water to the American people if they assure water which is safe for drinking upon chlorination. This standard will no longer protect the health of the American people from industrial wastes in their municipal water systems. Worse, it fails to consider water as a resource vital to many parts of our society and economy.

The heads of these agencies have not taken into consideration fish and wildlife resources, nor have they afforded protection of an adequate level to the swimmer, water skier, fisherman, and boat enthusiast.

The expanding water needs of our society for all purposes in the next few years are well known. Over 100 million Americans get their drinking water from rivers now carrying radioactive wastes, detergents, toxic chemicals, rotting animal carcasses, and the effluent from mortuaries, hospitals and slaughterhouses.

The fish kill reports published by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare are perhaps as bad as indictment of the Federal and State water pollution control authorities as can be found.

Industries refuse to locate in areas where pure water is not available for = local purpose. Even more serious, home and industrial use of water is increasing at an astounding rate which will see our present daily consumption of 320 billion gallons soar to 600 billion gallons a day by 1980. Unless all-out efforts are made immediately to preserve this precious resource, we will be totally incapable - of meeting the demands of the very near future.

To show the way in which the Public Health Service has failed to carry out its responsibility under the law I wish to include in the record correspondence between myself and the Honorable Anthony Celebrezze, Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, showing the failure of that agency to = abate pollution in a number of interstate cases which are of highest primary jurisdiction of that agency under Public Law 660. It is for that reason that a number of us in Congress have sponsored legislation to remove water pollution control from the dead hand of the Public Health Service and to raise it to an Administration of Water Pollution Control under a Secretary able to form and carry out vigorous abatement of pollution.

I wish to insert at this point my correspondence with Secretary Celebrezze referred to above as well as a portion of my statement before the House Committee on Government Operations on Water Pollution Control on May 21, 1963, ✓ listing specific failures on the part of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in interstate pollution cases and a number of other instances of what I regard to be the poorest type of management by that agency.

Hon. ANTHONY CELEBREZZE,

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C., February 28, 1963.

Secretary, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. SECRETARY: I am aware that you have not had time to form judgments on the workings of all parts of your vast Department. I also appreciate your fine record of sound administration in the public interest.

It is for this reason that I write you to urge your support of a Water Pollu⚫tion Control Administration, as provided for by H.R. 3166 and H.R. 3167, sponsored by myself, my colleague, Congressman John Blatnik, and a number of Senators, including Senators Muskie, Hart, and Ribicoff, the former Secretary ✓ of Health, Education, and Welfare.

It is the sincere consensus of almost every one of my colleagues who has studied this situation, that water pollution abatement and effective enforcement suffer greatly by the low level of emphasis which is placed upon them by your Department. As you recall, during the past session of Congress water pollution was, according to legislation sponsored by myself and others, to be taken from the Public Health Service, significantly upgraded, and placed into an administration with authority to move vigorously against water pollution. Subsequent changes in the bill resulted in authority for the then Secretary of Health, ✓ Education, and Welfare to move water pollution from the Public Health Service to any status he so chose. The results was that the Secretary allowed Public Health Service to continue organizational control of water pollution, but removed water pollution directly under the Office of the Secretary for policy direction. This is a situation which history, sound administration, and lack of effective action prove unwise.

This has resulted in small, if any, progress and again the initiation of the same fight by a number of Members of Congress and by all organized conservationists, who object strenuously to the ineffectiveness of this weird adminis trative monster which has been created. I am sure you can recognize that it is one wherein there is no clear responsibility nor any direct line authority from the Office of the Secretary to the actual operating levels. Furthermore, I am sure you are aware that at the operating level, water pollution enforcement is too low in the bureaucracy of your Department to be able to establish its own vigorous policy direction and to be immune from a continuous series of reviews which hamper, delay, and water down its decisions.

In order to apprize you of how poorly this situation is working out in the public interest, I have made a study of a series of editorials and articles which I inserted into the Congressional Record in 1959 involving interstate pollution, and find to my great distress that little real progress has been made under the provisions of Public Law 660 to abate pollution. These situations are: 1. The Ouachita River (Ark. and La.)

