The Water Pollution Control Federation, an international technical and professional organization composed of independent regional, State or other organizations, is devoted to the advancement of all aspects of pollution control and prevention.

The active members of its associations include individuals who are municipal officials, superintendents, and operators of sewage and industrial waste treatment works, professional engineers, chemists, bacteriologists, biologists, researchers, and teachers.

On October 6, 1960, the board of control of the federation stated: "The administration of State and interstate pollution control programs should remain in the hands of State and interstate water pollution control agencies which must be supported by increased budgets and adequately staffed by welltrained and compensated engineers, scientists, and other personnel."

At the 1960 National Conference on Water Pollution, 70 percent, as reported by the Washington Post, of the 1,145 persons in attendance, associated with water supply, pollution control, public health and industrial, recreational and agricultural interests, stood up in favor of the statement: "We have no pollution problems that require any additional Federal control ***. Enforcement is the primary concern of the State."

The evidence indicates that non-Federal pollution control activity, including enforcement, has been effective. The Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission, for example, in its annual report of 1960 stated that in 1948 less than 1 percent of the population on the Ohio River was served by sewage treatment plants. Today, in spite of population increases, 95 percent of the people are served by treatment plants.

Of the 1,442 industrial plants that discharge effluents directly into streams of the Ohio Valley, 80 percent are reported as complying at least with minimum requirements established by the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission.

In another instance, the 1958 progress report of the California Water Pollution Control Board states: "Today, with few exceptions, the adverse conditions existing in 1950 have been satisfactorily corrected."

The 1960 Annual Report of the Stream Pollution Control Board of the State of Indiana stated that pollution abatement orders were issued to nine municipalities. This board, as in other States, has the authority to control and prevent pollution of the surface and ground waters of the State.

Edward R. Thornton, chairman of the New England Interstate Compact Commission, stated during the National Conference on Water Pollution, "We feel very definitely that enforcement of pollution abatement is the primary responsibility of the State, and we further beliève that existing laws at the Federal level and at the interstate compact level are adequate for present needs, and, therefore, we oppose the expansion or extension of Federal enforcement provisions to waters within the borders of our States."

On October 6, 1960, A. J. Steffen, director of sanitary engineering, of the Wilson & Co., Chicago, presented a study to the 33d annual meeting of the Water Pollution Control Federation. Mr. Steffen prepared his study by distributing a questionnaire to stream pollution control administrators in 42 States. Thirty-two responded. Total data from 26 States were summarized. All other replies omitted some data or deviated from the pattern of one or more of the questions.

An analysis of the study of what 26 States have been able to do in the last decade indicates a 74.5 percent increase in municipal treatment facilities and a 64 percent increase in industrial waste treatment. During the same period there was a decrease in need of treatment facilities of 36.5 percent among municipalities and a 44 percent among industries. In 1950, 48.5 percent of the municipalities and 46.5 percent of the industries that needed treatment had treatment facilities. In 1960 these figures rose to 72.2 percent of the municipalities and 71.7 percent of the industries.

The national chamber believes that the enforcement powers of the Federal Government should not be extended any further than that embodied in the Water Pollution Control Act of 1948. To increase Federal regulatory power would bring about less reliance on State and local enforcement and a corresponding decrease in local and State responsibility. With authority comes responsibility, and we believe that the Federal Government does not have prime responsibility in this matter of pollution control.

ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES

Subsection (e) of section 9 of H.R. 4036 provides that the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare can issue an order specifying a reasonable time to secure abatement. Anyone receiving an order could appeal to the U.S. court of appeals. No additional evidence could be submitted to the court, whereas such additional evidence is admissible under existing legislation. This represents a change from the Water Pollution Control Act as amended in 1956 which states that the Secretary shall give notice to persons discharging any matter causing or contributing to pollution specifying a reasonable time to secure abatement. If action to secure abatement is not taken, the Secretary, with the written consent of the State water pollution control agency of the State where the matter causing or contributing to the pollution is discharged, may request the Attorney General to bring suit on behalf of the United States to secure abatement of the pollution.

