It is my suggestion that the committee give consideration to vesting of the supervision of Federal activities in this field to a Commission composed of representatives of the Geological Survey of the Department of Interior; the Soil Conservation Service of the Department of Agriculture; the Business and Defense Services Administration of the Department of Commerce; and the Public Health Service of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. This would permit coordinated use of the laboratories, other facilities, and personnel of these various departments in a unified program of appropriate Federal activities in this field.

CONCLUSION

As set forth above, there is abundant evidence that great progress is being achieved in the field of industrial waste control under existing local, State and interstate regulatory programs. Therefore, we urge the committee to reject the proposal to extend Federal enforcement activities into navigable streams and tributaries thereof. We regard such a proposal as a distinct threat to States' water rights and an invitation to local and State regulatory agencies to abdicate their corollary States' responsibilities.

If the Congress wishes to be helpful in the field of industrial waste control, the situation arising out of the case of Woolrich Woolen Mills v. United States (178 F. Supp. 874 (D.C. Penn., Dec. 4, 1959)), might offer possibilities. In this case, the Internal Revenue Service challenged the right of the company to deduct the full cost of a treatment plant in the year of expenditure on the ground that this cost represented a capital investment that must be amortized over the years of useful life of the facility. The court held against this contention. The court pointed out that the construction had been undertaken to forestall court action by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which could have closed down the operation. However, the real basis of the decision appears to be that the treatment plant was not an essential part of the operation, did not improve, better or extend the useful life of the overall operation, and therefore could not be considered as a captial investment. But some tax experts have expressed doubt that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue will permit current deduction of expenditures for treatment plant construction. If the Congress could clear up this confusion, it could be extremely helpful to the cause of water pollution abatement, particularly in connection with the problems of small companies. I should point out that the official policy statement of the National Association of Manufacturers "urges provision for sufficient income tax deductions to offset the cost of such non-revenue-producing facilities within a 5-year period, if desired, rather than over the useful life of the facilities."

As to sewage-treatment plant construction, we respectfully urge that the committee recommend repeal of the Federal construction grant program rather than increase it as has been proposed. The proper Federal role should be in the field of research, consultation, advice and promotional-educational efforts.

1. Non-subsidized construction of municipal waste water treatment plants was on the rise prior to the advent of the program of Federal grants.

2.

Subsidized construction has operated, in large part, to displace non-sub-
sidized construction rather than add to it.

3. The total volume of construction maintains its level only because of the
persistence of non-subsidized construction undertaken by communities
despite their knowledge that other communities will be subsidized for
doing the same thing. Subsidies are involved in less than half the
contract awards.

4.

It can be concluded that additional grants would only serve to further
displace non-subsidized construction. Discontinuance of the grant program
would make possible a resumption of the previous upward trend of non-sub-
sidized construction aided only by appropriate promotional and educational
efforts.

Senator KERR, John Becker, American Paper & Pulp Association. STATEMENT OF JOHN E. BECKER, GENERAL MANAGER, PULP DEPARTMENT, ST. REGIS PAPER CO., ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN PAPER & PULP ASSOCIATION, ACCOMPANIED BY FREDERICK L. GRAYSON, SECRETARY, POWER AND WATER RESOURCES COMMITTEE, AMERICAN PAPER & PULP ASSOCIATION

Mr. BECKER. My name is John Becker, general manager of the Pulp Department of St. Regis Paper Co. I have with me Mr. Frederick Grayson

Senator KERR. Frederick Grayson?

Mr. BECKER. He is secretary of the power and water resources committee of the American Paper & Pulp Association.

I am appearing here for the American Paper & Pulp Association, which is the overall trade association of the pulp and paper industry in the United States. Papermaking is one of our country's large essential industries, currently employing more than 560,000 people in the manufacture of pulp, paper, paperboard, and allied products. In 1960, more than 34 million tons of paper and paperboard were manufactured by over 800 mills in nearly 500 communities, to fill thousands of end uses, ranging from the most familiar paper products to the most technical and specialized.

In common with other large manufacturers, the paper industry's requirements for water are substantial. It is not strange, therefore, that our industry has shown, over a long period of years, an alert interest in matters of stream pollution abatement, and achieved considerable success in its pollution abatement efforts. During these years, paper companies have worked through various industry, technical and professional organizations, and have cooperated with the several levels of government, municipal, State, interstate, and Federal, in water pollution abatement activities. On the basis of this long experience, we express our strong opposition to certain proposed amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act which appear in S. 861.

We refer specifically to those places in S. 861 where the word "navigable" is proposed as a substitute for the word "interstate" in the present Water Pollution Control Act, namely, on page 9, lines 5 and 13, and on page 10, lines 23 and 24; and where the words "any persons" are proposed as a substitute for the words "persons in a State other than that in which the discharge originates" in the present Water Pollution Control Act, namely, on page 9, line 10, and on page 11, line 6. We believe that the effect of these changes of the present act would be to expand the Federal Government's authority over water pollution to include practically any local or intrastate situation, and would constitute an open invitation to the Federal Government to enter intrastate disputes. We believe, on the basis of experience, that State governments and State agencies are fully competent to deal with intrastate water pollution problems. We believe that the above changes proposed in S. 861 would constitute a force upon the States and State agencies to abdicate their responsibilities in this area to a ponderous Federal machinery; responsibilities which the States, due

69649-61-12

to their direct involvement with local conditions, are better able to carry out.

