DECEMBER 12-14 i960 • WASHINGTON, D.C
Proceedings
The National
Conference
t)N Water Pollution
U S DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH EDUCATION AND WEUARE • Public Health Service
-------
-------
OOOR60001
PROCEEDINGS
The National Conference
on Water Pollution
December 12-14, 1960
Sheraton-Park Hotel
Washington, D.C.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
-------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1961
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington 25, D.C. - Price $2.25 (paper)
-------
A MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT
It is a pleasure to send greetings to the citizens assembled in Wash-
ington for the National Conference on Water Pollution. It is
heartening to know that this Conference has attracted such a splen-
did representation from across the land.
We in the United States are fortunate in having generally adequate
amounts of rainfall over large areas of our country, but we waste
much of this precious natural resource by water pollution. We
cannot continue to do so and still have enough good water for the
growing needs of our population, industry, and agriculture. Nor
can we continue to expose our people to the health hazards of water
pollution.
In asking the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to
call this National Conference, I stressed the mutual responsibilities
of all segments of our society in cleaning up our waterways. We
need appropriate action by Federal, interstate, state and local
agencies. We need greatly expanded research, the continuing ef-
forts of industry and agriculture, and, most important of all, we
need the wholehearted support of the individual citizen. It is the
business of the Conference to study and assess the problem of water
pollution in all its aspects and to develop goals and programs that
will assure progress in this field.
I am delighted to add my best wishes for a most successful
meeting.
Cx>-y L~*A~J CA<-tt» ASXJ^^
DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER
iii
-------
-------
PREFACE
This volume presents the official proceedings of the National
Conference on Water Pollution, called at the request of President
Eisenhower and held in Washington, B.C., in December 1960.
The mission and purpose of the Conference were expressed in its
official announcement, issued in the mid-summer of I960 by Dr.
Leroy E. Burney, Surgeon General of the Public Health Service:
' 'At the request of the President and of the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare, I have called a National Conference on
Water Pollution to be held in Washington, D.C., December 12-14,
1960.
"Pollution is a pressing problem. It depletes one of our greatest
natural resources. It is a threat to public health and to the eco-
nomic and social welfare of our people. A consequence of our
population and industrial growth, water pollution can be controlled,
given the concerted efforts of industry, agriculture, and all levels of
our government, supported by the people at large. I hope that all
may be represented at the Conference.
"The purpose of the Conference will be to assess the problem of
water pollution, to determine its effects upon our national welfare,
and to set realistic goals for its control. In this way the Conference
will create a national body of opinion and documented fact on which
our country may base a new and more vigorous attack on this
serious hazard
' The theme of the Conference will be 'Clean Water—A Challenge
to the Nation'."
The Conference opened December 12 after more than six months
of preparatory work carried on by a special Public Health Service
staff assisted by a Steering Committee of distinguished private
citizens. More than 1,200 persons attended the meeting, despite
one of the most serious winter storms to occur in Washington in
many years.
The program of the Conference consisted of a plenary session and
an evening banquet on its opening day, four concurrent panel
meetings on December 13, and a final plenary session on December
14, devoted to reports and summarization.
The Conference was conducted without the adoption of formal
resolutions. Reports and recommendations were prepared by sub-
-------
committees which were so selected as to represent all interested
groups in attendance at the meetings. Following each panel session
and the presentation of each summary report an opportunity was
provided for discussion and questions from the floor. Participants
were also invited to enter further remarks and points of view for
inclusion in these proceedings.
The material in this volume is presented in eight chapters, the
first seven devoted to individual sessions and the eighth to a sum-
mary of recommendations. The material is based on the formal
presentations of speakers and discussants, supplemented by steno-
graphic transcript of floor and panel discussions. Three appendixes
are also provided, the first consisting of additions made to the
record, the second listing exhibits and film showings, and the
third naming the more than 80 Conference participants.
Among these participants, who played so great a part in the
success of the Conference, are members of the Steering Committee
and of the Water Pollution Control Advisory Board, the speakers
and discussants who addressed the Conference sessions, the Public
Health Service resource personnel who assisted in its deliberations,
and the Conference staff. To all of these the Public Health Service
owes a deep debt of gratitude.
FRANK A. BUTRICO,
Executive Secretary
-------
CONTENTS
Page
A MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT iii
PREFACE v
Monday, December 12
THE OPENING SESSION 1
Leroy E. Burney, M.D.—Clean Water. ... . 5
Albert E. Forster—A Matter of Survival 13
Dr. Ira N. Gabrielson—Pollution is a People Problem 23
Mark D. Hollis—The Water Pollution Image 30
THE BANQUET MEETING 41
The Legislator Looks at Water Resources
and Water Pollution Control . .. 41
Hon. Robert S. Kerr . . 41
Hon. Francis Case . . ... .... 42
Hon. John A. Blatnik . . . 44
Hon. William C. Cramer 45
Tuesday, December 13
PANEL I—Water Pollution and Our Changing Times 47
Morning Session 47
Hon. Thomas A. McCann—Chairman's Remarks 47
Dwight F. Metzler—-Assessing the Water Pollution Problem 49
Theodore M. Schad—Discussion 57
Dr. Robert A. Kehoe—Impacts of Pollution on Health 60
Dr. Russell E. Teague—Discussion ... 66
General Discussion 70
vii
-------
Tuesday, December 13—Continued
Page
Afternoon Session 85
Seth Gordon—Impacts of Pollution on Fish and Wildlife,
Recreation and Esthetic Values 85
Frank Gregg—Discussion 94
Mrs. E. Lee Ozbirn—Discussion 99*
L. C. Burroughs—Impacts of Water Pollution on Industry 103
K. S. Watson—Discussion 110 •
Irving K. Fox—Pollution, the Problem of Evaluation 114
A. J. Biemiller—Discussion 119
General Discussion 123
PANEL II—Meeting the Growing Competition for Water 135
Morning Session 135
Dr. E. A. Ackerraan—Chairman's Remarks 135
Clarence W. Klassen—Water Quality ~M.ana$fment—A National
Necessity 136
Earl C. Hubbard—Discussion 150
Harvey O. Banks—-Priorities for Water Use 153
Hon. F. G. Aandahl—Discussion 167
General Discussion 170
Afternoon Session 185
T. J. Powers—Water Quality Intelligence 185
Morrison B. Cunningham—Discussion 191
James W. Woodruff, Jr.—River Basin and Multipurpose Planning 195
Eugene W. Weber—Discussion 203
Hon. Clair Engle—Discussion 206
Carl B. Brown—Effects of Land Use and Treatment on Pollution 209
Gordon K. Zimmerman—Discussion 219
Dr. Clarence Cottam—Pesticides and Water Pollution 222
L. A. Dean—Discussion 236
General Discussion 238
viii
-------
Tuesday, December 13—Continued
Page
PANEL Ill-Keeping Water Clean 247
Morning Session 247
Dr. Abel Wolman—Chairman's Remarks 247
Robert A. Forsythe—The Needs and Obligations of Federal Agencies.. . . 250
Edward J. Cleary—The Needs and Obligations of Interstate Agencies. . . . 270
Karl M. Mason—The Needs and Obligations of State Agencies 277
Justus H. Fugate—The Needs and Obligations of Metropolitan Agencies
(Municipal) 281
M. James Gleason—The Needs and Obligations of Metropolitan Agencies
(County) 298
Leonard Pasek—The Needs and Obligations of Industry 309
James M. Gill—Discussion 321
General Discussion 323
AJternoon Session 329
R. G. Lynch—Public Awareness and Citizen Responsibility 329
Mrs. Arthur E. Whittmore—Discussion 337
David B. Lee—Discussion 340
Frank E. Curley—Financing Aspects of Water Pollution Control 343
Robert F. Boger—Discussion 350
Chester S. Wilson—Legal Aspects of Water Pollution Control 354
Richard T. Sanders—Discussion 381
General Discussion 384
PANEL IV—Research and Training 407
Morning Session 407
Dr. Erman A. Pearson—Critical Research Needs—Environmental Aspects. 407
Dr. Clair S. Boruff—Discussion 419
Dr. John A. Zapp—Critical Research Needs—Medical Aspects 424
Dr. Chauncey D. Leake—Discussion 434
General Discussion 437
IX
-------
Tuesday, December 13—Continued
Page
Afternoon Session 452
Dr. Gordon M. Fair—Chairman's Remarks 452
Dr. Rolf Eliassen—Research and Treatment Technology 454
Richard Hazen—Discussion 458
Dr. R. Keith Cannan—Resources for Research and Training 462
G. A. Rohlich—Discussion 469
Dr. Karl Brandt—Water Pollution Control and Its Challenge to Political *
Economic Research 474
Dr. Gilbert F. White— Discussion 485
General Discussion 488
Wednesday, December 14
THE CLOSING SESSION
Harry E. Schlenz—Chairman's Remarks, Morning Session 498
Panel I—Report and Discussion—Hon. Thomas A. McCann 499
Panel II—Report and Discussion-—Dr. E. A. Ackerman 504
Panel IV—Report and Discussion—Dr. Gordon M. Fair 518
John S. Samson, Chairman s Remarks, Afternoon Session 529
Panel III—Report and Discussion—Dr. Abel Wolman 531
Stuart Finlcy, Summarisation of Conference 548
Hon. Arthur S. Flemming, Federal Role in Pollution Control 556
Leroy E. Burney, M.D.—Closing Remarks 563
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CONFERENCE. . 564
APPENDIX I—Additions to the Record 573
APPENDIX II—Conference Exhibits and Film Showings 598
APPENDIX HI—Conference Participants 601
A. Steering Committee 601
B. Water Pollution Control Advisory Board 602
C. Participants and Speakers 602
-------
OPENING PLENARY SESSION
Monday, December 12
The Opening Plenary Session of the
National Conference on Water Pol-
lution was convened at 2:00 p.m.,
following a four-hour delay because
of the heavy snow on the eve of the
Conference which prevented many
delegates from arriving in Washing-
ton on schedule
Chairman
Gordon E. McCallum, Chief
Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control
Public Health Service
Opening Statement
Dr. Leroy E. Burney
Surgeon General, Public Health Service
I take great pleasure this afternoon in welcoming you to the
National Conference on Water Pollution. I am also pleased to read
the following message to the Conference from President Eisenhower:
[Editor's Note—The welcoming remarks by the President appear
on Page iii of this document.]
You have come here from all parts of the country. You represent
many different interests, many different professions, many different
points of view. But by your attendance here all of you are demon-
strating that you have one thing in common. That is your deep
concern over the seriousness of the pollution of the watercourses of
the United States and the manifold problems to which this pollution
gives rise.
We in the Public Health Service share that concern. We have
called this Conference in the belief that those of you here today and
the organizations you represent will join with us in launching a new
national effort to deal with the water pollution problem. To this
effort I pledge my wholehearted personal support and the full re-
sources of the Public Health Service.
I suspect that never before has so much professional knowledge and
technical skill on water pollution been assembled under one roof.
