Everyone who has any acquaintance with the water situation in the United States agrees that a shortage of water is the most likely factor to limit the growth of the Nation. The league is convinced that pollution abatement is the cheapest way to increase water supply. Local governments need some incentive to commit a part of their tax dollar to sewage facilities which benefit chiefly downstream communities. The Federal grant-in-aid supplies this incentive. Experience under the present program assures us that there is no threat to State agencies nor to private industry. Under the proposed bill, the Federal agency will continue to set standards as in other grant-in-aid programs and certify that projects satisfy criteria for Federal aid. But nothing in the proposed bill prevents a State, locality, or corporation from doing all it can to abate pollution. The bill simply provides a backstop for local initiative.

We request that this statement be included in the record of testimony before any committee which may hold hearings on any or all of these bills. Sincerely,

MRS. VERLE R. SEED, President.

Senator GEORGE SMATHERS,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

INTERNATIONAL PAPER Co., Panama City, Fla., April 21, 1961.

DEAR SENATOR SMATHERS: S. 861 introduced by Senators Humphrey and McCarthy which has been referred to the Public Works Committee proposes extensive amendements to Public Law 660, 84th Congress, known as the Water Pollution Control Act. An identical bill, H.R. 4036, was introduced by Mr. Blatnik, of Minnesota, at the same time and the Rivers and Harbors Subcommittee of the House Public Works Committee has recently concluded hearings on this bill.

We feel there are objectionable features to certain of the amendments proposed in S. 861 and H.R. 4036. We refer specifically to those places in the bills where the word "navigable" is proposed as a substitute for the word "interstate" 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.

The effect of these proposed changes in the present act would be to expand the Federal Government's authority to include practically any local or intrastate situation and would constitute an invitation to the Government to enter into these disputes when it has been established that the States and local agencies are fully competent to deal with these intrastate water pollution problems.

We further believe that the proposed changes in the Water Pollution Control Act referred to above are contrary to the declaration of policy contained in section 1 of the present Water Pollution Control Act which 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."

For the foregoing reasons we respectfully request that you vote and use your influence against the proposals in S. 861 which would (1) change the definition of water covered from "interstate" to "navigable" and (2) broaden the definition of "persons" to include those who reside in States in which alleged pollution originates.

Yours very truly,

HARVEY D. MATHIS.

Senator RANDOLPH. I ask the indulgence and understanding of those persons present who were to testify this morning, in accordance with notification from the subcommittee. It is necessary that we recess at 11:15.

Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Senator RANDOLPH. Our subcommittee will stand in recess until 2:15 this afternoon. We hope that those citizens, and especially the persons who were to testify, and all others who are interested in the subject matter, will be here this afternoon. We will attempt to proceed as rapidly as possible.

(Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 2:15 p.m. of the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Senator RANDOLPH (presiding). The hearings on S. 120 and related subject matter will resume.

We are privileged to have Maj. Gen. William F. Cassidy, the spokesman for the Corps of Engineers, to give testimony pertinent to the measures in question.

And I suggest at this point, General, that you might discuss S. 120, with reference to the amended version, which has to do with low flow regulation.

We are happy to hear you, sir.

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. WILLIAM F. CASSIDY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, ACCOMPANIED BY EUGENE WEBER, CHIEF OF PLANNING DIVISION

General CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, in response to the committee's request, I am pleased to appear before the committee to discuss S. 120 as amended and S. 1475, bills to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

I have with me Mr. Eugene W. Weber, Chief of the Planning Division in my office.

Formal reports of the position of the Department of the Army on this proposed legislation and its relation to the program of the President have not yet been prepared. Accordingly, in my capacity as Director of Civil Works, I am speaking for the Chief of Engineers.

I have checked informally, however, with the representatives of the Bureau of the Budget to enable me to speak today in the light of such information as is already available on the views of the Administration on the matters covered by these bills.

The President in his message of February 23, 1961, to the Congress on natural resources urged enactment of legislation along the general lines of S. 120, and has initiated action toward implementing the report of the Senate Select Committee on National Water Resources which points out among other things, the need for action on pollution control.