Major sources of interstate pollution are industries in Arkansas which dis charge waste from oil production, mining, paper, and paper pulp manufac ture, into the river and its tributary streams. The most serious pollution is from brine discharged as a byproduct of oil production. The wastes caused deterioration of water quality making it unsuitable as a source of public water supply, unfit for industrial use, seriously interfering with sport and commercial fishing, and unfit and unsafe for water sports and recreation.

On review I find that some progress has been made on the Ouachita River, but that major sources of interstate pollution remain. The sole action taken under Public Law 660 by your agency has been the project grants to the city of Camden for $220,466.10 for treatment plants and intercepting sewers, and to the town of Huttig for a treatment plant, interceptor sewer and outfall sewer in the amount of $11,469.69, both located on the main stem and seven other mu

nicipalities discharging to tributaries below Camden.

I can find no record of any enforcement action taken by your agency what soever, even though Public Law 660 imposes upon your agency the duty to act on the basis of surveys, reports, and studies where the pollution is interstate in

nature.

2. The Roanoke River Basin above the Kerr Dam

Although I reported in 1959 that a number of Rockingham towns and firms were listed by the State stream sanitation as nificant polluters, including Draper, Leaksville, Madison,

County, N.C..

and Mayodan. I find that although progress has been pollution on the Roanoke River, some important sources

remains. The Public Health Service has made grants of

Spray, and others, I find that interstate pollution resulting from the above towns and others, as well as a number of industries in the area

committee

sig

discharge of

$107,807

to Madison

served in a number of instances.

remain, and that no record of enforcement action brces of be ob

of

interstate

has been ob

served, even though deterioration of water quality in the area

3. Snake River in the Idaho-Oregon boundary area and its principal tributary

streams, including the Boise, Payette, and Weiser Rivers Although Idaho has been successful in having secondary put into operation at Boise, Nampa, and Caldwell, the State begun issuing orders for cleanup by potato and sugar industries.

treatment facilities agency has only The State

least 2 years before the State takes action on interstate pollution

be ar

on the lower

portion of the river. Although progress has been med pollutionoise River in most seriously affected during low flows in the summer, and

potato processing place a high nutrient load in the river.

depleWeiser at Brownlee Reservoir heavy algae growth is

experienced during the summertime.

Downstream from

oxygen Wastes into the More

Snake River in Idaho interfere seriously with water

vigorous action in abating industrial pollution is required.

4. The Snake River in the Washington-Idaho border area

discharged

The Snake River where it forms Washington's southeast border with Idaho in surarea of Lewiston, Idaho, and Clarkston, Wash,utheast border of the river

suffering heavy pollution.

i

Major sources of pollution in the area are kraft pulp and paper wastes from Potlatch Forests, Inc. Vegetables and potato processing wastes from Sea Brook Frozen Foods Co. and from Smith Frozen Foods Co. in Clarkston, Wash., are important sources of pollution. Meatpacking wastes from Meats, Inc., and Bristol Packers involve discharge of blood and other wastes directly into the Snake River with only minimum screening given paunch manure. Industrial wastes are the primary problem in all parts of the Snake, and unless there is a great stepup in pollution abatement, industrialization will create a terrific danger when a chain of dams projected for the area slows down water velocity substantially.

5. Blackstone River (Mass.-R.I.)

In an area 23 miles long downstream between Worcester, Mass., and Woonsocket, R.I., much of the domestic and municipal wastes are discharged into the Blackstone with little or no treatment provided. The New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission in 1958 approved a classification for the river as it crosses the State line which would establish water of a quality which is unsuitable as a source of water supply even with treatment, for bathing and recreation, irrigation of crops consumed without cooking and as a good fish habitat. This classification would not create good esthetic value. The river needs to be upgraded to reach this low classification.

This pollution is interstate in character and I find no effort by your Department to carry out the mandates of Public Law 660.

6. Miami River (tributary to the Ohio)

The problem was described by an article I inserted in the Appendix of the Congressional Record reporting thousands of fish killed in the lower Miami River. The source of pollution, although not pinpointed, was presumed to be of industrial origin.

Reports of serious pollution in the area go back to 1951 involving water pollution in the Hamilton County, Ohio, area. The only action taken has been a grant to that county of $151,601.85 in October of 1961.

This pollution enters the Ohio River and combined with the pollution load there may adversely affect downstream communities.

