FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 1961 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.O. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room 1302, New House Office Building, Hon. John A. Blatnik presiding. Mr. BLATNIK. The House Public Works Committee will please come to order. We are in public hearing concluding the hearings on H.R. 4036, to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide for a more effective program of water pollution control. We are honored and privileged and are personally pleased to see our old young friend, our distinguished former colleague in the House and now the distinguished Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, who is here with us this morning to give the concluding testimony on this legislation. Mr. Secretary, we welcome you and I am sure you recognize many of your old friends and colleagues on both sides of the aisle. They are still enduring the hardships and frustrations, and what not, of the job of being a Representative in Congress. We know full well the tremendous pressures that have been yours for the last several weeks in testifying on several major pieces of legislation before several of the committees in both the House and the Senate. Mr. Secretary, you have members of your staff with you. May I read their names for the record? STATEMENT OF HON. ABRAHAM RIBICOFF, SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. LUTHER TERRY, SURGEON GENERAL; DR. WILBUR COHEN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR LEGISLATION; AND MURRAY STEIN, CHIEF, ENFORCEMENT SECTION, WATER POLLUTION CONTROL Secretary RIBICOFF. Certainly. Mr. BLATNIK. To the left is our good friend, Dr. Luther Terry, the Surgeon General of the U.S. Public Health Service. We welcome you, Dr. Terry. Dr. TERRY. Thank you, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. And to the extreme right, not new to some of us, but new, perhaps, to others, is Dr. Wilbur Cohen, the Assistant Secretary for Legislation of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Dr. Cohen, we welcome you in your first appearance before our committee. Next to the Secretary is our old friend-I call him the "blocking fullback" of the Department-Mr. Murray Stein, Assistant Chief of the Water Pollution Control Division, as well as chief of enforcement activities. May the Chair say that perhaps no one single individual has done more, first to consult and confer with the different groups involved having a deep interest in this legislation, and, secondly, in handling delicate Federal-State relationships in the fields of enforcement, interstate compacts, and State legislation and administration. His has been a difficult job, done with unusual skill, and one which demands the respect and confidence of all with whom he deals. So we welcome you again, Mr. Stein. Mr. STEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Secretary, you have a prepared statement? Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Secretary, you can make some introductory off-the-cuff comments, or you may read your statement, as you will. The time is yours. Secretary RIBICOFF. First, Mr. Chairman, may I say that it is a distinct pleasure to be here in front of this committee. I am grateful for your generous remarks. It is always good to come here under any circumstances to renew friendships with so many of my colleagues. It seems in the few weeks I have been here as Secretary I have been on the Hill before one committee or another, and I have come to the conclusion that practically every committee in the Congress has a piece of me and my Department. Mr. JONES. Mr. Secretary, you know this is a rather unusual capacity you occupy today. You came before this committee when you were a Member of the House, and you came before this committee as a Governor of a State, and now you are here as a Cabinet member, the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Secretary RIBICOFF. Of course, this is one thing you run into in the field of politics, Mr. Jones. There are always involved the vicissitudes of variety of subject matter and the question of availability of time. Basically, this committee is one of the great committees of Congress, and it always has been, through the importance of the work that it does for the people of our Nation. Certainly I consider it a privilege to come before this committee on a matter of such great importance. I do have a prepared statement which I would like to read, Mr. Chairman, and then, of course, be available for whatever questions any member of the committee may want to put to me. Mr. BLATNIK. Please proceed. Secretary RIBICOFF. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am here to support in general the provisions of H.R. 4036, a bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide for a more effective program of water pollution control. President Kennedy recently stated the case for controlling water pollution in these terms: The pollution of our water has reached the proportions of a national disgrace. It endangers our health. It limits our business opportunities. It de stroys recreation. Water use is increasing enormously. Since 1900, while our popula-. tion tripled, fresh water use has jumped eightfold-from 40 billion to 322 billion gallons a day. Agricultural, industrial, and recreational water use has increased enormously. By 1980, water needs will be 600 billion gallons a day-almost twice the present usage and equal to the total supply we can ever hope to count on. I am talking about the total supply on which the continued growth and prosperity of this Nation depends. Water reuse on a large scale is already a necessity, but greater reuse is inevitable. This will require highly effective pollution control to protect water quality for reuse by each downstream community, industry, farm, and recreation area. Even now it is necessary to use the total flow of the mighty Ohio 3.7 times before it flows into the Mississippi. This means that the people who live in downstream communities must drink water that has already passed through some upstream factory, kitchen, or bathroom one or more times. Since 1960, the municipal waste pollution load discharged to streams has increased from 24 million people to 75 million. This will increase to 84 million in the next decade, and to 150 million by 1980, unless we do much more about it. The pollution load from organic industrial wastes has increased from the equivalent untreated sewage of 15 million persons to 150 million since 1900. There have also been very substantial increases in inorganic wastes and in the new synthetics chemical wastes. Unless industry steps up its present progress in controlling pollution, its contribution will be 300 million persons by 1970. Obviously, municipalities and industries must increase their present rate of abating pollution. More than 100 million Americans get their drinking water from rivers carrying sewage, industrial wastes, and anything else that can be flushed down a sewer or thrown from a bridge. At the same time that municipalities and industries need more clean water, they are fouling their own water supplies with their own wastes. Water is industry's