The Corps of Engineers is primarily concerned with the low flow regulation aspects of S. 120 and S. 1475. We concur fully in the general objectives of both bills in this respect. We think it is especially important that low flow regulation for improvement of water quality be regarded as a supplement to and not as a substitute for adequate treatment of wastes before they are discharged into streams. After consideration of the various provisions of S. 120 and S. 1475 dealing with low flow regulation, I have concluded that S. 120 with the proposed amendments would afford a reasonable and satisfactory

basis for planning and developing low flow regulation to assure satisfactory water quality in our streams.

The amended bill would enable Federal agencies to plan and develop reservoirs with provisions for low flow regulation for water quality improvement if the Surgeon General found there was a need for such

measures.

The costs of stream flow regulation needed over and above normal direct treatment of wastes to assure acceptable stream conditions would be borne by the Federal Government.

Since low flow regulation should not be allowed to preclude accomplishment of all feasible direct treatment, we believe that, in cases where low flow regulation may be found to be the only feasible or most economical means of alleviating a specific pollution problem, appropriate non-Federal interests should be required to pay a share in proportion to the costs they would bear under other provisions of the Water Pollution Control Act on direct waste treatment programs.

In summary, the low flow provisions of S. 120 with the proposed amended language appear to us to be desirable and consistent with the purposes of the Water Pollution Control Act, and to afford a workable basis for the Federal agencies concerned to plan and develop water use projects that will help bring about and maintain satisfactory stream conditions as well as serve other project purposes.

Accordingly, the Corps of Engineers favors enactment of legislation along the lines of the amended S. 120.

Senator RANDOLPH. We are helped by the position which has been expressed on S. 120 as amended. The chief sponsor of the legislation, Senator Kerr, and other Senators who have joined in cosponsorship are desirous that the matter to which you have given your statement in particular be adequately covered.

It would seem appropriate at this point in the record to include a letter which has been received from the Executive Office of the President, Bureau of the Budget, under date of May 6.

In this letter, addressed to the chairman of the Public Works Committee, reference is made to the new subsection which you, General Cassidy, have discussed. And the language in reference to this stream flow uses this expression:

While we support the general objectives of this provision, we believe that provision of storage at Federal reservoirs for low flow regulation should be regarded primarily as a supplement to rather than as a substitute for adequate waste treatment measures at the source. We think it important, therefore, that this policy be made clear in the legislation and that Federal financial responsibility for low flow regulation storage be consistent with Federal assistance for waste treatment measures, lest the Government provide a financial inducement to States and communities to abandon their efforts to provide adequate waste treatment measures. Such a result would of course, defeat a major purpose of the Water Pollution Control Act.

Do you have a comment on this statement?

General CASSIDY. I believe my statement is almost identical, in that we believe low flow regulation must be a supplement to and not a substitute for direct waste treatment. We believe that S. 120 as amended, does provide sufficient authority so that low flow regulation will not replace adequate treatment.

There may be special cases where it could be considered, but these would only be considered when the Surgeon General believes that they should be considered. We are fully in accord with the Department of

Health, Education, and Welfare in that what we are providing here is the carrier for treated waters rather than substituting for treatment. (The letter referred to and comments of other agencies are as follows:)

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,

BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, Washington, D.C., May 6, 1961.

Hon. DENNIS CHAVEZ,

Chairman, Committee on Public Works,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in response to your request for reports on S. 120 and S. 861, bills "to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide for a more effective program of water pollution control;" S. 45, a bill "to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in order to increase certain amounts authorized therein for grants for sewage treatment works"; S. 1475, a bill "to amend and strengthen the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide for flow regulations for water pollution and quality control and for other purposes ;" and S. 325, a bill "to establish a Federal Water Pollution Control Research Laboratory in the Pacific Northwest and for other purposes."

The President in his message on natural resources (H. Doc. No. 94, 87th Cong.) called for enactment of legislation to broaden and strengthen the Federal water pollution control program and urged enactment of legislation "along the general lines" of H.R. 4036 (identical with S. 861) and S. 120.

The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare is submitting to the Committee detailed reports on these bills, and we concur generally in those reports. S. 120 proposes to add a new subsection (b) to section 2 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which would authorize Federal agencies to include storage in Federal reservoirs for regulation of streamflow for water quality control. While we support the general objectives of this provision, we believe that provision of storage at Federal reservoirs for low flow regulation should be regarded primarily as a supplement to rather than as a substitute for adequate waste treatment measures at the source. We think it important, therefore, that this policy be made clear in the legislation and that Federal financial responsibility for low flow regulation storage be consistent with Federal assistance for waste treatment measures, lest the Government provide a financial inducement to States and communities to abandon their efforts to provide adequate waste treatment measures. Such a result would, of course, defeat a major purpose of the Water Pollution Control Act.