Equally important and valuable is the presence of so many persons
representing consumer groups, people who view water pollution from
the standpoint of health, of conservation, of recreation, of agriculture,
of industry. The problem before us demands all the professional
resources and all the enlightened participation and support of the
-------
public that we can muster. I am most happy to see all these interests
so well represented here.
This Conference has an historic mission—to set the guidelines for
a national water pollution control policy suited to our times, a policy
bold enough to meet the challenges posed by the transformation of our
environment through growth and technological advance. By taking
part in the deliberations of this Conference and in helping to shape
its recommendations, you merit the gratitude of the Nation.
I have the highest hopes and greatest expectations for this National
Conference on Water Pollution. Before discussing these hopes, and
describing some of the activities already underway which serve as
a background for your deliberations, I should like to acknowledge
the indebtedness of the Public Health Service to a number of indi-
viduals whose thoughtful guidance and tireless efforts have made
this Conference possible. I refer to the members of the Conference
Steering Committee who have done an outstanding job. I want
to express my personal thanks to each of you for the generous measure
of time and counsel which you have given to the realization and
organization of this Conference.
Also, much credit goes to Frank Butrico, Executive Secretary of
the Conference, for his work in organizing and planning the Con-
ference program.
Next, it is my privilege and honor to introduce to you, individually
the members of a group which has been of immeasurable help to
the Public Health Service throughout the years, in our efforts to
meet our responsibilities for curbing water pollution. These gentle-
men, all of whom serve by appointment of the President, are the
members of our Water Pollution Control Advisory Board.
It is important for me to add, at this point, that the members of the
Advisory Board have unanimously accepted my invitation to take
a leading part in the implementation of the recommendations that
come out of this Conference. Thus, their work is closely interwoven
with yours, and will continue throughout the critical period after
the Conference when what we say here is translated into effective action.
I should like first to introduce the two newest members of the
Board. The first, Dr. Clair S. Boruff, who is Technical Director of
Hiram Walker and Sons. He holds a doctorate in philosophy from
the University of Illinois. He has served as chief research chemist
of the Illinois State Water Survey and at present is serving as the
industry representative on the Illinois State Sanitary Water Board.
He has been a consultant to many large industries concerned with
the disposal of wastes and is the author of several articles and books
in this field. He was appointed to the Board by the President earlier
this year.
Our second new member is a Texan—the Honorable Thomas A.
McCann. He is a man of experience in the fields of construction,
-------
finance, ranching, and community service. His appointment to
the Board this year recognized his long and active interest in water
pollution abatement in his own and neighboring States. He is now
serving his second term as Mayor of Fort Worth. In addition to
his official duties as Mayor, he is the president of the McCann Con-
struction Company and is a director of several financial institutions.
He owns and operates large ranching interests in Texas. We welcome
his wise counsel and advice.
The next gentleman I should like to introduce is John Charles
Daly. Mr. Daly holds virtually every major award that is given for
distinguished radio and television reporting. A CBS radio reporter
and commentator for 12 eventful years, he joined ABC in 1949 and
in 1953 became Vice President in Charge of News, Special Events,
and Public Affairs—a post from which he has recently resigned.
He has served as Washington correspondent, White House cor-
respondent, foreign correspondent, and combat reporter during World
War II. He conducts news commentaries five evenings each week
on both TV and radio, and is also a roving newsman on major national
and international stories. In spite of these heavy responsibilities in
his chosen field, John Charles Daly has found time since his appoint-
ment last year to serve as a member of the Water Pollution Control
Advisory Board.
The profession of public health is represented on the President's
Board by only one member, Dr. Russell E. Teague. Dr. Teague has
for more than 30 years been identified in leadership roles with various
public health agencies. He holds a medical degree from the University
of Louisville School of Medicine and a Master of Public Health degree
from The Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health.
From 1951 to 1956 he was State Health Officer for the Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania. During that time he was also chairman
of the State Sanitary Water Board and a member of the State Water
Power Resources Board of Pennsylvania. Since 1956 he has been
Commissioner of Health for the State of Kentucky. He is a member
of the Kentucky Water Pollution Control Commission and past
chairman of the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission.
Dr. Teague was appointed to the President's Board last year.
Since 1958 the Board has had the counsel and advice of one of the
country's most distinguished conservationists, Mr. Seth Gordon.
Mr. Gordon began his conservation career in 1913 with the Penn-
sylvania Game Commission and later became its Director. In 1948
he resigned to become consultant to the California Wildlife Conser-
vation Board. In 1951 he was appointed by Governor Warren as
Director of the newly organized California Department of Fish and
Game, a position he held until last year, when he returned to con-
servation consulting work. During the time he was Director of the
California Department he also served as a member of the California
Water Pollution Control Board.
3
-------
He has served with numerous conservation organizations throughout
the country, such as the North American Wildlife Foundation, the
International Association of Game, Fish, and Conservation Commis-
sioners, the Forest Research Advisory Committee, the Wildlife
Management Institute, the Izaak Walton League of America, and
the Outdoor Writers of America.
We are proud to have had on our Board since 1958 a representative
of the Rocky Mountain States and of its frontier tradition, Mr. Frank
E. Long. Mr. Long is a rancher, a businessman, and a notable civic
leader. He is President of the Wyoming Stream Pollution Control
Advisory Council. He has in the past been President of the Wyoming
Livestock and Sanitary Board, the Wyoming University Planning
Board, the Wyoming Association of Realtors, and of the Wyoming
Beef Council. He is also a member of the Federal Land Bank Loan
Board, of the American Cattlemen's Association, and of other organi-
zations too numerous to mention.
Our representative from the Middle West on the President's Board
is an old friend to those interested in conservation and the abatement
of water pollution, Mr. John S. Samson. Mr. Samson is a practicing
attorney in Omaha, Nebraska. He received his law degree from
Creighton University Law School in Omaha. He is Chairman of the
Water Pollution Control Council for the State of Nebraska. He has
served for the last six years as Chairman of the Wrater Pollution
Control Committee of the Nebraska Division of the Izaak Walton
League of America.
Having acted as consultant to the Nebraska State Legislature on
stream pollution abatement, Mr. Samson was appointed by Secretary
Flemming to the Hearing Boards on pollution of interstate waters
held at Sioux City, Iowa, and St. Joseph and Kansas City, Missouri.
All three Hearing Boards were concerned with pollution of the Missouri
River.
The Board member who speaks with special concern for the New
England States also speaks from a lifetime of professional preoccupa-
tion with the field of water resources. He is William S. Wise. Mr.
Wise is Director of the Water Resources Commission of the State
of Connecticut. He is a member of the Interstate Sanitation Com-
mission, the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control
Commission, the Northeastern Resources Committee, and the Exec-
utive Committee of the Interstate Conference on Water Problems.
In addition he has served as Regional Director of the National
Rivers and Harbors Congress, President of the New England Sewage
and Industrial Wastes Association, and President of the Federation
of Sewage and Industrial Wastes Association. In 1956 Mr. Wise
received the Engineer of the Year award from the Connecticut Society
of Professional Engineers.
-------
Clean Water
DR. LEK.OY E. BURNEY
Surgeon General, Public Health Service
This Conference is one of many heartening indications that the
American people are coming to a full recognition of the realities of
our technologic age. To a far greater extent than ever before, we
live in a man-created and man-controlled environment. It is within
our power to shape our own future, to guide the evolving patterns of
society and determine the nature of the surroundings in which we and
our children will live.
This is a limitless opportunity. It is an awesome responsibility.
It implies the adjustment of the environment to man's highest aspira-
tions and needs, and not merely the adjustment of man to the en-
vironment. Meeting this challenge of guiding change will require
imaginative and courageous thought, and equally imaginative and
courageous action, for the sake of the society we seek to create.
Few if any problems are more intricately interwoven into the fabric
of our society than the control of water pollution. Clean water is
essential to life itself; it is essential to our industrial technology, and
to agriculture; it is essential to the conservation and use of the many
natural resources upon which the richer life depends.
Indeed, the water pollution picture is so vast, and its implications
extend to so many aspects of the Nation's life, that each of us tends
to see clearly only that portion of it which is visible through his own
particular window. I thought, therefore, that it might be helpful if
I were to sketch out for you, in very broad strokes, the view of the
water pollution problem from the national window of a Federal agency
charged with rather far-ranging responsibilities in this field.
In doing so, I should like to develop four principal points:
First, that water pollution control is an integral part of the broader
problem of water resource development and use;
Second, that water pollution control is an inseparable part of the
broader problem of environmental health protection;
-------
Third, that an impressive amount of productive activity is already
underway in controlling water pollution;
And fourth, that the problem demands a still stronger effort on the
part of Federal, State, and local authorities, industries, and all others
concerned.
Pollution Control as an Economic Imperative
The first of these four generalizations is probably the one that is ••
least in need of detailed elaboration before a group such as this. All
of you are well acquainted with the overwhelming statistics on water
usage, both today and in the foreseeable future. The volume of *
fresh water used daily in the United States has increased seven-fold
since the turn of the century; more incredible still, it has virtually
doubled since 1945, the peak year of industrial effort in World War II.
And all the experts confidently predict more of the same. By 1980,
according to reliable projections, our fresh water needs will have
doubled again, reaching the astronomical figure of 600 billion gallons
a day. A week's ration of water, at this rate, would submerge Man-
hattan Island to a depth of 1,000 feet.
Meanwhile, of course, the bountiful natural supply on which we
must draw remains constant over the years. It is on this fixed fresh
water supply that the continued growth and prosperity of the United
States depends.
Water, in ever-increasing quantities, is indispensable to industry.
It is indispensable to agriculture. Our fish and wildlife resources
depend upon it, as the recreational facilities without which our national
life would be inexcusably impoverished. Already, in many areas,
there is not enough water to go 'round. To cite one outstanding
example, it is estimated that the water in the Ohio River, at times of
low flow, is used almost four times as it flows from Pennsylvania to
the Mississippi.
It is at this point of re-use, of course, that the threads of water
quality and water quantity become inextricably interwoven. And it
is at this point also that considerations of national health enter the
equations.
Water Pollution Control as a Biological Imperative
There is no room for doubt that we are presently passing through a
second industrial reArolution, the impact of which may well surpass
that of its predecessor in the 18th and 19th centuries. Like its pred-
ecessor, the second industrial revolution has thus far yielded a
harvest of mixed blessings. Its synthetic products and high-energy
technology promise material standards of living far beyond the rosiest
dreams of our parents' generation. At the same time, its by-product
wastes and side effects threaten a new kind of health problem for our
own and future generations. I am referring, of course, to the environ-
-------
mental pollutants and conditions to which we are continuously ex-
posed on every day of our lives—the chemicals in the water we drink,
the food we eat, and the air we breathe, plus ionizing radiation from
both natural and man-made sources. In essence, we are in the process
of creating a new chemical and physical environment whose health
implications must be explored.
I do not intend to suggest, of course, that our microbiological prob-
lems are solved, once and for all. Indeed, the population growth and
metropolitan expansion which characterize our time serve to aggravate
and complicate the traditional problems of environmental health pro-
tection. Water supply intakes and sewage outfalls are wedged closer
together. Heavier demands are placed upon both sewage treatment
and water purification, as one city draws its water supply chiefly
from another city's wastes.