In respect to the proposed section 9, subsection (e) of H.R. 4036, the Secre tary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare would be, in effect, judge and jury, as well as the executive arm of government.

Concrete evidence of the effectiveness of the present enforcement procedures is shown by the fact that the citizens of Omaha and Kansas City have approved bond issues which will be used to build sewage-disposal facilities sought by health authorities. Likewise, these enforcement procedures are being invoked in the case of the city of St. Joseph, Mo., where the Attorney General has brought suit under Public Law 85-660 to enjoin the city of St. Joseph from continuing to dump untreated sewage into the Missouri River.

The procedures for enforcing pollution abatement efforts, as outlined in the Water Pollution Control Act, are designed to provide reasonable enforcement action. In our opinion, it is dangerous to reduce the safeguards and we urge that they be retained.

ENFORCEMENT CONSTRUCTION GRANT FUND

Subsection (k) of section 9 of H.R. 4036 calls for the establishment of an enforcement construction grant fund not to exceed $25 million. This fund would be used to make grants where financial need is demonstrated to construct remedial facilities after a conference, hearing, or court action. It will contribute materially to the delay of construction of urgently needed sewagetreatment plants. It would put a premium on delay.

If the Water Pollution Control Act is amended with this subsection, what will prevent a city from delaying construction activities until such time as it is ordered by the Secretary of HEW, then only to plead that they do not have sufficient funds to construct the necessary facilities?

It would be only a matter of time before Congress would be asked to increase this proposed authorization to meet the mushrooming needs for purposely delayed sewage-treatment facilities.

DAVIS-BACON ACT

H.R. 4036 requires that all laborers employed by contractors or subcontractors on projects for which grants are made under section 5(f) shall be paid wages determined by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to authority given him under the Davis-Bacon Act.

In 1931, Congress passed the Davis-Bacon Act which requires every employer who is a party to a Federal Government contract for construction, or alteration or repair, of public works or buildings over $2,000 to pay the prevailing wage rate of the area, as determined by the Secretary of Labor.

This law was passed because there was a doubt about the constitutionality of a general wage-hour law. These doubts were resolved in 1938 when the Fair Labor Standards Act was enacted. At the time of passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Davis-Bacon Act became obsolete and duplicative. Instead of being repealed, it is still in effect.

Originally the act was intended to prevent disruption of local wage practices by importation of low-priced labor. Instead, it has disrupted local wage practices by imposing higher wage rates than those that exist in the area. The effects of the Davis-Bacon Act have been intensified by incorporating it in practically every new law that may involve Government construction, as is proposed in this pending legislation.

Today, Davis-Bacon wage rates have risen to as high as $5 an hour and there are any number of cases in which they have been set well in excess of $4. With Government construction contracts running into billions of dollars, the impact of Government control of wage rates on these contracts is of vital concern.

The Davis-Bacon Act has also hurt the small businessman. As recently as February 26, 1961, the Evening Star (Washington, D.C.) published an article announcing that continuing efforts to rid the Potomac River of pollution had been halted because the plumber rate has been set at $4.50 an hour whereas the prevailing rate in the District of Columbia varies between $2.85 and $3.40 an hour. The District of Columbia has been reluctant to pay added costs for connection to the new sanitary sewer system.

CONCLUSIONS

The chamber, therefore, believes that the Water Pollution Control Act of 1948, is working well and should be extended. The 1948 act preserves the principles of State control and local initiative and responsibility, yet it has sufficient Federal authority to enforce pollution abatement on interstate streams when the States have demonstrated either inability or unwillingness to do their own job. We recommend that sections 5 and 6 authorizing Federal grants-in-aid which were added to the act in 1956, be deleted through passage of H.R. 230. We therefore urge your committee to approve H.R. 230 and to reject H.R. 4036 and similar bills.