Accordingly, we recommend that legislation authorizing the inclusion of low flow regulation storage in Federal reservoirs contain statements of policy on both intent and financial responsibility, as indicated above, as well as general authority for the President to establish standards to effectuate this policy. In view of the lack of definitive information on the magnitude of the problem it is believed that flexibility in administering this program is especially important.

S. 1475, like S. 120, would also authorize inclusion of storage in Federal reservoirs for flow regulation for water pollution and quality control. We believe the general approach to this subject in S. 120 to be preferable to that

in S. 1475.

Legislation to achieve the objectives of S. 120 and S. 861 would be in accord with the program of the President. Sincerely yours,

PHILLIP S. HUGHES,

Assistant Director for Legislative Reference.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, May 8, 1961.

The Honorable DENNIS CHAVEZ,
Chairman, Committee on Public Works,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR CHAVEZ: This is in response to your request for the views of the Department of Labor on S. 45, S. 120 and S. 861, bills to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

Since S. 45 provides solely for the increase in amounts authorized for grants for sewerage treatment works, we would prefer to leave specific comment to those agencies directly involved in matters relative to the operation of the water pollution control program. We would also defer specific comment on the other two bills but we recommend language with respect to their labor standards provisions.

I am pleased to note that both S. 120 and S. 861 provide for the payment of prevailing wages as determined by the Secretary of Labor under the DavisBacon Act to laborers and mechanics engaged in construction work financed by Federal funds. We recommend, however, the inclusion of provisions to insure the payment of time and one-half the basic rate of pay for all hours worked in any workweek in excess of 8 hours in any workday or 40 hours in the workweek, as the case may be. Almost a hundred years ago Federal legislation established the principle that 8 hours should constitute the regular working day for laborers and mechanics engaged on Government work (act of June 25, 1868, R.S. 3738). This principle was later embodied in the 8-hour laws and extended to workers on Government contracts (see United States Code, title 40, secs. 321-326). This principle laid down by these statutes should be followed with regard to construction work such as provided for in the bills. The inclusion of a 40-hour weekly limit on work at straight time pay, consistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act and Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act, would prevent the practice adopted by some contractors, even where the 8-hour laws apply, of working employees a 56-hour week of seven 8-hour days without paying overtime compensation.

Necessary authority in the Secretary of Labor with respect to coordinating the enforcement of the Davis-Bacon Act and related labor standards laws comes from Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950 and section 2 of the Copeland Act, as amended. These provisions for the application and enforcement of the prevailing wage and overtime compensation standards should therefore also be included in S. 861 and S. 120.

We have found language as contained in the Civil Defense Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2281(i)) to be the most adequate to insure the application of this policy. We therefore recommend that the language of section 5(f) of S. 861 be modified to conform in all important respects to that in the Civil Defense Act in accordance with the attached draft amendment to the bill. These comments are equally applicable to S. 120. The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program. Yours sincerely,

ARTHUR J. GOLDBERG, Secretary of Labor.

RECOMMENDED LANGUAGE FOR AMENDMENT OF SECTION 5(f) OF S. 861

Amend section 5(f) to read as follows:

"(f) The Commissioner shall not make any grant with respect to any project under this section without first obtaining adequate assurance that all laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontractors on such project will be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing on similar construction in the locality as determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act, as amended (40 U.S.C. 276a-276a-5), and will receive compensation at a rate not less than one and one-half times the basic rate of pay for all hours worked in any workweek in excess of eight hours in any workday or forty hours in the workweek, as the case may be. The Secretary of Labor shall have, with respect to the labor standards specified in this provision, the authority and functions set forth in Reorganization Plan Numbered 14 of 1950 (15 F.R. 3176, 64 Stat. 1267, 5 U.S.C. 133a-15), and section 2 of the Act of June 13, 1934, as amended (48 Stat. 948, as amended; 40 U.S.C. 276(c)).” NOTE.-Amendment of S. 120 would read the same except that the term "Commissioner" would read "Surgeon General".