I do wish to emphasize, however, that in the public health profes-
sions we stand at the microchemical and microphysical frontier.
Beyond this frontier are vast, uncharted areas which can only be ex-
plored through research. We already have enough information to
know, however, that this exploration is urgently necessary.
We know, for example, that highly toxic chemicals are present in
water in low concentrations. None of these additives improves the
water, and some may damage the consumer. Some of these chem-
icals—chlorophenol, for instance—cause taste problems at the almost
incredible dilution of one part per billion. Endrin, a chlorinated
insecticide, kills fish at this level of dilution.
We know that the biological effects of some chemicals in our environ-
ment, and of low-level radiation, may build up over long periods of
time. The hazard to the individual may well be related to the cumu-
lative total of radiation or toxic chemicals received throughout his
lifespan, continuously or intermittently, whether their source be water,
air, food, or any of several others. A substance like lead, for example,
coming from such sources as agricultural sprays and automotive
exhausts, is present in food, water, air, and tobacco.
In short, the effect on human health of the contemporary environ-
ment cannot be neatly packaged in mutually exclusive categories
labelled water pollution, air pollution, radiation, occupational health.
The individual's health is, at root, indivisible. The total environment
has a cumulative impact upon it.
Progress in Pollution Control
This concern with a total environmental impact, primarily chemical
and physical in nature, represents a dramatic change from the Public
Health Service's earliest involvement in water pollution when, in 1913,
a Stream Investigations Center was established at Cincinnati to con-
duct surveys and studies associated with waterborne disease. This
small unit, the humble forebear of the present Robert A. Taft Sanitary
583283 — 61 2 7
-------
Engineering Center, was concerned chiefly with accumulating basic
knowledge on organic pollution. The orientation was strictly
microbiological, and the scale was very small.
By contrast, the present Center is the largest research enterprise of
its kind in the world. Among the recent accomplishments of its team
of physicians, engineers, chemists and other specialists has been the
development of new and extremely sensitive devices to extract and
identify organic compounds in extremely small amounts. As an
illustration, a benzene derivative was found in the Mississippi River
at New Orleans and traced 1,000 miles upstream to its source.
Other developments at the Center include new criteria for using
sand filters in water treatment plants, and a successful pilot project
of a sewage treatment procedure applicable to housing subdivisions
beyond the reach of metropolitan sewer systems. Among the basic
problems now under study are methods of identifying compounds
present in wastes and determining whether or not these compounds
can be successfully assimilated by the treatment plant or the stream.
Other research involves methods of freeing water supplies from viruses
and bacteria, detergents, insecticides, radioactive contaminants, and
other substances which can make water unfit or unsafe.
We recognize, of course, that even this greatly accelerated research
effort is only a beginning. Research must be expanded and diver-
sified many fold, not only in Public Health Service installations but
also at universities and other research centers throughout the land.
Nevertheless, the impressive growth of our Center in Cincinnati is
representative of the increasing scale and diversity of Public Health
Service activities in water pollution control. As most of you know,
the Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 gave strong impetus to the
Service's program in this area by delineating the principle of Federal-
State cooperation and providing for a Federal role of research, tech-
nical assistance, limited authority over interstate waters, and financial
aid. This authority was further extended in 1956, adding the principle
of Federal grants to municipalities to aid in construction of sewage
treatment works.
Without attempting to present a comprehensive summary of our
stewardship, I should like to touch upon a few of the highlights of
pollution control activity in recent years, both within the Service and
across the Nation.
Basic Data
The Public Health Service has initiated a long-range basic data
program which includes: (1) A national network of 75 stream sampling
stations, to be increased eventually to 300, on interstate streams to
measure water quality; (2) Inventories of water, sewage, and indus-
trial waste facilities in the United States, published at regular inter-
vals; (3) Compilation of data on contract awards for water facilities,
8
-------
sewers, and sewage treatment facilities to show progress made in
meeting the Nation's needs; and (4) Economic studies to find ways
of determining what pollution is costing the American people and the
cost-benefits of controlling it.
The national network of water sampling stations is operated by the
Public Health Service in cooperation with local agencies and is supple-
mented by several hundred stations operated by Interstate, State and
local agencies. Collected samples are examined for coliform bacteria,
aquatic organisms, radioactivity including Strontium-90, synthetic
organic chemicals, and for various other substances.
Interstate Enforcement
Where pollution of interstate waters endangers the health or welfare
of persons in a State other than the one in which the pollution origi-
nates, the Surgeon General and the Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare are empowered to take action to abate pollution. Each
step in the procedure is taken only if the previous one has not been
effective. In only one instance, to date, has Federal court action been
necessary. This was at St. Joseph, Missouri, within recent weeks.
Convincing evidence that this is a proper concern of the Federal
Government, and one in which it can act effectively, was furnished
last month when four major cities voted to spend a total of more
than $100 million to comply with water pollution control schedules
established under these enforcement provisions.
Enforcement actions have been taken thus far in 13 interstate
pollution situations. Involved is the abatement of pollution in more
than 4,000 miles of interstate streams. The Public Health Service
estimates that the remedial measures agreed upon will include the
construction of some $500 million worth of waste treatment facilities.
The Service maintains files on some 2,000 interstate pollution
problem areas.
Construction Grants
Probably the best known section of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act is that which authorizes grants to cities to aid in the
construction of sewage treatment plants.
Nationally, a total of 2,483 sewage treatment projects have been
approved for Federal construction grants from 1956 through Novem-
ber 30, 1960. Of these, 1,246 are completed, 717 under construction,
and the rest are awaiting construction. They received grants of $205
million, and the total project costs were $1.2 billion. In single words,
these Federal incentive grants have generated an average of $5 in
local expenditures for every $1 of Federal money granted. The
stimulating effect of the Federal grants is further seen in the better
than 64 percent rise in sewage treatment plant construction since the
-------
grant funds became available. Nevertheless, an enormous amount
of construction remains to be done, especially in the metropolitan
areas where two in every three Americans live. We are far, far
behind in construction. It is estimated we will need to expend $600
million per year for the next eight years merely to catch up.
Program Grants
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act authorizes $3 million a "
year for five years as grants to support State and interstate pollution
control programs. The States are required to pay from one-third to
two-thirds of the costs of these programs. In general, the States have
been able to expand their operations as a result of the grants by
employing additional personnel and installing special laboratory and
field equipment. Some have initiated new research and stream
surveys. Appropriations by the States for water pollution control
activities have risen from $4.2 million (in 1956) to $6.5 million (in
1959) since the program grants became available.
The Public Health Service is proud of its long tradition of close and
effective working relationships with the States. In pollution control,
as in many parallel fields, theirs is the primary legislative responsi-
bility. A first concern of our program is to strengthen their activities
in all possible ways.
These matching program grants are essential in strengthening State
and local programs. They are a fine example of sound State-Federal
partnership.
Training
The Public Health Service offers advanced training for engineers,
chemists and other scientists and technicians from Federal and State
agencies, municipalities, industries, and foreign countries. This
training program, a major portion of which is conducted at the Sani-
tary Engineering Center, is another of the battery of technical services
designed to aid the States and other allied agencies and organizations
in developing their pollution control programs.
Reorganization
The Public Health Service is presently undergoing a major reorgani-
zation, the principal purpose of which is to build strengthened pro-
grams to deal with the two major health challenges of the coining
years—environmental health, and provision of community health
services. When, and if, legislative approval is obtained, the new
Bureau of Environmental Health will take its place beside the three
existing Bureaus of the Service. Already our programs in water, air,
10
-------
radiation and occupational health, all recently raised to Division
status, are operating as a coordinated, mutually supporting unit.
These environmental health components share many aspects in com-
mon, including various research and sampling techniques and method-
ology, and benefit greatly from this combined approach. We con-
sider the expansion of our environmental effort in research, technical
assistance, monitoring and control as an imperative if we are to carry
out our public health mission.
The Shape of the Future
There has been genuine progress in pollution control. There has
been a heightened willingness on the part of the many agencies and
groups concerned to assume their rightful responsibilities. In short,
there is cause for encouragement.
There is not, however, cause for complacency. The condition of
our waters is a national disgrace. It is tragic for the world's richest,
most powerful and most technologically advanced Nation to foul its
own nest, limit its own growth, and threaten the health of its people.
It seems to me that the key word in your deliberations during the
next three days is "balance"—balance in our use of water resources;
balance in environmental health which permits maximum develop-
ment at minimum hazard; balance in the apportionment of responsi-
bilities, distribution of costs, and application of regulations.
Striking these balances and maintaining them are tremendous
challenges. Obviously the most delicate of all will be in the area of
responsibilities in the multilayered, interwoven economic and ad-
ministrative world of today.
Plainly, the most fundamental responsibility of all rests at the
source—with the municipalities and industries concerned. Our
success or failure in pollution control will be proportional to the appli-
cation of control measures by those who discharge wastes to the
waters.
Clearly, too, the States must continue to be keystones of our pollu-
tion control efforts. Historically, legislatively and logically the
strength of the State agency is a major determinant of success in
pollution abatement.
Finally, there is an unmistakable Federal concern and responsibility
derived from the national scope and enormous complexity of the
problem itself—a responsibility for leadership in research and investi-
gation, for contributing to an enlightened awareness on the part of
both the public and the professions involved, for aiding and strength-
ening programs at State and local levels.
11
-------
There are searching questions still be be answered in water pollu-
tion control. Among the many which I hope this Conference will
consider are the following:
1. What are the research areas of most urgent need? What levels
of financial support are needed, and who should provide it?
2. What new parameters do we need in order to obtain a true
picture of water quality in a stream?
3. What shall be our national policy on the utilization of our
streams for waste disposal?
4. How much shall we spend in controlling pollution, and how
should these costs be apportioned? How do these costs compare
with the costs of neglect? The total cost will be great, but so are
the capacities of an active, inventive people.
5. What steps shall be taken, and by whom, when justly apportioned
responsibilities are not met?
I said a little while ago that I have high hopes for this Conference.
They are based on the assumption that we can, collectively as a
mixed enterprise, hammer out hard and realistic answers to these
and other fundamental questions of procedure, priority, and respon-
sibility.
Water pollution control is a national problem of the first magnitude,
both in its relationship to water resources development and in its
involvement with man's health. It is not, however, an insuperable
problem. In a Nation such as ours, we can find enough money;
we can develop enough scientific and technological capability, enough
public concern, and enough mutual confidence and good will to reach
a balanced solution.
The need is apparent. The problem will permit no further delay.
It is my firm conviction that clean waters are indispensable to the
future to which we aspire. It is my hope that all of us, and the
organizations we represent, will dedicate our capabilities and resources
unstintingly to the successful fulfillment of the plans and programs
which this Conference will shape for America's future.
[Editor's Note: After delivering his prepared address to the Conference,
Dr. Burney introduced the Honorable Murray Snyder, Assistant Secretary of
Defense, who presented the Defense Department's Meritorious Award to Mrs.