most valuable raw material and by 1980 it will require twice as much as today. It is most difficult to understand the reluctance and resistance of any industry to meet its responsibilities for controlling its own pollution. Water recreation has grown enormously during recent years as the leisure time and income of the American people has increased. They need this recreation outlet, yet each year more bathing beaches and water sports areas are closed because of pollution. The story is the same with sports fishing. Each year the number of pollution-caused fish kills grows higher. There can be only one conclusion: This Nation is faced with a very critical problem of water pollution. You see it reflected in your daily newspapers, in your daily work, in your home districts, and here at the doorstep of the Nation's Capital. Mr. Chairman, the legislation you so successfully piloted through the House of Representatives in 1956 gave us, for the first time, the tools we needed to make a strong start on cleaning the Nation's waters. But we have not been able to move fast enough. We have hardly been able to hold our own against the rising tide of pollution. Our efforts to control pollution must be geared to the speed of the forces which produce it-a swiftly growing population, and an expanding urban, industrial society. I want to say as firmly as possible that I will vigorously support an all-out attack on water pollution-an attack that fits the size of the problem. The 1956 act embodied important advances over earlier legislation. It strengthened our hand in Federal enforcement, permitted more effective work with the State and interstate programs, and encouraged research. Most significantly, in terms of tangible results, it provided grants for the construction of municipal waste treatment works. The construction grants activity has been in full swing for about 4 years. During this time 2,581 projects have been approved-projects which actually remove pollution from our waterways. Federal grants of $213 million have been made in support of $1.2 billion worth of construction. These figures are impressive to me. They show that every Federal dollar has been met by nearly $5 of local funds. These projects will serve a total population of 24 million people. They will reduce the amount of pollution in some 31,000 miles of streams. Since 1956, waste treatment construction has increased 62 percent to an average annual level of $360 million. The sharpest increase has been in communities of less than 50,000, which have received nearly nine-tenths of the Federal aid. Construction by communities of this group has more than doubled. The current construction program has been highly successful. However, there is need today for 5,127 municipal waste treatment works to serve 42 million persons. These facilities will cost $2 billion. To meet the needs we have now and those of the future will require $600 million a year for municipal waste treatment construction. Progress also is being made in the field of enforcement. The first Federal enforcement actions to abate interstate pollution were under the current act. Up to this time, 13 enforcement actions have been taken. These actions involve 131 cities, and 220 industries in waters affecting 22 States. As a result, time schedules have been set to clean up some 4,000 miles of streams at a cost of $500 million. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4036 is very close to our line of thinking. We agree with many principles embodied in your bill. There are certain modifications I would suggest: 1. APPROPRIATIONS AUTHORIZED FOR CONSTRUCTION GRANTS We believe an increase in the appropriation authorization for construction grants is desirable. Consistent with our obligations in other areas of responsibility, we recommend an annual appropriation authorization of $100 million and an aggregate authorization of $1 billion. 2. SUPPORT FOR LARGER COMMUNITIES The present act has stimulated construction substantially in the smaller and middle-sized communities. In the larger cities, however, which account for the major pollution of our waterways, it has failed to stimulate construction to a similar extent. Higher appropriation ceilings and the larger amounts authorized for individual projects, as proposed in the new legislation, will not, I believe, provide a sufficient incentive for action in the big cities. Therefore we propose this substitute: A sliding scale which would limit the Federal share to 30 percent of the first million dollars of the estimated reasonable cost of a project, 15 percent for the next $2 million, 10 percent for the following $2 million, and 5 percent of the remaining cost, provided that the total Federal investment does not exceed $1 million. This lesser percentage on larger projects is justified because the per capita costs are less. The increased appropriation authorizations which we have recommended would make available Federal grants for more projects, and hence would benefit both larger and smaller communities. 3. CEILING ON STATE PROGRAM GRANTS The present authorization for grants to States to support State and interstate water pollution control programs expires on June 30 of this year. I am glad to see that H.R. 4036 would continue this program with no time limitation, but I would like to see it go one step further and also eliminate the dollar limitations. The annual budget process is a more realistic method for determining how much can be wisely and efficiently spent in any given year. 4. ENFORCEMENT GRANT CONSTRUCTION FUNDS Establishment of a $25 million grant fund to help polluters carry out enforcement orders is proposed in H.R. 4036. This special treatment, we believe, would offer an incentive to municipalities to delay undertaking needed construction projects until Federal enforcement proceedings were started. Municipalities subject to enforcement procedures have a full opportunity to seek a State priority for a grant under the present legislation. With the larger amounts authorized by H.R. 4036, they will have an even greater opportunity to secure the funds they need. Therefore the special grants are neither needed nor desirable. 5. ADMINISTRATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAM In his message on natural resources, President Kennedy proposed "the establishment of a special unit within the Public Health Service" for the administration of this program and other related activities. Other proposals on related problems of environmental hazards have also been made by Members of Congress and various groups and individuals. Because of all these discussions, I hope that you will strike from H.R. 4036 the proposal for a separate unit within HEW to administer the water pollution control program. We ask this in order to give us time to take a complete, fresh look at the situation and at the various proposals for dealing with it. We will do this as rapidly as possible and make whatever administrative changes or recommendations for legislative action which may be necessary to effectuate the appropriate results. The program parts of H.R. 4036 are so important and we concur so heartily in the urgency of the need for action on them that we hope |