Re H.R. 4036.

Hon. CHARLES A. BUCKLEY,

Chairman, House Committee on Public Works,

House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

BOISE, IDAHO, March 16, 1961.

DEAR CHAIRMAN BUCKLEY: It is noted that your committee is having hearings on H.R. 4036, sponsored by Representative John A. Blatnik, which provides for strengthening the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

It is good to note the improvements to the Pollution Control Act provided in H.R. 4036 and I hereby make known my support for this bill and urge its approval by the Congress and request that this be made a part of the hearings record.

It is gratifying to see the improved thinking of the current administration toward the high responsibility that the Federal Government has in prevention and control of water pollution. This is certainly not a local problem, and the transitory character of water does require that there is cause for substantial concern at the national level. The sooner that more Federal control can be accomplished the better the chances for effective pollution prevention and abatement.

Local regulation is not proving effective and it is evident that most opposition to Federal pollution control desires such result. H.R. 4036 would furnish improved aid to communities needing sewage treatment facilities and this helps remove the excuse so persistently made by industrial polluters which are in fact the far greatest causes of the wastes polluting our Nation's waters. The public interests will be served by the enactment of H.R. 4036. Thank you very kindly.

Respectfully yours,

BRUCE BOWLER, Lawyer.

STATE OF TENNESSEE,

STREAM POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
Nashville, March 17, 1961.

Representative JOHN A. BLATNIK,

Chairman of Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors, House Public Works Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN BLATNIK: We have read your bill, H.R. 4036, to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. We wish to commend you and your committee for your sincere interest in correcting stream pollution and the work that your committee has done in assembling facts on this controversial subject. It is our understanding that the hearings on this bill will close March 21, 1961. We agree with the major parts of bill H.R. 4036; however, some sections will not be to the best interest of the Nation and may do more harm than good in the overall program. Briefly, we wish go on record concerning the following points:

1. We believe it will be a serious mistake to place the pollution control program under a new Water Pollution Control Administration. The program should remain in the Public Health Service. If administrative shortcomings exist these can be corrected by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Surgeon General.

2. Extending the appropriation for State program grants will make it possible to continue our present effective program beyond June 30, 1961. If these grants are not continued after that date, our program will be reduced 43 percent. Increasing the appropriation will expand our program as rapidly as new personnel can be trained.

3. Construction grants should be increased to at least $100 million annually. The suggested $125 million will speed up the program still more. We now have applications on file for grants totaling $3,170,000 for fiscal year 1962 and about one-third of these applicants have submitted final construction plans. Grants of $125 million will allow us to fulfill about 85 percent of the present active requests. requests.

4. We do not believe the enforcement section should be changed as suggested on pages 9 through 15 of this bill. The confusion and conflicts between the Federal and State agencies which will result will do more harm than good. A joint and consistent State and Federal program without interruptions will obtain clean streams in the shortest possible time. We believe this suggested amendment will jeopardize our authority to correct pollution within Tennessee. We request that your committee keep the enforcement section as it is now in Public Law 660. Technical assistance on how to treat certain industrial waste will correct stream pollution more rapidly than legal action.

5. A positive stand should be made on pollution from Federal properties. We have not had a serious problem on this matter in Tennessee as all Federal agencies have cooperated. Some have been slow in providing correction because of insufficient appropriations.

6. We hope that Congress can make the construction grant funds available as soon as possible or at least authorize it so that construction can start. We will be able to start 11 projects as soon as bids can be authorized.

We regret having to send this to you during the last days of your hearing, but we did not find out that the bill had been introduced until this week. If we can send you any additional information, please let me know.

Yours very truly,

R. H. HUTCHESON,

Chairman, Tennessee Stream Pollution Control Board.

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
STATE WATER CONTROL Board,
Richmond, Va., March 22, 1961.