E. Lee Ozbirn, President of the General Federation of Women's Clubs and a
member of the Conference Steering Committee. The Federation of Women's
Clubs was presented the award for its outstanding work in improving relations
between the civilian community and military installations throughout the
United States and overseas.]
12
-------
A Matter of Survival
ALBERT E. FORSTER
President and Chairman of the Board
Hercules Powder Company, Wilmington, Delaware
It is a privilege for me to be here today. The subject of this Con-
ference brings to mind the eloquent preacher in a great riverport town
who was so impressed with the many-sided importance of his local
stream, "the road that moves", that he wound up a sermon by thanking
the Almighty for directing all big rivers to run through the big cities.
This good man had his priorities misplaced somewhat, but his heart
was certainly in the right place. For he plainly comprehended the
basic importance of a continuous supply of fresh water.
Dr. Burney has said that the objective of this National Conference
on Water Pollution is to reach substantial agreement on a set of
national goals to halt water pollution and to draft specific programs to
achieve the goals.
Perhaps this objective will prove to be too ambitious to achieve
within the three days of this conference. At any rate, we are here
because we recognize that there is a problem, one that must be
solved.
Speaking as a representative of industry, let me remind you that
industry must have a satisfactory supply of water as a simple necessity
for survival. Let me assure you that a great deal of thought and
study has been made on this subject by industry and that some success
has been achieved.
I think our dilemma is best expressed by the distinguished U.S.
Senator Eobert S. Kerr of Oklahoma, in his book, Land, Wood, and
Water, and I quote:
"We can bequeath our children cities of iron and stone and alumi-
num but we had better be sure we give them the water to make them
liveable."
We have to look carefully at what Senator Kerr says to fully realize
the magnitude of his statement.
13
-------
I think we must face up to the question, "Whose responsibility is it
to solve the water pollution problem?"
I submit it's not the responsibility of any one single segment of our
society. It is not the sole responsibility of government, either Federal,
regional or State. It is not the sole responsibility of industry or of
citizen groups operating independently here and there across the land.
The responsibility for solving the water-pollution problem belongs
to each individual American, working in communion with his neighbors
until it becomes one all-consuming national effort. Every American
contributes to the problem simply through the fact of his existence,
and because of his insistance on a high standard of living.
The seriousness of the water situation is the fault of no one group
or organization, yet every one of us is responsible for depleted stocks
and increased requirements. Trying to point the finger of blame
may be easy and tempting but, is utterly of constructive criticism.
We cannot expect our great industrial empire to turn out approxi-
mately $500 billion of gross national product—from aspirin to zwie-
back—without use of water for processing and return of liquid wastes
to these waters with somewhat less than pristine purity. Yet, this
inevitable cycle gives us no excuse for asking, "Do we want jobs or
clean waters?" We want—and can have—both.
How do we assure the water requirements for more and more
aspirin, zwieback and the thousands of products in between to meet
the coming population explosion1—and the insatiable demands of our
people for more of the good things of life?
Recently there was proposed a three-part water management
program in the Pacific Northwest. This was an industry-oriented
program, one which I wholeheartedly endorse because it takes into
full account the equities of all water users. This program would per-
form the following three steps;
1. By areas, the present and future beneficial water uses of an
area would be determined and enunciated. These uses most certainly
would include the disposal of industrial wastes as a legitimate water
use.
And at this point I would like to emphasize the word "area".
Water problems differ sometimes radically from one area to another.
The answer to a problem in Delaware might be totally inadequate
in California. For that reason the first step toward any solution
of water resources problems must begin within the area, whether
it be a municipality, State, or geographic region.
2. Water quality criteria would be established to protect these
uses1—criteria which would allow maximum use and reuse of the waters.
3. A program of monitoring to maintain required standards would
be established and carried out.
This proposed program springs from a self-centered motive'—-the
motive to survive. It is proposed by industry which is facing tre-
14
-------
mendous problems of industrial waste disposal. It is carefully
thought out and it preserves the equities of all concerned.
Let's analyze our three-part water management program, item
by item:
1. Present and future beneficial water uses, determined and
enunciated.
A simple-appearing statement, yet it opens a veritable Pandora's
box of unsolved problems. For instance: The Public Health Service
tells us that 70 percent of the water that falls on the U.S. is returned
each day to the sky by evaporation and transpiration. Of the 30
percent remaining, only one-half or 600 billion gallons per day can be
kept available for use in our lakes and streams. The Public Health
Service predicts that by 1980, now only 19 years away, "our fresh
water needs will be 600 billion gallons per day, equal to the daily
supply." One very important word was omitted from this state-
ment. That word is available. This prediction was made on the
assumption that the present supply of fresh water available for our
use is only that portion now available after run-off, evaporation,
transpiration, and so on.
This statement by the Public Health Service ends with the following
sentence: "It is generally agreed that from now on the Nation's
water needs can best be served by controlling pollution to permit the
repeated reuse of the same water as it flows from city to city and
from industry to industry."
The U.S. Department of Commerce in "Water Use in the United
States, 1900-1975" agrees with the Public Health Service on precipi-
tation and availability figures, but has a difference of opinion as to
recirculation and reuse:
"By recirculation and reuse total requirements for industrial water
could be greatly reduced, but the total consumption would not be
appreciably reduced, because about 80 percent of the total consump-
tion is in irrigation."
We are apt to overlook the tremendous extent to which the reuse
of available water now makes the same million gallons of water serve
many masters. It is estimated that the present reuse of water by
industry approaches 100 percent, and that this may be expected to rise
to 400 percent in the future—that is one gallon of intake water would
be used five times.
This is a technology we are going to hear a lot more about, and we
are also going to have to learn a lot more about.
It is obvious to those of you here today that conservation of water
by dams and reserve stocks along our great rivers will assist materially
in the near future both for supply and pollution control. I think it is
also obvious that the de-salting of sea water on a cost basis which we
can bear will become a reality before too long. Neither of these
15
-------
factors, however, will obviate the present and future need to reuse the
water we have many times over.
Now, just what is the over-all situation in pollution control, and
how effectively is it being handled today? For this, I refer to a talk
given by C. M. Everts, Director of the Division of Sanitation and
Engineering of the Oregon State Board of Health, at the 1960 annual
meeting of the Water Pollution Control Federation in Philadelphia.
Mr. Everts said:
"Measured by the number of sewage and industrial waste treatment
or disposal facilities placed in operation, as well as improvements !in
water quality, State and interstate agencies are making progress in
the control of pollution. Significant reductions in pollutional loads
have been made in almost every State."
This is a statement of fact by a responsible official who is vitally
concerned with the problem of pollution control. It shows that
progress is being made.
Let's move on to the second item of our three-step program:
2. Water quality criteria established to protect these uses.
Here again a simple-appearing sentence opens another Pandora's
box of unsolved problems. Companies with plants in several States
sometimes must comply with a wide range of control criteria. Some
authorities prefer point of use control; others insist upon point of
discharge control of specific compounds. Many examples could be
cited. Let's examine just one.
For many years the U.S. Public Health Service standards for water
quality have included the figure of 250 parts per million for chlorides.
Some three years ago a review was made of the history of this long-
established control criteria. Questionnaires were sent to a large
number of industrial water users. The literature was studied for
factual background as to the effects of chlorides on drinking water,
corrosion patterns attributable to chlorides on processing equipment,
and so on. Many opinions were offered, some of them completely in
conflict with others. Practically no facts of significance were found.
In desperation three of the top men of the Sanitary Engineering
Center of the Public Health Service in Cincinnati were asked how
and on what basis the 250 parts per million was established. They
agreed there was no basis for this figure except long custom! I should
point out that Water Quality Standards are now being reexamined.
And now for the last item of our three-part program.
3. A monitoring program to maintain required standards. For
our present purpose it seems fair to interpret the term "monitoring"
in its broad sense, to include the power to discipline and control.
A beginning has been made toward comprehensive sampling pro-
grams for some major watersheds and a few of the important tributary
streams. Such efforts should be welcomed and should be extended
16
-------
throughout the country. Of grave concern to industry these days is
the very practical problem of the who and how of control.
In recent years a new control device has been developed. This is
the regional compact in which a number of states join hands for
water pollution control. Only four years ago the Federal Govern-
ment was given control responsibilities in the field of water pollution
abatement for the first time. So here we in industry must take cog-
nizance of three layers of control authority: the State, the region,
and the Federal Government.
It is safe to say that, by and large, industry recognizes that each
of these levels of government must accept its proper share of the
responsibility for supply and control of the Nation's water resources.
But how this control responsibility is delegated and how each govern-
mental layer approaches its task is a matter of vital importance.
Insofar as pollution control is concerned we might give careful con-
sideration to the Engineers Joint Council. In their "Principles of a
Sound National Water Policy" this Council of our major engineering
associations states:
"Pollution of water should be regulated at the lowest governmental,
level adequate for the particular situation. Some will be wholly local,
some at State level, and some at State compact level. Federal juris-
diction and participation should be limited to the administration of
existing laws; to research, investigation, and guidance upon which
sound State laws and local regulations may be based, with as much
uniformity as is consistent under the variable conditions encountered."
At this point, I would like to submit for your consideration a pro-
gram and philosophy I believe must be embraced in order for us to
succeed as a Nation in solving our water resources problem.
My first and most important proposal is that water resources and
pollution control be considered on a State level, with funds, man-
power, and dedication as important as highways and schools.
In too many States, attention has been put to these problems only
when everything else has been budgeted, if indeed any action at all
has been taken. What's left over provides a pitiful amount of money
to engage the services of too few professionals in this field. And the
whole program, small as it is, is stripped of any authority to do any-
thing because the States' lawmakers are so blind to the critical urgency
of it.
In most all of our States, the greatest emphasis, attention, money,
and public support is given to highways and schools. Certainly, better
schools and highways are needed, and undoubtedly more money can
be wisely spent on each of these items. But at the same time, we
must allocate more to water resources if we insist upon continuously
raising our standard of living.
Therefore, I say that each state should have the necessary facilities,
empowered by the necessary laws, and staffed by the best engineers,
17
-------
so that the over-all problem is licked first on the state level and work-
ing closely together with other Sates or interstate agencies on a
regional level. Guiding this development of State and regional
control should and must be the Federal Government, acting very
much as our research and development team in industry does.
From industrial experience I have certain ideas about organization
and methods which have the objective of obtaining the best possible
results at minimum costs. Thus it is that industry has found, cer-
tainly within my own company, that considerable decentralization
of the responsibility for operations brings the maximum of success
at a minimum of cost, while centralization of activities such as re-
search and the "setting of policy" is the most effective method.
Again drawing on my experience in industry, I wonder if in coping
with this national problem of water resources we can't achieve regula-
tion which establishes the objective and holds individuals—municipal-
ities, industries, or even a State—accountable, thus permitting the
greatest opportunities for individual action.