7. The Delaware River in the Philadelphia-Camden area

In the Philadelphia, Pa., metropolitan area there are some 64 communities served by 20 plants. Four communities provide no treatment. On the Pennsylvania side there are some 20 industries and only 15 provide any treatment. Fifty-four municipal plants on the New Jersey side provide some kind of treatment for 40 communities, but of 18 major industries in New Jersey dumping industrial processing effluent into the stream 14 provide some degree of treatment and 4 no treatment. The naval shipyard in the area provides no treatment whatsoever for 14,100,000 gallons per day of industrial waste. Other Federal installations also discharge untreated sewage and industrial wastes to the river.

Although progress has been made in abating pollution in the Delaware River, serious interstate pollution still exists and renders this important river unfit for most uses.

8. The Arkansas River

A. Kansas-Oklahoma area. Oil and gas production and processing industries and large salt processing plants in the vicinity of Hutchinson and Lyons, Kans., contribute to the pollution of the river. Municipalities in the area discharge raw sewage and inadequately treated sewage into the river. Water quality is sufficiently deteriorated as to interfere with its use as a source of public water supply.

B. Arkansas-Oklahoma area. The degree of pollution of all types of the Arkansas River at this point indicates that it has been used principally for transportation of wastes to the exclusion of practically all other productive water uses except for industrial cooling. Oilfield contamination on the Cimarron, North and South Canadian, Walnut and Arkansas Rivers deteriorates quality of the Arkansas River. Although Kansas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas have very active programs for abating pollution from oil and brines, considerable work remains to be done. Municipal and industrial wastes continue to be a serious problem in the area and the only real abatement of pollution appears to be construction of sewage treatment plants by municipalities because of the stimulus of Public Law 660 grants. Although in each of these areas pollution is interstate in nature, I can find no abatement action by your Department under Public Law 660.

9. The Ohio River

A. General. The Ohio River is a classic example of pollution of a stream. Where the Ohio is at low stage 1 quart in every gallon flowing through the faucets of Cincinnati has been through a toilet, kitchen sink, mine dump or industrial plant. Interstate pollution appears to be present at most points on the Ohio. The recent ORSANCO report indicates that 97 percent of the communities along the main stem have established waste treatment facilities. However, most of these facilities offer only primary treatment and some provide chlorination. The same ORSANCO report indicates that 15 percent of the industries releasing effluent into the stream have failed to come up to the standards fixed by that agency, and that some of the largest industries in the area and largest polluters of the river have failed to meet the standards fixed by ORSANCO. It would be only fair to indicate that ORSANCO standards for industries are a good deal lower than they could be or should be.

B. The Ohio River in the Ohio-Pennsylvania area. - Chief sources of pollution in this area are Pittsburgh, Ambridge, and Aliquippa, Pa. Pittsburgh discharges considerable amounts of industrial waste while Ambridge and Aliquippa discharge both municipal and industrial wastes. The Alleghany and the Monongahela Rivers flowing into the Ohio receive waste from some 42 metal processing plants and 12 petroleum plants with most of these plants not complying with State regulations regarding treatments of wastes. Deterioration of water quality in the area adversely affects its use as industrial and municipal water supply

and has a harmful effect on fish and wildlife.

Kanawha River is responsible for much of the odor and taste problems in the ana Ohio River (Pennsylvania-West Virginia). Pollution discharged into the

Ohio River far downstream.

I can find no evidence of action by your Department to abate interstate pollution on these parts of the Ohio and its tributaries.

10. East River (New York City area)

There are something like 60 sewers discharging from the island of Manhattan to the lower Hudson River and East River alone. Water quality in the New

York metropolitan area is so low as to exclude public bathing

everywhere in

in other

the inner harbor area. Even though some 70 percent of domestic sewage in New York City is treated, the pollution load discharged into the streams is increasing. The New York Harbor is a series of tidal streams which holds wastes discharged into these waters for longer periods of time than are common streams with faster and more defined current. The wastes accumulate and tend to remain in the area and have an unduly heavy impact on water quality in the cent of the city sewage system is of the combined type resulting up to 90 per cent of the sanitary flow being discharged directly to the waterways during

periods of rainfall.

