The steel industry does not believe in "pollution abatement for pollution abatement sake," but it does recognize that the use of streams for the ultimate disposal of waste is entirely legitimate when it does not interfere with the rights of others. The main part of the problem of research investigation is being handled by Mellon Institute for the most part, along with other research laboratories.

Senator KERR. Just a minute. I would like to ask you a question. That amounts, if I understand it, to the announcement that the preservation of fish and wildlife in habitat in which they would thrive is not a matter that has any merit to be considered or be taken into account in determining the right to use a stream for the receptacle or as a receptacle for waste.

Mr. SHORT. I did not hear your statement.

Senator KERR. Read your last statement.

Mr. SHORT (reading):

The steel industry does not believe in "pollution abatement for pollution abatement sake" but it does recognize that the use of streams for the ultimate disposal of waste is entirely legitimate when it does not interfere with the rights of others.

Senator KERR. Go head.

Mr. SHORT (reading):

The main part of the problem of research investigation is being handled by Mellon Institute.

Senator KERR. Now, then, I asked you if that statement means that you do not regard it as an offense or matter that should be interfered with if waste is discharged in a stream that results only, insofar as damage is concerned, in the destruction of fish and wildlife in a habitat in which they can thrive.

Mr. SHORT. NO. I believe, Senator, you have to consider the total picture as to what it does to the stream in which it discharges. Senator KERR. You say that it is not an offense unless it interferes with the rights of others. I believe that is what you said.

Mr. SHORT. Yes, that is right.

Senator KERR. Well, you then do not recognize that there is any right of the people to have a natural habitat for fish and wildlife to remain unpolluted?

Mr. SHORT. I am sure that we recognize that there is that feature of it, but

Senator KERR. Then you could not use a stream as a vehicle for waste disposal without interfering with the rights of others, because you sure cannot use it as a vehicle of waste disposal without impairing the habitat for fish and wildlife, if that was the only damage you did.

Mr. SHORT. May I refer this question to Mr. Cannon? He has a statement here that he might be able to answer your question with, Senator.

Senator KERR. All right.

Mr. CANNON. I think, as a practical matter, this problem is being worked out within the States and on a regional basis through interstate compacts, of which the outstanding example is the Ohio River.

Senator KERR. I have no complaint to find or no fault to find with that statement or that line of reasoning. I am addressing myself to a concrete statement by the witness that the right to pollute a stream

69649-61-10

by using it as a vehicle of waste is inherent to anybody if they do not violate somebody else's right. That is the statement he made, was it not?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. SHORT. Yes, sir.

Senator KERR. If the general public have the right to maintain a healthful environment for fish and wildlife, then I am asking him how you could discharge untreated sewage or waste into any stream without violating somebody's right to the use of it for fish and wildlife?

Mr. CANNON. I think part of what has to be recognized is that in the industrial growth of this country, some of our streams have be come industrial streams and highly industrialized, and provide I refer to the Mahoning River in the State of Ohio in which the steel mills along that river provide a payroll of $12 million a week, and if somewhere some of these economic considerations have to be balanced together to see where the greatest good for the greatest number lies

Senator KERR. That is the argument that might makes right, you see, and that is not the argument before me.

I am addressing myself to the concrete statement that anybody has a right to pollute a stream regardless of the fact that it would interfere with that stream as a habitat for fish and wildlife.

Mr. CANNON. I certainly think there are streams in this country where fish and wildlife represent a valuable natural resource, and certainly should be given every protection.

For instance, some of our members in the electric utilities industry operate hydroelectric dams out in the Pacific Northwest, and they provide fish ladders for the fish.

Senator KERR. That is not what we are talking about at all.

Mr. CANNON. Well, we are certainly talking about trying to achieve an economic balance between the industry of our country and our other natural resources.

Senator KERR. He was not addressing himself to achieving an economic balance. That was not referred to in his statement.