State and interstate control agencies must be able to call upon the
Federal Government for guidance and counsel. A duplication of re-
search effort on the state level would be impossibly costly and futile
of any great achievement, since there are not enough trained per-
sonnel to go around.
Furthermore, the science of sanitary engineering is finding it in-
creasingly difficult using known methods to solve some of the problems
now being faced. New ones are cropping up every year.
Therefore, my second proposal is that a vastly increased research
effort be brought to bear immediately upon the water pollution
problem under the guidance of the Public Health Service, utilizing
to a far greater extent than is now done the research programs being
carried out by industry and private foundations on this common
problem.
Coordinate, I suggest, all of the existing extensive research done on
water pollution, find in that manner where more is needed, and then
organize all of this knowledge and talent so that it may be immediately
available and usable to anyone.
What will it take to carry out this research program? Public Law
660 of 1956 now provides for a broader research program within the
Public Health Service and for greater Federal cooperation on these
areas through research grants, research fellowships, contract research
and training. In addition, it provides for strengthening the broad
research program within the Public Health Service.
This is now being utilized to the extent consistent with appropria-
tions being made under the law by Congress. It is evident that these
are insufficient. Therefore, increased funds should be made available
18
-------
by Congress so that these programs in research can be implemented
at a greater rate.
My third proposal, I sincerely believe, holds the key to success or
failure of our common effort. I said at the start of my talk that the
problem of water management in the United States is the responsibility
of every citizen. Until a majority of our citizens is convinced, first
that a problem does exist, second that we have no choice but to find
a solution—and soon—and third that they must assume their share
of responsibility in the solution, we as a Nation will fall short of the
solution required.
In simple words, I am suggesting that a well planned information
and education program must be launched and carried through to
success if we are to solve our water resources problem.
This program of information and education is another example of
a job too big for any one of us alone. We must establish a common
ground of attack, pool our resources, our available skills and funds
and then move on all fronts at one time to convey in many forms, and
using many media, the vital importance of water conservation.
Government on a Federal, State and municipal level, industry and
the citizenry, must work out together the management and improve-
ment of this resource in order that we may continue to live and grow
and prosper.
The American Water Works Association, through its "Willing
Water" program, has done much to educate the layman in water
supply and treatment. A program of this nature could well be the
nucleus of a broader, thorough, and long-range campaign for education
and enlightenment of the public.
In the last few decades, I submit that industry for the most part has
not only assumed its responsibility in the conservation and safekeeping
of water supplies, but has done so at a faster rate than many munici-
palities so anxious and eager to have industry as a neighbor.
The chemical industry, which I represent, has been outstanding in
its program of water pollution control. In the past year alone, more
than a hundred million dollars has been spent by the chemical industry
of the United States on water pollution control.
Some of it has been done by edict, and I will be the first to admit that
there are now1—and perhaps always will be—those members of the
business community who require the harsh arm of the law to make
them act as good citizens.
I am gratified that most of it has been done voluntarily. The
recalcitrants, like the bad apples in any segment of our society, and
each segment has them, should be treated as the exception to the
rule and not be allowed to blemish the reputation of the majority.
On the other hand, to cite one good example, look at the Kanawha
Valley where industry and the West Virginia Water Resources Com-
19
-------
mission have worked together in developing a plan for control on the
river. This cooperation resulted in the following program:
1. A joint five-man industry advisory committee has been estab-
lished which meets regularly with the Commission.
2. Development of a revised method of plants reporting to the
Commission.
3. Cooperative development of a new and streamlined permit
system.
4. Joint development of data which has allowed the Commission to
promulgate a definite plan of apportioning the assimilative capacity
of the river.
5. Development of a set of curves on the river based on actual data
collected which will allow real control by the Commission.
Certainly this is a real achievement.
I would like to take from my own community of Delaware, which is
the headquarters of my company, another case history to show a
pattern of success that can be recommended.
The mighty Delaware River, one of the first to be explored and
settled in the earliest days of our Nation, supplies the needs of several
major cities and a large segment of the eastern industrial community.
Into it feed a number of lesser rivers which in the course of history
contributed largely to the pollution of the Delaware.
The problems of pollution control and proper management and
development of the Delaware River resulted in the setting up of the
Interstate Commission on the Delaware River, known as InCoDel,
in 1939.
This was a compact between the states of New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, and Delaware. By this compact, the signatory States
have pledged to attempt to correct pollution and prevent future pollu-
tion of the interstate waters of the Delaware. This compact has now
been in operation for about 21 years.
Let us look at the situation today, and for this I refer to the Annual
Report of InCoDel given at their business meeting held in October,
1960.
First, InCoDel has maintained an up-to-date inventory of the
various sources of pollution in the basin. This inventory shows that
about 90 percent of the urban communities served by public sewers
have installed sewage treatment facilities. Similar progress has been
made in regard to the installation of plants for treatment of industrial
wastes.
InCoDel has worked with Corps of Engineers and the Delaware
River Basin Advisory Committee in the formulation of a compre-
hensive survey of the Delaware River Basin. From their report,
they believe that the Army Engineers have developed a physical plan
20
-------
that will, when put into effect, substantially resolve many of the
problems regarding control, development, and utilization of the water
resources of the Delaware River Basin. Plans for 50 years ahead
call for the construction of eleven major reservoirs costing 264 million
dollars.
Here again an interstate agency has been of real assistance in help-
ing to develop an over-all plan for utilization of a river basin, and in
so doing has made effective use of the cooperation of all the various
levels of government as well as industry.
In developing a total approach to adequate water supplies, we must
consider maximum utilization of our flowing streams. No longer
can we afford the economic loss from recurring periods of flood, or
the waste of this water so necessary for implementing dry weather
flows. Regulation of flow throughout the year will provide additional
summertime volume, thus increasing the assimilative capacity of the
stream as well as providing additional volume for use by all.
Such a program for harnessing our streams is one which must
encompass an entire watershed and which would affect several States.
It is therefore, one in which Federal participation must be considered.
In such a national approach to our water resources problem, flood
control, power generation (where feasible with flood control), flow
regulation, and recreational use must be completely correlated for
maximum use consistent with the economic benefits to be derived.
I would like to submit here that the problems awaiting solution
are not just of a technical nature. There are also grave social and
economic implications. Delegates to the annual meeting of the Water
Pollution Control Federation held two months ago in Philadelphia
were told by Robert G. Dunlop, president of the Sun Oil Company,
that:
"While we seek to protect our valuable water resources, let us not
wear blindfolds of cynicism. I would remind you that we have in
America another precious heritage—-the climate of individual free-
dom that has encouraged the development of initiative and resource-
fulness. This is the key that has unlocked the door to our Nation's
treasure chest of natural resources and made them available for the
benefit of our citizens. So, in protecting one precious resource, we
should be careful that we do not sacrifice another. We need to
maintain a proper perspective, based upon the exercise of enlightened
freedom of action. Panic will not help us find a panacea."
That is the end of Mr. Dunlop's statement of philosophy, and I
don't think it can be better said.
To achieve our goals, I believe the following steps are necessary:
1. Full implementation of the state regulatory agencies in man-
power and funds so that the over-all problems of supply and waste
control are fully covered.
21
-------
2. That an adequate program of research be provided, utilizing
existing federal research facilities, outside research organizations,
universities and others so equipped for special investigations.
3. A renewed realization that the administration of State and inter-
state pollution control programs must be basic and remain in the
hands of these agencies.
4. Development of programs for maximum utilization of our rivers.
5. The need for a factual and informative program of public educa-
tion on the absolute need for water management.
6. The Federal Government should be the organization for correla-
tion of such a program.
When such an over-all program has been welded into shape and is
operating fully, we will have taken the long step forward.
And such a step will mean survival!
22
-------
Pollution Is a People Problem
DR. IRA N. GABRIELSON
President, Wildlife Management Institute
Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen: It is a gratifying ex-
perience to take part in this National Conference on Water Pollution.
The large attendance from all parts of the country demonstrates the
intense concern about the vital water resources question that is before
us.
Your presence gives credence to my observation that water pollution
is essentially a problem of people. The Nation's waters are contami-
nated by people for the most part. People are faced with incon-
venience and privation when effective pollution control is delayed.
Their dollars pay for programs that are implemented.
I am hopeful that this assembly also is manifestation of a desire to
make progress in abating water pollution. We all know that pollu-
tion's threat to individual and national well-being no longer can be
tolerated. Pollution has outgrown social and cultural considerations;
its impact now is economic as well.
The purpose of this meeting has aroused considerable speculation
and interpretation. I personally prefer the view expressed by Secre-
tary Arthur S. Flemming when he met with the Conference planning
and advisory committee earlier this year. He said that he wanted
this Conference to reach agreement both on national goals for water
pollution control and on the kinds of programs needed to achieve those
goals. The failure of this Conference to fulfill those objectives, the
Secretary emphasized, would mean that it had been less than a worth-
while meeting. Secretary Flemming reiterated his position on
November 17.
Many of you are engaged professionally with water supply, pollution
control, and health activities of public and private groups. Others
have close and continuous contact through association with water-
orientated programs for allied municipal, industrial, agricultural, and
recreational interests. You are acquainted with most facets of the
583283—61 3 23
-------
pollution problem as it is known today. You are as familiar with the
prevailing statistics of water supply, demand, and disposal as you are
with the diverse philosophies that are brought to bear on programs
advanced for remedial action. You also know that the locus of this
problem is the plain fact that the demands for clean water exceed the
supply in many areas.
Reports that analyze water supply and demand are in general
agreement that little progress is being made in preventing the con-
tamination of ground and surface waters. Case histories are cited
for most parts of the country. Corrective action is not keeping pace
with the problem. We are failing to improve and protect water
supplies from the polluting effects of materials and conditions that
we already have the technology to combat. Comparatively little is
known about the new pollutants which are adding to the problem
daily.
My purpose today is to identify the "public" that is affected by
water pollution and to discuss opportunities for gaining pollution con-
trol objectives in light of present knowledge, experience, and probable
trends. Helpful comments and viewpoints have been solicited from a
number of national membership organizations and they are incor-
porated in this statement.
The public to which casual reference sometimes is made, and whose
viewpoint I was asked to express today, consists of the 182 million
people that inhabit this Nation. It is the sum total of all the people
who use water. It extends from householders to farmers, from indus-
trialists to recreationists, and from city planners to businessmen who
try to accelerate community and State development and advancement.
Regardless of position and affluence we all share a common need for
adequate supplies of uncontaminated water. We benefit from water
that is clean, and we are penalized by that which is dirty. This is
why I say that water pollution is a problem of the people.
Attempts to categorize beneficiaries of clean water in such general
terms as fishermen, picnickers, and nature lovers is, to my mind, as
erroneous as arguments that purport to show that certain interests
would bear inordinate financial burdens should pollution abatement
programs be accelerated to anywhere near the scale held necessary.
The head of the family ends up paying the bill regardless of the
pollution-control philosophy that is followed. He pays it in the form
of extra cents on his shopping bills when the costs of industrial water
treatment facilities are passed on to the consumer. He pays the costs
as taxes which are levied to underwrite municipal, State, and Federal
programs.
