back even if we did oppose it.

Mr. CRAMER. I understand that. Then that could be a possible explanation as to why nonsubsidized construction actually fell off between 1956 and 1959 from $321 million to $210 million. They were waiting to see how much more money they would get from the Federal Government. Is that your statement?

Mr. O. C. THOMPSON. It maybe had some influence. Yes. It probably did.

Mr. JONES. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CRAMER. Yes, I will be glad to yield.

Mr. JONES. I am sorry that I am a latecomer and I am tardy in being here to hear some of the testimony that was presented to the committee before my coming.

Did you hear the testimony of Mr. Short, who was a representative of the National Association of Manufacturers?

Mr. O. C. THOMPSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. JONES. In keeping with the statements made, or the answers to the inquiries propounded to you by Mr. Cramer of Florida, I wonder if you feel that this whole problem could be returned to local control and local responsibility?

Mr. O. C. THOMPSON. No, sir, I do not. I don't think it ever should have been considered entirely a local responsibility.

Mr. JONES. What should be the measure of Federal responsibility in the field of pollution abatement?

Mr. O. C. THOMPSON. Well, I feel it definitely has a function in coordination and in encouraging local and even State action. We have areas throughout the country that are lagging far behind our own. I brag again a little bit about West Virginia as I quoted here. West Virginia is rated as pretty far behind in a lot of things, but, by golly, we are not behind in this one.

But certainly the Federal Government has a role and it should definitely be responsible for certain functions in this field, I feel.

First of all, it has a responsibility to carry out certain research. There are certain types of research that only the agencies of the people, as I see it are in a position really to finance and carry through. The coordinating problem is important. We do realize that water flows across many boundaries, and that there are occasions

Mr. JONES. And a lot of it in West Virginia.

Mr. O. C. THOMPSON. Yes, sir. In our State most of them flow north, which is against most natural rules, as I understand it. Mr. JONES. Will the gentleman from Florida yield further?

68206-61- -13

Mr. CRAMER. Yes, sir.

Mr. JONES. Again I apologize for not being here, and I am quite sure that you are not in a position to be a spokesman for the National Association of Manufacturers, but I see in their statement that all of the industries in the country have been husbanded into a positionMr. O. C. THOMPSON. Have been what?

Mr. JONES. Husbanded into a position that they do not pollute the streams. Do you agree with that?

Mr. O. C. THOMPSON. They do not approve of what?

Mr. JONES. I say, this statement excites a satisfaction on their part whereby they make the statement that all the industries that use the streams are carrying out stream pollution abatement programs.

Are you satisfied with the fact that all industries in the country are achieving pollution programs, or do you think that they too should be responsible for stream pollution?

Mr. O. C. THOMPSON. Our position is this: Maybe I cut this thing too short because we have some very definite ideas on the subject of' what industry responsibilities are in the field of pollution control. Let me read just a few excerpts and some principles we have long believed in in the Manufacturing Chemists' Association.

Proper control of stream pollution is one of the obligations of responsible corporate citizenship.

Adequate waste control facilities must be included in the design and construction of new plants and major additions to existing plants. Adequate research in waste control is essential.

And we are talking about industry research and not government. Mr. JONES. I am asking about that point.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Will the gentleman yield?

I was here when Mr. Short testified.

Mr. JONES. The gentleman from Florida has the floor. You will have to ask him to yield.

Mr. CRAMER. I will be delighted to yield.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. I was here when Mr. Short testified and he did as you did. He gave a briefing of his total statement and yielded to. questions, and under questioning he agreed that the philosophy of industry was taking the responsibility, and his testimony was very similar to what you stated was your position.

I think he would also be willing to admit that in the past they have not taken the full share of their responsibility, but their position now, is they have a responsibility and they want to share it.

Mr. JONES. Will the gentleman yield to me?

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Yes.

Mr. JONES. Are they for this bill or against it?
Mr. SCHWENGEL. They are for and against it.
Mr. JONES. Of course, they are against it.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. But they are not against all of it.

Mr. JONES. If the National Association of Manufacturers is for anything, I don't know about it. That is why I was intrigued by the fact that they would make such a long statement here about what the industry has done and what contributions they are making. Therefore, if they can make a contribution, there should not be any Federal necessity for making any contribution or undertaking any effort in this field.

But go ahead. I did not want to get into an argument on the National Association of Manufacturers.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Thompson, the association's position is, as I understand it, that they are in agreement with the grant section and in agreement with increasing it from 50 to 75 million. Isn't that correct?

Mr. O. C. THOMPSON. We take the position that that is an administrative problem, and if the Congress feels that it is necessary to add that additional amount, why, we will certainly not oppose it.