Raritan Bay and the Narrows and lower New York Basterdsel affected, The waters of the East River are so polluted that waters as far away as the

I am sure after analyzing this you

of vigorous

action by yourself and your Department to abate these and other will realize the importance examples of interstate pollution according to the clear mandate these and othe 60. I do not be accomplished without upgrading and moving water pollution enforcement from under the dead hand of the Public Health Service these situations reveal failure by your Department Health Ser the mandatory requirements of calling a conference leading to polluticarabaoutent where sur

veys, etc., disclose interstate pollution.

Certainly

Moreover, these instances do not disclose in my opinion, either complimesident's the requirements of Public Law 660 or the recompinion, either cone President's Conference on Water Pollution which recommends mendations of hear the least

pollution load possible rather than the maximum servitude.

taken by yourself and your Department to upgrade weffectition abatement Certainly, in order to accomplish this, important and udfective action must be

significantly within your Department.

hope these facts will have a heavy bearing on your

3166 and H.R. 3167.

Sincerely,

consideration

of H.R.

JOHN D. DINGELL
Member of Congress,

One month later, on March 28, 1963, Mr. Celebrezze acknowledged my letter and informed me that he had ordered further studies made of the waterways in question.

On April 3, 1963, I sent Mr. Celebrezze a clipping I had inserted in the Congressional Record 5 days earlier which had appeared in the Pawtucket (R.I.) Times on August 18, 1962. The article indicated not only the failure of local water pollution control authorities to abate pollution in the Blackstone River, but also failure by the Public Health Service to enter and abate interstate pollution according to the provisions of Public Law 660. I asked the Secretary for his comments on the matter.

Twelve days later on April 15, I again addressed a note to Mr. Celebrezze relating that to date I had received no information or communication from his office beyond a simple acknowledgement of my two earlier letters.

Three weeks elapsed and still no reply came. Finally, on May 6, I wrote the Secretary that I had not yet received any indication of what his Department had done or what it proposed to do about the cases of pollution I had cited to him. I asked for a forthright and prompt reply to my query.

On May 8, 1963, I received the following letter from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare:

DEAR MR. DINGELL: The Secretary has asked me to answer your letter of April 3, 1963, and your letter of April 15, 1963, commenting on the pollution of the Blackstone River, an interstate stream flowing from Massachusetts into Rhode Island. We regret the delay in answering these letters which was occasioned by efforts to get precise data on the pollution situation of the Blackstone River.

This river originates, as the editorial in the Pawtucket (R.I.) Times of August 1961 points out, above Worcester, Mass., and ends at its confluence with the Providence River at Providence, R.I. There are 15 Massachusetts communities discharging wastes into the river. As of this time, 11 provide treatment while 4 do not. In Rhode Island, one community provides treatment and four do not.

The Public Health Service 1957 inventory of municipal and industrial waste facilities lists a total of 22 industrial plants in the State of Rhode Island which discharge waste without treatment into the Blackstone River. In Massachusetts, the same inventory shows a total of 16 industrial waste plants discharging waste into the Blackstone River, 3 of which provide treatment.

A Federal project grant has been given to the city of Worcester in the amount of $5,913.31 for improvements to that city's second treatment plant. Woonsocket, R.I., has received two grants; a Federal water pollution control grant of $600,000, and an accelerated public works program grant of $400,000. This situation, along with many other interstate pollution situations is under surveillance by the Department. We are using the full spectrum of devices authorized by law, including technical assistance and comprehensive programs, to assist States to abate pollution. In the event, however, that satisfactory progress is not obtained, we will not hesitate to recommend the use of the enforcement provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

I hope that this provides the information which you desire.

Sincerely yours,

JAMES M. QUIGLEY,

Assistant Secretary.

This communique did nothing but confirm the allegations by the Providence Times that the Blackstone River is horribly polluted. While the letter indicated that several grants have been made in connection with this situation, in no way does it state that any real progress is being made or that we can expect satisfactory abatement in the near future. Furthermore, no mention is ever made of the 10 major pollution problems cited in my initial letter to the Secretary. The Department's response is a clear self-indictment of its unwillingness or inability to effect a cleanup of the Nation's polluted waters.

Finally, on May 17, I received the Secretary's reply to my letter of February 28, the text of which follows:

"DEAR MR. DINGELL: This is a further response to your letter of February 28, 1963.

"You indicated in your letter of May 6 that you had received no acknowledgment to your previous letter. Enclosed is a copy of the acknowledgment which was sent to you on March 28, in which I informed you that I had asked that a