Mr. CANNON. Well, I certainly

Senator KERR. It just happens that I am one member of this Committee who does not like the provisions in the House bill for increased Federal police power, and I presume that is primarily what you are addressing yourself to?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Senator KERR. What I want to say to you is that an attitude on the part of industry, and certainly I am familiar with industry in every way that a man can be familiar with it, that they have the right to use a stream and pollute it in the absence of some positive express right of somebody else to keep it unpolluted is one of the two things that is creating the pressure for the provisions that are in the House

bill.

Now, I am one who does not believe that industry has the right to use a stream unless they leave it in as good condition as they found it. We are trying to build industry in Oklahoma, but I would do everything within my power to prevent any industry locating in Oklahoma that is going to do so on the basis that they had the divine right to

pollute the streams of Oklahoma because the contribution they make to the economy of Oklahoma is not of value great enough to offset the damage they do in polluting streams.

I think this: If industry wants to keep the Federal Government from moving into the posture of having complete police power with reference to pollution abatement, the one way to avoid this is to give just as much recognition to the right of the public generally to have a pollution-free stream as they do to their right to pollute it in the absence of somebody there with a club to knock them in the head if they do, because if they do not recognize that, then there is going to be somebody there with a club to knock them in the head.

Mr. CANNON. I would certainly say that our general intent was to express in this statement a willingness on the part of industry to cooperate vigorously, and with the expenditures of large amounts of money and educational programs, and in every way to achieve the very good objective that you have outlined.

Senator KERR. I think that is very constructive, and I am glad to see it, and I know there is an increasing attitude of that kind on the part of industry.

But I think it is a very unsound premise to move from, to take the position that industry has got a right to pollute a stream, because in this modern society of ours, in my judgment, it is impossible to pollute a stream without violating somebody's right of some kind or character, which certainly is of as high a validity as is the right of industry to pollute a stream.

Mr. SHORT. Well, don't we resolve it to a degree of pollution, Senator?

Senator KERR. Not at all; not at all. If you have a right to pollute a stream at all, that means you have a right to pollute it to an extent that somebody has to decide.

Now, if society were going to remain static, if industry moving on a stream now in a situation where there is nobody below them would never be changed or disturbed, that would be one situation.

But who knows what community, what youth camp, or what recreational area somebody, with a perfect right, riparian and otherwise, is going to want to develop next year or 5 years from now? There never was but one right to the use of a stream that I know of that was recognized by reason of its being exercised, and that was what they called the law of the river in the West, where a landowner, by using water, creates an interest in that water, but even so, he does not thereby create the right to pollute the water for the fellow below who either today or tomorrow might acquire the same right that he has.

His right to the beneficial use of that water is established by usage, but it does not contain inherent within itself the right to pollute that stream just because there is not somebody in the next mile or 5 miles below him who tomorrow or next year or the year after may want to exercise the right to use that water himself on the same basis that the fellow who now is using it has acquired the right.

I just think it is an unsound approach to take the position that industry has the right to pollute a stream.

Mr. CANNON. I might add, Senator, there are a number of recent industrial installations that return water of better quality to the stream than that which they remove.

Senator KERR. Why would they do that if they had the right to pollute it? In my judgment, that is the constructive approach.

Mr. SHORT. I think this is the approach that industry in general is attempting to take.

Senator KERR. What industry were you laying down your predicate for?

Mr. SHORT. I was speaking at that point for the steel industry.

Senator KERR. Do you think there is anything they have got that somebody else does not have?

Mr. SHORT. No, sir. But they are carrying on a program that will ultimately make an attempt to return all of the waters to the stream at least as good as when they took them out, if not better, and this research program

Senator KERR. I think as long as industry takes that approach and soundly seeks to implement it, they can be effective in preventing encroachment of further Federal control. But that is not the premise you laid down in the statement with which I am finding fault.

Mr. SHORT. Well, perhaps in further summarizing this, I mean, this will be brought out.