Mr. CRAMER. Could I get a more definitive statement? Would you favor an increase in the Federal matching funds?

Mr. O. C. THOMPSON. No. Now you are asking me as an individual or representing the association?

Mr. CRAMER. Either way; I would like to have you testify in both capacities. Put on your individual hat first and see how it comes out and then put on your other one.

Mr. JONES. If the gentleman will yield, I do not believe we have had as many witnesses ever testify before this committee on a single public issue where they testified for the associations on the one hand and as a citizen on the other hand. So we have a duplicity of purpose here. I think from now on we are going to have to make the inquiry as to whether you represent yourself or represent your association. This is a rather curious hearing, as far as I am concerned.

Mr. O. C. THOMPSON. Let me point out that the organization has 190 companies. I work for one company. We spent a lot of time trying to come to an understanding on what we think the industry in general does support and believes in.

Mr. JONES. I do not want to preclude you from making any statements you want to here, either shooting from the hip or in any way you want to make them.

Mr. CRAMER. This gentleman might be in unison himself with the organization he represents. I do not know. I will say that I have not gotten the answer yet.

Mr. JONES. Well, I am curious about it.

Mr. O. C. THOMPSON. I will go this far: I think this will be consistent with what we have stated in the past. When we testified here before your committee on the law that finally became Public Law 660, we opposed the grants-in-aid, and I think that would still be our position. But as I said a few minutes ago, this practice has been pretty firmly established by this time, and I don't think it would be at all wise to pull it out. If this is sacrilege against the National Association of Manufacturers, all right, I am sacrilegious; but this is the way I feel about it.

Mr. CRAMER. That is you, personally, or representing your association?

Mr. O. C. THOMPSON. Well, I believe we have that as an association position.

Mrs. Prost. Will the gentleman yield to me?

Mr. CRAMER. I will be delighted to yield to the lady.

Mrs. PrOST. Did I understand you to say your past position has been. that you were opposed to pollution control measures?

Mr. Q. C. THOMPSON. Yes. In the past when we appeared on H.R. 9540, I think it was at that time

Mr. JONES. They were opposed to the Federal grants section.

Mr. O. C. THOMPSON. The Federal grants-in-aid.

Mr. JONES. That's right.

Mrs. PrOST. Do you then feel that the manufacturers and corporations are taking care of the situation where they personally are involved, or where they as an industry are involved?

Mr. O. C. THOMPSON. Let me put it this way: In my State, and I think in most of the States, there is a well-organized State control agency that is in charge of pollution. In most cases I believe I am safe in saying that these control agencies are adequate or could be adequate to do this job, given the tools to work with.

Mrs. ProST. Given the tools to work with?

Mr. O. C. THOMPSON. Given the proper funds; and sometimes the States are very remiss in supporting these organizations and agencies. What I am trying to say is that in our State it would be the position, I think, of most industries that we would much prefer to work with our State agencies on a local level and on a case-by-case basis.

Mr. PrOST. Will the gentleman yield for another question?
Mr. CRAMER. Yes.

Mrs. Prost. Does your State have sufficient funds so that you are able adequaely to control the streams of West Virginia?

Mr. O. C. THOMPSON. No; we are not. And that is one of the things I am pointing out: that in spite of the fact that West Virginia is ninth in its program of cleaning up this situation, we are still far from what I would consider in a satisfactory situation. We are making progress both in the municipal treatment and in the industrial treat

ment.

Mrs. Prost. And even in view of that, you would still be opposed to the Federal grants-in-aid to private areas that do need help?

Mr. O. C. THOMPSON. Like I said, we do not think now, after it has been in operation for 4 years and the machinery is all set up for it, and everyone is accustomed to it-I do not think it should be dropped out now. No. It was a mistake in the first place is what we thought.

Mrs. Prost. It was a mistake in the first place?

Mr. O. C. THOMPSON. Yes.

Mrs. ProST. That is what you thought?

Mr. O. C. THOMPSON. Because our position is that the local responsibility should prevail.

Mrs. PrOST. I think I would agree with you if we were getting the job done in the various States, but I do think our statistics show we are falling behind where we should be. I think we have a prime example down here on the Potomac, for that matter.

In view of what you have just said, then would you favor a continuation at the level that it presently is maintained at?

Mr. O. C. THOMPSON. I am not familiar with the Potomac problem, too well.

Mrs. Prost. I am speaking generally.

Mr. JONES. Speak about the Delaware. Do you know about the Delaware?

Mr. O. C. THOMPSON. Do you mean the compact being developed now?

Mr. JONES. Yes. Speak about the compact. That is an interesting subject.