The people pay in another way when pollution abatement responsi-
bilities are ignored. They pay by having to live with recurring water
shortages, blighted neighborhoods, impaired health, loss of industrial,
business, and real estate revenues, and sacrifice of social, cultural,
24
-------
and recreational opportunities. When waste treatment belatedly
comes to those many areas where it has been delayed, the people
still are going to be out-of-pocket.
Brief illustrations of how clean water can unite the extremes of
recreation and industry are found in presentations delivered at the
recent annual meeting of the Society of American Foresters. Di-
rector Dewitt Nelson of the California Department of Natural
Resources noted that an intensive study in his State showed that
fully 60 percent of all recreation is water-orientated. Californians
put about 55.6 billion miles on their automobiles during 1960; about
one-third of the total, 17.6 billion miles, was for social and recreation
purposes.
The first question industrial representatives ask in Pennsylvania,
said Maurice H. Goddard, secretary of the State's Department of
Forests and Waters, is: "Can recreational needs of our employees
be met close to home?" The industry looks elsewhere when these
needs cannot be met, and an opportunity for community economic
enhancement is lost. Have you noticed how often water recreation
opportunities are held out both by advertisers of industrial acreage
in Florida and by industries seeking employees to move there?
Some appraisals of the threat of water pollution overlook achieve-
ments that have been and are being made by industry, agriculture,
and local, State, and Federal units. Progress has been made in a
number of important ways. The industrial reuse of water appears
to be increasing. Advanced processes are extracting noxious sub-
stances from effluents, and commercial uses are being found for these
byproducts. Industrial plants are using sewage effluents in their
cooling cycles. Basin-wide soil conservation programs reduce silt
pollution, and some notable research, enforcement, and construction
records have been acheived.
The record shows clearly, however, that these efforts collectively
fall short of the mark. They are too few and too isolated to have
substantial impact. Their over-all contribution to ridding the Nation's
waters of wastes is comparable to an underpowered river boat on
an upstream mission. The helmsman barely can succeed in keeping
the craft headed into the current.
Much more must be done. Research must be accelerated and the
findings applied. Industry should recognize pollution abatement
as a regular operational expense. Clean water requires substantial
expenditures at all levels.
A contributing factor to the present dilemma is the number of
people who persist in viewing watercourses as sewage and waste
disposal channels regardless of the difficulties imposed on others.
Some polluters express reluctance to install costly facilities because
available technology promises less than a complete reduction of the
offensive wastes. They contend that little is gained by reducing the
25
-------
contaminant level by 80 percent if the remaining portion still renders
the watercourse useless.
Fortunately, those points of view are being isolated by a country-
wide tide of understanding and circumstances. The deterrent in 1960
to a forceful attack on water pollution is a clash of philosophies on
how the mission should be accomplished. Few persons continue to
question the national menace of water pollution. It is identified in
the public mind as a serious and widespread threat.
The public now asks two questions. What programs are needed
to combat this menace? When is a reasonable attack going to be
launched?
Inspired, dedicated, and as well equipped as the staff personnel
may be, State programs are hampered by the unwillingness, reluc-
tance, or inability of the legislative bodies to provide necessary ap-
propriations. Funds for State agencies have about tripled in the last
decade, rising from $2.2 million in 1950 to $6.5 million last year.
The average State and jurisdictional investment in 1959 was approxi-
mately $130,000, a grossly inadequate sum. This weakness is further
underscored by the realization that 40 percent of the $6.5 million
was invested by four States. Expenditures by the remaining States
and jurisdictions averaged $80,000, which means that comparatively
few dollars were available for active programs after salaries and
other administrative expenses were met.
The Federal contribution to State programs last year was $2.6
million. Federal funds have comprised between 28.7 and 29.5 percent
of the State's programs during the past three years. The record also
shows that State investments fell off during the years 1953-56 when
Federal assistance was not available.
You are acquainted with the Federal grants program for the con-
struction of waste treatment facilities, I am sure. Its contribution to
the over-all effort is well documented. You know that this program is
stimulating nearly $5 in local expenditures for each $1 invested by the
Federal Government. Grants to more than 2,000 communities have
resulted in the construction of projects estimated to cost in excess of
$1 billion.
Federal grants and assistance programs to the States are not recent
innovations. The first began in the 1870's. Some have been ques-
tioned as to their national character, but most must be consistent with
the desires of the people or else they could not persist.
It is my personal opinion, and one which apparently is held widely,
that the Federal program of grants-in-assistance for the construction
of pollution abatement facilities presently is one of the best approaches
to this national dilemma that is making clean water a scarce resource.
I say best for a number of reasons.
Foremost among these is the interstate character of much of our
water and the dependency of all of us on that resource for individual
26
-------
and national well-being. Federal investment for the protection of
our surface and ground water supplies is fully as vital to our national
life as are expenditures for defense, post office, transportation, and
agriculture, to name a few.
A second reason for my believing that clean water is a sound na-
tional investment is that no other effort in the history of this problem
has made any significant progress in controlling this threat. The
evidence of failure is all about us. It is as close to this hotel as nearby
Rock Creek—a scant half-mile away—which is the nucleus for the
Capital City's world famous park. "Polluted Water" signs confront
the thousands of men, women, and children that take their recreation
there each year. I hope you nonresidents can visit Rock Creek while
you are here, and I suggest you follow the stream to the Potomac
where, for the first time, recent developments hold hope for solid
accomplishment.
Only three States have substantial grants programs for assisting
municipalities in meeting their responsibilities for constructing water
treatment facilities. They are Maine, Maryland, and Vermont. Sev-
eral others—California, Indiana, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio,
Oregon, and Pennsylvania—either have limited revolving loan funds,
guarantee purchase of project bonds, provide assistance for plans,
specifications and estimates, or contribute to project operation and
maintenance expenses.
State leadership towards solving water pollution problems continues
to lag. This failure was one of the motivations for enactment of
Public Law 660. And the dim prospects for any greater participation
appears to be the principal reason for the vigorous support of the
Federal program by State water pollution control administrators and
sanitary engineers.
Several points appear worthy of comment while reviewing past
developments and anticipating what is ahead. Foremost among
these is the conviction that water pollution control has outgrown its
classification as primarily a public health problem. This is due in
part to the efficiency of medical science in freeing Americans from the
threat of infection from water-borne vectors. This conviction has
emerged as a result of the tremendous population expansion and the
parallel increase in the demands for water. Complex social and
economic conflicts have arisen. The threat to health remains, of
course, and may increase unpredictably in magnitude at some future
time.
Pollution now rates full membership in the vexing relationships that
dominate the entire water resources field. Freeing water of con-
taminants and preventing the introduction of additional pollutants
is an overriding water resources challenge of this century. This
technological and construction gap cannot be denied parity with
flood control, storage, navigation, and irrigation.
27
-------
Considerable attention has been and is being given to the ad-
visability of strengthening the Federal water pollution control pro-
gram. This is viewed both as a means of establishing logical Federal
responsibility in this field and as a stimulus for obtaining more State
participation. The suggestions that are being advanced range from
a relatively mild realignment of the present program within the
framework of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to
taking the program out of that agency completely.
Some believe that the program should stay in the HEW Depart-
ment, but that it should be elevated from its subbasement status and
staffed so that its perspective can respond to and reflect the national
interest in water resources. There also is a widely held belief that
the program presently is guided predominately by public health
considerations. Advocates of the elevation-and-strengthening theory
point out that the activity's communication with other agencies in
the water resources field needs improvement.
There is concern about the "Final Keport of the Study Group on
Mission and Organization of the Public Health Service," dated June 7,
1960, which recommends inclusion of the water pollution control
functions in a Division of Water Supply and Pollution in a new Bureau
of Environmental Health. Five of the six divisions of this bureau
would incorporate functions and responsibilities of existing organiza-
tional units. This plan offers no boost for water pollution control.
That activity already has divisional status. Other activities, such as
air pollution and occupational health, which presently have only
branch and program status, would be elevated to divisions. This
recommendation clearly falls short of public expectations. Pollution
control would remain a subbasement activity with a mission that is
primarily directed toward public health. The published public record
makes doubtful congressional acceptance of this report.
The subject certainly will receive attention during the 87th Con-
gress. Water pollution control has been one of the most vigorously
debated natural resource subjects to come before the Congress in
years. The hearings, debates, record votes, and number of proposals
reflect mounting public awareness and concern about this important
subject.
Water pollution was a campaign topic for politicians in many parts
of the country. The number of candidates who took positive stands
on this serious matter is at an alltime high.
Extensive amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act are being readied for introduction in the 87th Congress. These
proposals most likely will include the status of the program within
the Federal establishment, construction grants to municipalities,
program grants to States and interstate agencies, extension and
strengthening of Federal enforcement, and the control of pollution
from Federal installations.
28
-------
In concluding my remarks I want to comment on several points
whose acceptance by all water users would do much to assist in
achieving pollution control objectives. They are:
1. A national system of water quality standards from a health,
recreational, industrial, and aquatic life basis should be developed
and accepted by all units of government. These standards should
be enforced vigorously and uniformly. Damage and loss should not
be required as proof of pollution.
2. All users of water have the responsibility of returning water
with all wastes removed from it that can be achieved up to and includ-
ing ultra-cleansing where required. The national objective should
be to keep pollutants out of streams. The design capacity of treat-
ment systems should be computed for maximum treatment of wastes
independent of the estimated capacity of streams to absorb and
stabilize wastes.
3. Users of water do not have an inherent right to pollute. A desire
for clean water was the foremost viewpoint expressed in communica-
tions from national membership organizations.
4. Public awareness programs should be expanded at all levels.
5. The public should insist that all jurisdictions accept and fulfill
responsibilities to protect the national well-being by keeping surface
and ground waters free of pollutants.
6. Pollution control objectives should be achieved by use of con-
struction grants for waste treatment facilities, tax amortization
incentives, watershed erosion control measures, and strengthened
law enforcement at local, State, and Federal levels.
7. States and municipalities should be encouraged to participate
more fully in water pollution control activities. Federal persuasion
and leadership should be provided to obtain acceptance of local and
State roles where necessary. The Federal Government does have
responsibility for research, enforcement, grants assistance, and other
necessary activities.
8. Federal assistance should be conditioned on guarantees of
stronger State programs and improved participation in pollution
control activities.
29
-------
The Water Pollution Image
M. D. HOLLIS
Assistant Surgeon General, Chief Engineer, Public Health Service
If there is general agreement that water pollution results from
concentrations of people in a progressive dynamic economy, then
certainly it should surprise no one that today this is an involved and
complex problem. This is simply in keeping with the tenor of the
times. A requisite need, perhaps, is to break down barriers of provin-
cialism, the prejudices of proprietary interests, and varieties of narrow
traditional points of view, too commonly shared by so many.
Kcpresentative at this assemblage, for instance, is an amalgamation
of water pollution interests. This certainly is proper and is indeed
as it should be. Some of these interests have long been known to
coexist with something less than brotherly love. Interwoven in this
problem are sources of friction—ingredients for dissatisfactions.