Senator KERR. I do not see how you can start from nowhere and get anywhere. I do not see how you can arrive at an unsound premise, proceed from there, and arrive at a sound conclusion.

You leave the statement, however, if you want it. It is your record. I am just saying to you, as one who believes, as I think you do, that the additional authorization or police power put into the House bill is unsound, I am just saying to you that the premise you lay down there, if established and followed by enough people, will inevitably result in even stronger police provisions in Federal legislation than those now in the House bill.

Mr. SHORT. Well, I am sure that is not industry's intention to let it go at that. I mean, further research will indicate they will attempt to return the water in as good condition or better than what it was when they took it out.

Senator KERR. I would think a lot more of your statement, and be more persuaded by it, if you substituted just a statement to the one I just addressed myself to, which was that-if you will read it again. Mr. SHORT. Recognize that the use of streams for the ultimate disposal of waste is entirely legitimate when it does not interfere with the rights of others.

Senator KERR. You can leave that in there if you want to, but I would advise you to be prepared to show some example of where you could pollute a stream in any way that would not interfere with somebody else's rights who might be below you.

Mr. SHORT. We will delete that, with your permission, Senator. Senator KERR. I would love for you to do it at my suggestion. [Laughter.]

All right, proceed.

Mr. SHORT. Dr. Richard D. Hoak of the Mellon Institute is in charge of the research phase of the steel industry's plan.

In summary, the steel industry seeks to cooperate in a mutual manner with the many regulatory authorities involved in the problem of water management.

Senator KERR. You know, every authority that is affected by it or concerned with it has but one objective, and that is to prevent the pollution of streams, prevent the pollution of water that would render it unfit or less fit for the use of somebody below, and as I see it, cooperation to be effective has to be developed with that objective in mind and has to be moving in that direction.

Mr. SHORT. Well, I am sure this is what industry is attempting to do, sir.

Senator KERR. Proceed.

Mr. SHORT. The coal industry.

Progress has continued in the bituminous coal industry's fight to reduce or ameliorate its waste discharges as set forth in our prepared statement.

The coke industry: Considerable progress has been made by the coking industry in the reduction of pollution arising from effluents from the byproduct coking works. Several of the byproduct coking plants installed recirculating quenching stations or improved the existing ones so as to reduce the volumes of waste waters, from the quenching of the hot coke.

When it is realized that the construction and installation of a modern dephenolizer with the necessary instruments which are required for its operation may cost over $1 million, it is apparent that the companies which have constructed new dephenolizers are not hesitating to expend considerable sums of money to reduce stream pollution.

The high cost of waste treatment for an integrated steel plant having an annual production of 1,800,000 tons may be broken down as (1) sanitary sewage, $1,700,000; and (2) industrial waste disposal, $1,800,000. Fifty percent or more of the industrial waste costs are chargeable to the coke plant and related operations.

Senator KERR. Is that $3.5 million that added up there, $1.7 million and $1.8 million?

Mr. SHORT. Yes, sir.

Senator KERR. Is that the cost of the installation or is that the annual cost?

Mr. SHORT. This is the cost of the installation, sir.

Senator KERR. That is incident to a plant producing one millionhow many tons a year?

Mr. SHORT. One point eight million tons.

Senator KERR. A year? That is $2 a ton for 1 year's production, the cost of adequate pollution abatement facilities; is that what you are telling me?

Mr. SHORT. Now, I am reading from someone else's report, sir. Senator KERR. Do you understand what it is? Is that what it says?

Mr. SHORT. That is what it says, sir.

Senator KERR. That is not very much, is it? That is not an excessive cost to achieve pollution abatement for a steel mill, is it, $2 a ton for the first year's output?

Mr. SHORT. They will have maintenance on that installation, sir. Senator KERR. How much is it?

Mr. SHORT. Well, this I cannot tell you.

Senator KERR. The initial cost or 50 percent or what is it?
Mr. SHORT. I have no idea.

Senator KERR. Make a guess.