In this regard, we note with interest that Section 1 of the present Water Pollution Control Act, a Declaration of Policy to which amendments are not suggested in S. 861, reads in part as follows:

*** it is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities of the States in preventing and controlling water pollution ***

Surely the responsibilities of the States, particularly in local, intrastate matters, must continue to be recognized, preserved and protected. An experience of my own is pertinent here. In 1957 I was appointed to a Governor's water resources committee in Wisconsin, a group created to study the State's water laws and their administration, and to recommend any changes in the laws which might help maintain adequate water supplies for the future. In the appointment of this committee, a real effort was made to have representation from all major water-user groups in the State. I served as industry representative, and other members represented agriculture, hydroelectric power, conservation and recreation, municipalities, and the general public.

Following a year of hearings with interested individuals and groups, the committee made its final report in 1959, recommending, with only a few exceptions, that present laws were adequate to meet the State's future needs.

Senator KERR. Do you have a tabulation of the few exceptions?
Mr. BECKER. I remember one of these was on-

Senator KERR. I wonder if you can put them in the record.

Mr. BECKER. I can mention one right off hand. One change we made was in the administration of the high capacity well law, and I believe that we lowered-I would hate to quote any figures, but

we

Senator KERR. That is the reason I asked you if you would put them into the record.

Mr. BECKER. I could. I would be glad to.

Senator KERR. You might find your memory refreshed and the record enriched if you did that.

Mr. BECKER. Yes, sir; I can. We will submit that later, if we may. Senator KERR. As soon as you can.

Mr. BECKER. Fine.

Senator KERR. All right.

(The information referred to follows:)

Senator ROBERT KERR,

New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

ST. REGIS PAPER CO.,
New York, N.Y., May 12, 1961.

DEAR SENATOR KERR: On May 9 when I appeared before your Rivers and Harbors Subcommittee you asked me about changes in Wisconsin water law that resulted from a study made by a Governor's water resources committee of which I was a member.

In my statement, I said "Following a year of hearings with interested individuals and groups, the committee made its final report in 1959, recommending with only a few exceptions, that present laws were adequate to meet the State's future needs."

You then asked, "Do you have a tabulation of the few exceptions?" I then promised to submit this tabulation which follows.

By way of explanation our committee was assigned the following projects: To conduct a study of problems of watershed control and water-use legislation for the purpose of providing a well-rounded and coordinated plan of water use and conservation, with particular emphasis on the following:

1. Public rights to water, including use for navigation and recreation. 2. Private rights to the use of both surface and underground water.

3. The need for water use legislation, with full study to be given to the substance of bills No. 616A, and 483S, of 1957. (These bills would have made a substantial revision of Wisconsin water use laws, including the centralization of the administration of such laws in a single agency.)

4. The most feasible mechanism for resolving the conflicts of interest among the various users of water.

5. Present watershed management policies and administration in this State, including the part played by Federal agencies, and the essentials of an adequate, well integrated, and coordinated program of watershed development. As you can see our committee assignment was very broad and covered practically all aspects of Wisconsin water use law and its administration including the part Federal agencies play.

One of this committee's first conclusions was that there was no need for a major overhauling of the State's water use laws as had been contemplated by bills 483S and 616A of 1957. The few exceptions that I referred to in my statement were the following five bills:

Bill No. 64A, relating to the administration of the high-capacity well law.

Bill No. 65A, relating to enforcement of conservation wardens of laws pertaining to obstruction and diversion of navigable waters.

Bill No. 66A, relating to changing of stream courses and straightening of streams.

Bill No. 67A, relating to diversion of water from lakes or streams for use in agriculture or irrigation or for use in restoring or maintaining the level of another lake or the flow of another stream.

Bill No. 68A, relating to diversion of water in connection with taconite mining and beneficiation.

Of these five bills only one of them, bill No. 68A, was passed by the State legislature and is now law.

I hope that the above has adequately answered this question. You will recall that you also asked a question concerning the value of the paper industries fiber recovery. Mr. Grayson who was with me at the meeting is planning to send you a reply on this second question very soon.

Thank you for the opportunity you gave us to appear before your committee and also the chance to send the above for inclusion in the record.

Very truly yours,

JOHN E. BECKER.

Mr. BECKER. We had been specifically asked by the State legislature to study the part the Federal Government should play in the management of Wisconsin's water resources. At no time did our committee feel that it was necessary or desirable to have the Federal Government play a larger role in this area.

Much of the success that has been achieved in water pollution abatement by industry in Wisconsin has been due to close cooperation with the State's water regulatory agencies. And our cooperative efforts in Wisconsin are today being matched throughout the country. The State authorities and interstate compact groups are carrying out their responsibilities. Measured by the number of sewage and industrial waste treatment or disposal facilities placed in operation, and by improvements in water quality, State and interstate agencies are making progress in the control of water pollution. Significant reductions in pollution loads have been made in almost every State, and further reductions may be expected.

It should be noted that industry has long been aware of its own responsibilities for water pollution abatement, and has made great progress on its own initiative toward solution of industrial waste