But as citizens all, there is reason to believe that among this group
there is something approaching a common denominator of basic
concerns and aspirations, even though at times it seems a bit remote.
What is now important is to see if this national conference can
stimulate something beyond a cool air of coexistence; to see if there
can be a modification of the spirit of competing interest, of conflicting
interest—to something more akin to a spirit of allied interest, of com-
mon goals, and common objectives. This is needed to remove the
feeling of incompatibility between the reasonable protection of the
Nation's waters and the obvious necessary use of these same waters
for the final disposal of liquid wastes.
If such differences can be resolved, the result should contribute
significantly to a long overdue, much needed, clear "mission for the
Sixties." Certainly such an objective is important, and it is timely
on this eve of a new year and on this eve of a new decade.
The Problem
The first consideration is to ask why there is a pollution problem.
For simplicity, this is discussed on a national composite basis. A re-
30
-------
minder is that for any given watershed and for the Nation as a whole,
average surface water supplies are constant. So much water falls
on the earth. Here it divides among ground storage, evaporation,
transpiration, runoff to streams, and finally discharges to the oceans.
Land use practices alter runoff patterns. Impoundments modify
rates of downstream flow. In the water cycle, these are significant
influences, but they do not change over-all quantities.
The situation in 1900 is first considered. Urban population was
30 million. The population using surface water supplies was two
million. Treatment provided was settling and filtration. Sewered
population was 25 million, but there was practically no treatment.
Wildlife and recreational values were relatively unimpaired.
By 1920, urban population had increased to 54 million, and those
using surface water supplies, to 20 million. Coagulation and chlorina-
tion were added to water treatment practice. The sewered popula-
tion increased to 50 million, 10 million of which were provided some
crude treatment. Rumblings were heard about localized pollutional
nuisances—about wildlife and recreational impairments.
By 1940, the urban population was 80 million. At that time 40
million people used surface streams for drinking water. Water treat-
ment was improved. The sewered population was 70 million with
about half providing sewage treatment. Secondary treatment became
more common. Chlorination of sewage effluents was added in some
cases. However, the total stream flow remains essentially constant.
Localized pollution was more pronounced and extended. Resort areas
were affected. Progressive deterioration of streams became a recog-
nizable factor, public indignation increased.
A pause at 1940 is in order. What is this pollution from city sewers
and from industrial operations, and what are its impacts?
1. Biological contaminants. These are living organisms, germs of
all types, including those with the deadly potential of causing out-
breaks and epidemics of human diseases. This is a continuing public
health concern. The source is mainly household waste; more spe-
cifically, human sewage. With dilution and time, harmful germs
ultimately die off in the stream. Chlorination of sewage effluents
reduces the numbers of living organisms.
2. Organic contaminants. These are composed of unstable material
that utilizes dissolved oxygen in the stream in the natural process of
stabilization. The dissolved oxygen supports the type of bacteria
needed to consume the organic matter. Thus, streams have the
ability to cleanse themselves of organic pollution, if such loadings are
not too heavy. Below points of such pollution the oxygen in the
stream is used up, generally much faster than it is replaced. Within
limits, and with time, the stream recovers from the shock of such
pollution. On the other hand, if overloaded, the dissolved oxygen in
31
-------
the stream is depleted; fish die, the aquatic balance is upset, and the
stream becomes literally a sewer and a cesspool. In a sense, it be-
comes useless water. The source of organic pollution is largely cities
and industries.
3. Inorganic pollution. These are acids, alkalies, and salts from
mining operations, oil fields, metal plating, and a host of other indus-
trial and commercial pursuits. Such pollution is persistent, and
where excessive, degrades stream usage. Dilution modified the effects.
As to 1960, World War II gave great impetus to metropolitan and
industrial growth. Urban population is now 126 million—up 55 per-
cent over 1940. The population depending on surface streams for
drinking water is 100 million—up 150 percent over 1940. The sewered
population is 105 million, with 80 million subject to varying degrees of
waste treatment.
Effects of the War
Prior to 1940, there was a somewhat orderly transition from a rural
to an industrial economy. Cities were still separate entities, gen-
erally with appreciable distances between shocks of pollution. Indus-
tries were in or near cities. Pollution, for the most part, was natural
organic materials with concentrations of biological contaminants. Im-
provements in water treatment and extension of waste treatment kept
the scales reasonably in balance. Excessive pollution, where it oc-
curred, was still largely localized and over short stretches of streams.
Since 1940, three major influences aggravate the pollution situation.
All three are World War II related:
1. There was a fantasticaUy increased tempo in the transition to
metropolitan and industrial development—the formation of gigantic
metropolitan complexes extending hundreds of miles generally follow-
ing major watercourses. Industries go where there is water and
populations build up where there is industry.
2. There was practically no construction of municipal or industrial
waste treatment works over the period 1940 to 1947. Men and ma-
terials were needed for the war effort.
3. The avalanche of technological progress brought with it a whole
array of new-type contaminants, such as synthetic chemicals and
radioactive wastes. Production and use of such materials continue
upward at substantial rates.
Future Trends
By 1980 the urban population will be in the 200-million range.
The population depending on surface streams for drinking water will
be about 165 million. The sewered population will be at 200 million.
It is assumed that all waste will be treated. Average stream flows
32
-------
will be the same. For most streams the waves of pollution shocks
will become somewhat additive; there will be little time for the stream
to recover between such shocks. Distances between waste outfalls
and water intakes will be wedged closer and closer together. Hundreds
of new type, more persistent pollutants will further complicate the
situation.
The pollution image will broaden and likely it will darken. At the
same time, water needs will spiral upward toward astronomical figures.
Repeated reuse of waters will become the rule, not the exception.
Three-fourths of the 1980 population will live in metropolitan areas.
Six-time reuse of the same water must be anticipated. What then
will water quality be like? What will the stream environment be
like? What about recreational and aquatic values? These are
pertinent questions.
This representation of composite stream and urban development
obviously is an oversimplification. For one thing, it does not include
the industrial waste picture. Accurate data simply are not available,
but industrial growth since 1940 has been much more phenomenal
even than metropolitan growth. Further, there are wide variations
between streams as to the type and extent of pollution as well as
stream usage and needs.
In the past there has been heavy dependence on dilution water—
"solution by dilution." What about supplementing streamflows?
There is general agreement that, as a continental unit, the Nation
actually has enough water. The problem is one of poor distribution,
both geographically and seasonally. Within a given watershed,
impoundments can do much to even out floodflows, but there are
practical limits.
How feasible is it to redistribute water between watersheds? The
more realistic method is the laborious one of transporting water on
the ground. On this, intriguing possibilities come to mind. Envision
an interlacing interbasin network of canals and conduits fed by surplus
floodwaters from major rivers and, even more enticing, fed by waters
from the Great Lakes. In terms of engineering feasibility, cheap
power would be the key.
But before becoming too ecstatic in nights of fancy, practical, legal,
and political realities must be reckoned with. Diversions of waters
from natural watersheds introduce fundamental questions of eco-
nomics, basic water law, water doctrines, and ownership of water.
Already, there are innumerable examples of these conflicts where such
diversion is practiced or proposed.
The conversion of sea water has intrigued scientists over the ages.
While striking progress is being made, the practical economics of
desalting and the major logistics of transportation, place this means
of augmentation at some distant future and with limited application.
33
-------
This is certainly true in terms of inland areas and general water needs,
such as more water for dilution of waste.
The science of weather modification, to supplement rainfall by
artificial means, has been suggested. Without debating the pros and
cons, the practical application of this science as a substantial adjuster
is a long way off.
Accordingly, for the predictable future, reality seems to dictate,
for the most part, the necessity for using what is now at hand, basin
by basin; that completion of the network of impoundments to even
out floodflows be accomplished; that work be done toward the more
equitable use of water; and finally, that the most reasonable method
of "providing" more water is to "save" more water. And the best
way to save water is to avoid excessive pollution of streams. There is
always a return to the basic necessity of effective treatment of sewage
and waste as a practical means to reduce pollution, and to preserve
water quality for repeated reuse as streams flow from headwaters to
the oceans.
Actual Status Today
Now, what is the status today? A hundred million people depend
on surface streams for drinking water; 105 million are connected to
sewers discharging essentially to these same streams; industrial growth
is accelerating; aquatic recreation is in higher demand.
Remember that waste treatment is partial treatment-—not purifica-
tion. Treatment is designed to condition the waste, and reduce its
pollutional shock, with the stream completing the job. For most
areas, this concept is still workable and will so remain for the predict-
able future. Economically this is important, because costs are quite
high for advanced stages of treatment. On the other hand, in some
areas, the composite residual loadings after treatment are already
overtaxing stream capabilities. This situation will become common
in the years ahead. Improved treatment will be needed. This is
one of the several new situations that must be faced as progress is
made toward the bright new world.
Public Health Aspects
Now, what about the public health implications of the changing
pollution picture? In man's contemporary environment, contami-
nants in air, water, and food are becoming somewhat interrelated in
their impact on health. Earlier in the century public health practice
focused on the microbiological factors causing diseases in man. With
respect to water supply and sewage disposal, attention was directed,
and properly so, to the problem of controlling germ diseases, largely
enteric infections. This effort has been brilliantly successful—water-
borne epidemics and outbreaks have been virtually eliminated. Com-
municable diseases continue to be a plague; problems will be aggravated
34
-------
with population concentrations. The safety factor grows correspond-
ingly thinner. But it should not be too difficult to strengthen the
protective barriers. Deficiencies in handling biological contaminants
will be due largely to shortage of vision and to apathy, not to lack of
scientific know-how with time-tested practical application. The
problem of viruses does represent an exception.
The postwar focus of public health has broadened to include major
attention to the chronic impairments of man—to changing environ-
mental stresses. Fair has stated,". . . there is a significant difference
between the environmental stresses of the nineteenth century and
those of today; those of a century ago were allied principally to
microbiological factors; those of today have their source in micro-
chemical substances."
New Contaminants
Today metropolitan and industrial wastes are huge in volume and
include increasing amounts of new-type synthetic chemical contami-
nants. Most of these wastes were practically nonexistent in 1940.
Now they are present in concentrations up to 0.5 mg/1 in several
major streams. These synthetic organics do not break down like
natural organics, are persistent over long periods, and, to a large
extent, are not removed either by sewage treatment or by normal
water purification practices. There is much to learn about the
behavior of these new contaminants in streams; their relationship to
natural stream purification phenomena; and their long-range subtle
effects on public health, on aquatic life, and on municipal and industrial
water supplies. They add the question of toxicity to the age-old
problems of typhoid fever and similar diseases.
The buildup of these complex conglomerates in streams and even
their low-level existence in drinking water in itself is no basis for alarm.
But certainly it must be learned what these materials are and how to
measure them. More must be learned about the long-range chronic
effects, about combinations, and about synergistic potentials. Kadio-
active waste is another contaminant introducing new problems, new
dimensions, and new headaches.