Hon. HOWARD W. SMITH,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR JUDGE SMITH: At its meeting on March 21, 1961, the State water control board took note of the various bills, now before Congress, seeking to amend Public Law 660, the Federal water pollution control law, particularly H.R. 4036, introduced by Representative Blatnik.

Hearings on H.R. 4036 were held by the Public Works Committee during the week of March 13, but the short notice afforded the board precluded its having representatives present to testify. However, we were in touch with Chairman Blatnik's office and were advised that the committee will welcome receiving our viewpoints in writing.

For your information there is enclosed herewith a summary of the board's position with respect to some pertinent sections of H.R. 4036. The board would appreciate very much your transmitting these to the Committee on Public Works.

In accordance with its wishes, the board's executive secretary is sending a copy of this letter and the statement to each other Virginia Congressman and Senator for their information.

Sincerely yours,

Ross H. WALKER, Chairman.

MARCH 22, 1961.

The following statements with respect to H.R. 4036, introduced by Representative Blatnik, were approved by the State water control board at its meeting on March 21, 1961. The chairman was instructed to send a copy of this statement through his Representative, the Honorable Howard W. Smith, to the House Committee on Public Works, and the executive secretary was instructed to send a copy to each other Virginia Representative and Senator in Congress, Section 2: The board sees nothing to be gained by shifting the administration of the Federal water pollution control law from the U.S. Public Health Service to a newly created Water Pollution Control Administration.

Section 3: New research that would be possible through the proposed regional laboratories could be desirable if they cooperate with existing facilities. In this connection, the board wonders why the Southeastern section of the United States was omitted as a possible area in which to locate one of these facilities. Section 4: Extension and increase in grants to State and interstate agencies has some merit but we must recognize that the effect is more to reduce the appropriation of States rather than to increase the amount spent. The board is opposed to the increase in grants to the States, but favors continuation at present level.

Section 5: Construction grants should never have been started. Now that they have been started they should not be eliminated. They should not be increased.

Section 9: The enforcement provisions of Public Law 660 should not now be changed.

STATEMENT REGARDING H.R. 4036 BY KIRK T. MOSLEY, M.D., OKLAHOMA STATE COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH

We feel that H.R. 4036, by Representative John A. Blatnik, contains many provisions which are needed to strengthen and improve the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

We also feel, however, that this bill contains some features which would, perhaps, not be to the best interests of the State of Oklahoma and it is upon these features that we would like to offer the following brief comments:

1. Regarding section 2. This section, which establishes a Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, would add another to the already large complex of Federal departments, agencies, and administrations which States and State agencies must deal with.

We believe the U.S. Public Health Service, insofar as Oklahoma is concerned, has to date done an excellent job in the administration of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. They have been responsive to the needs of Oklahoma and our dealings and relationships with them have been extremely good.

We feel that the program should obtain a higher status within the Public Health Service but can see no need at this time for the establishment of a new administration.

The message from the President of the United States on February 23, 1961, relative to natural resources contains a proposal to establish a special unit to develop control measures for preventing and limiting of water pollution.

We note that it is proposed to establish this special unit within the Public Health Service.

2. Section 5(a). More Oklahoma municipalities would benefit from an increased allotment to the State. The raising of the maximum project grant to $600,000, however, would be of little benefit to Oklahoma inasmuch as the vast majority of our projects are now from the smaller communities who could not qualify for the maximum grant.

In this connection, we feel it would be very beneficial for the Federal act to be broadened so as to provide financial participation in the cost of the sewage collection system for communities now unsewered. This would be especially helpful to the small community under 2,500 population, many of which are overrun with overflowing septic tanks and outdoor privies.

3. Section 5(f). We have no objections to this section other than that it will add to the cost of project thereby further hampering the efforts of small communities in the State.

4. Section 9(a). The extending of enforcement authority jurisdiction to navigable water is all-embracing. We believe intrastate water pollution control to be the prerogative of the State.

68206-61-21