This aspect of the pollution situation is characterized more by what
is not known than by what is known. This is not the type of problem
that should be "swept under the rug" and forgotten. It needs to be in
the open and it needs to be worked on. For when trends are projected
for a decade or two, this aspect of pollution does have sobering
implications and creates a real sense of urgency for research action
now. The public health aspect of water pollution again moves front
and center.
Contaminants from Runoff
In a word, sewered waste today is a vastly complicated material,
compared to what it was before 1940. This points up the second of
35
-------
the new situations. Another contributing factor, as yet undiagnosed,
is the impact on stream usage of nonsewered contaminants; for
example, the residue from some 500 million pounds of synthetic
pesticides produced annually for agricultural practice.
This is an era of accelerating change, with increasing tempos
affecting almost every facet of daily living. Pollution control in the
past has been largely corrective. In the future it must be preventive.
Kemedial measures must replace corrective actions. The tenor of the
times and the complexity of the problem simply outmode the philoso-
phy of postponement. The present so soon becomes the past that
continually, from here on, work must be done with a critical eye to the
future.
When 1980 or 1990 is considered, no longer is it some dim future
that the next generation might worry about. On water pollution
the need for clear concepts and principles, for stepped-up research
and bold action cannot be postponed. This need is not tomorrow—it
is today. Perhaps even it was yesterday.
Recreation and Aquatic Life
With respect to recreation and aquatic life, pollution has pro-
gressively degraded these values in most areas of the Nation. Degra-
dation runs the gamut, ranging from impairment of natural values,
to destruction of fishfood chains, to periodic fish kills, and to extinction
of beneficial aquatic life. By way of exception, there are excellent
examples, such as the Schuylkill River in Pennsylvania, where degrada-
tion has been reversed and a desirable natural balance restored. The
favorable economics of this action is a matter of record.
There is certainly little doubt of increasing public demand for
preservation and recreational use of water resources. One need only
review the statistics on boating equipment, aquatic sports, fishing, and
hunting paraphernalia to be convinced, both of public attitude and
measurable economic potentials.
But now a caution—it must be remembered that increased leisure
time and high standard of living, which enable Americans to enjoy
these recreational pursuits, have their roots deep in the industrial-
technological economy. The byproduct liquid wastes from man and
machines and runoff drainage ultimately must be discharged to streams.
Accommodation of this reality in many congested areas will limit the
practical extent that all natural values can be preserved.
It must be recognized that to enjoy the great advantages of modern
technology there must be acceptance of some of the consequences.
Pollution is one of these. But the pollution impact from human
activity in these areas of "wall-to-wall" people can be moderated—-
and it must be moderated. How clean and pure the attempt is made
to maintain streams is a matter of economics and realities, and of
36
-------
values both tangible and intangible. If the objective is pristine
purity for purity sake, it is easy to "price" the public out of progress.
On the other hand, if the objective is solely the dollar sign, continually
to undercut the necessary cost of controls, it is easy to "prosper" the
public out of critically essential water resources. Between these
extremes come the tough hard choices.
How Far?
To say it costs too much to prevent excessive pollution is just plain
nonsense. But there is needed a clear understanding and a clear
definition of "excessive." Obviously, pollution must be kept below
the levels of significant personal health damage. It should be kept
within bounds that do not destroy recreational and wildlife values.
It is desirable to keep pollution within bounds which preserve the
natural stream habitat. For every stream, each of these levels has
its corresponding price tag—and it is sure that the cleaner and purer,
the higher the cost. And present cost will move upward where there
are ill-advised, indiscriminate watershed developments.
In other words, while there are limits to what can be accepted as
technological progress, there are also limits to how far such progress
must, or will, yield to desirable but less than critical aspirations. The
difficulty always lies in identifying limits. Certainly these cannot be
generalized; necessarily they will vary, from area to area, and from
stream to stream, depending on the state of development and other
realities. This emphasizes the need for development of truly compre-
hensive water use programs—basin by basin—with some means of
assuring strict adherence to the agreed-upon plans and objectives.
With a few exceptions, this is not now in existence.
Need for Reality
Water pollution is an involved, complex, economic, technical, and
political issue. It must be dealt with in terms of realities of the times.
Metropolitan growth and technological advances are predominant
influences. Volumes of waste spiral upward-—the composite types
and character of wastes are becoming more complex and more difficult
to handle. Water needs and stream usage are increasing at un-
precedented rates. Average stream flows remain essentially constant.
This is a vicious cycle—more men and machines demanding more
water to produce more pollution to degrade these same waters.
Specific remedial actions should be based on specific cases. Simple
generalizations are to be avoided, except as a reflection of the pollution
image. Otherwise there are warped answers, unbalanced equations,
and a great deal of frustration.
For example, if runoff waters were uniformly spread throughout the
streams of the Nation and if polluting wastes were similarly ap-
37
-------
portioned, there would be no major pollution problem and no major
water use problem. But this is not the situation.
Today, while water pollution varies widely in different areas, it is
being held generally within livable limits. But there is a tough job
ahead—and a continuing one. The annual rate of constructing
municipal sewage treatment works has now about doubled over the
1950 to 1955 average. Much of this construction has been in con-
gested areas such as the Ohio Valley, the Delaware Valley, and coastal
tributaries. There are innumerable examples where sewage treat-
ment works of recent vintage have improved the oxygen conditions
below metropolitan centers and where bacterial pollution (as measured
by B. coli) has been notably reduced. This is real progress—it
literally has averted cesspool conditions in these areas. Industries,
too, have done a great deal in an effort to keep up with the fantastic
growth rate of production. But even as these actions are taken, the
growth pattern continues.
Present and Future Needs
In these times it is necessary to run faster and faster to stay in the
same place. Annual construction should be $600 million—up 50 per-
cent over the current rate—to take care of the backlog, the increasing
sewered population, and obsolescence. The latter will increase sub-
stantially in the Sixties. Assuming the industrial waste load as equal
that of municipalities—and certainly it is no less—this means a con-
struction rate of more than a billion dollars per year on into the future.
There is no substitute—it must be faced.
Actually, is this situation substantially different from the growing
needs for highways, for schools, for hospitals, and other public works?
Isn't this the price range that should be expected in this accelerating
technological society? Should not the public be willing to bear the
reasonable cost of municipal and industrial waste treatment, through
some suitable mechanisms, as the price to preserve streams?
In many areas, the question of "willingness" becomes somewhat
academic. More treatment will be essential to protect drinking water
and to preserve some semblance of wildlife and recreational values.
For decades far too little of the public works dollar has been appor-
tioned for sewage treatment. There has been much argument about
the pollution image, but much less done to balance the scales.
Again, it must be kept in mind that present construction provides
for partial treatment, a sort of "cosmetic" treatment to eliminate
unsightliness—to reduce the more acute effect of pollution shock
below points of discharge. By way of example, compare municipal
pollutional discharges of 1960 with 1940. Sewered population is up
50 percent in 1960 over 1940 (from 70 to 105 million). At present,
25 million discharge sewage with no treatment, compared with 30
38
-------
million in 1940. A composite of the Nation's sewage treatment plants
(in 1940 and 1960) reduces organic pollution by about 50 percent.
Accordingly, in 1960 there is 30 percent more organic pollution
load on waters than in 1940. Projecting this simple arithmetic to
1980, at present trends, the organic pollution load will be up another
55 percent over 1960, or 100 percent over 1940. Kemember that
this is just municipal waste, does not include industrial waste, nor do
they include synthetics or radioactive waste. This example is cited
to emphasize that this discussion is not about eradicating pollution;
it is about confining it—limiting its impact on legitimate stream usage.
Summary
In summary, at least five factors need to be underscored:
1. There is less and less justification for any city or industry to
discharge untreated sewage and waste to the waters of the United
States, especially the inland waters.
2. For most cities and industries, the treatment requirements will
shade upward from primary treatment (35 to 50 percent reduction in
organic pollution) to at least secondary treatment (75 to 90 percent
reduction in organic pollution). Chlorination to reduce bacterial
pollution will become the rule in many areas.
3. It is important to accelerate promptly the rate of constructing
treatment works to the level required to erase backlog and to keep
up with growing needs and obsolescence.
4. A substantial program of research with three primary objectives
is needed;
(a) To assess the public health significance of the growing array of
new-type contaminants;
(b) To develop practical methods for measuring and removing
dissolved pollutants—for application where wastes have serious toxic
potentials;
(c) To develop practical supplemental treatment methods to
stabilize further the effluents from conventional treatment. This is
for application in those areas where stream use justifies almost com-
pletely stabilized organic discharges.
5. Considering pollution from all sources, there is real need to
update the national system of monitoring streams. Actually, this
is the only practical way to maintain a check on existing conditions
and trends in stream quality.
In these five items there is nothing inconsistent with formal positions
taken by numerous national groups interested in water pollution.
Further, as to immediate treatment needs for specific cities and
industries, for the most part these have been set forth by responsible
State and interstate water pollution control agencies.
5832S3—Gl 4 39
-------
The real problem is to gear-up implementing actions in phase with
the swift moving trends of the times. A great deal is now being done,
but certainly not enough. Financing obviously is the key, to provide
resources for intelligent action by official agencies and to provide for
constructing waste treatment works. The difficulty is to "catch up"
with treatment needs; after that, to "keep up" should be less involved.
In water pollution all have much in common and much at stake.
Water pollution control is now big business—it's important business
and it's urgent business. On a tonnage basis, waste treatment is,
by far, the biggest business in the United States. In far too many
areas it has been a neglected business. The only way to control
pollution is to treat wastes, and this costs money—lots of money.
With few exceptions, this money is not willingly spent. Hence,
public understanding is essential and this must be backed up by
effective regulatory controls. Just where the authorities are placed,
the extent, and how they are applied, raise basic questions of public
policy. Methods of financing essential treatment works, of support-
ing necessary research and development, are also public policy issues.
Again, this points up the great need for public understanding and
public awareness. This is a challenge and an opportunity to speak
out on the pollution situation. The objective should be to alert,
not alarm—to clarify, not confuse. As progress is made, Mr. Citizen
should be kept in mind, because so much depends on what he thinks,
and wants, and is willing to pay for.
40
-------
Banquet
Monday, December 12
Presiding, DR. LEROY E. BURNEY
Surgeon General
Master of Ceremonies, JOHN CHARLES DALY
Member, Water Pollution Control Advisory Board
The Legislator Looks at Water
Resources and Water Pollution Control
Senator Robert S. Kerr, of Oklahoma, Chairman of the
Senate Select Committee on National Water Resources
[Excerpts]
We must no longer endanger the national health or survival by
permitting a price tag to prevent action. We must do what is re-
quired. I believe this will be the attitude of the new Congress and the
new Administration.
The time for just talk has long since passed, and I am sure that
everybody here is fully aware of that. Vigorous action at every level
of government has long been an urgent necessity, and becomes more
so daily. But, for whatever reason this Conference was called, it can,
and will, accomplish something real, by spurring the necessary action.
We in Congress need your support to get this job done. Why isn't
this the time and place to start an organized campaign?
On the opening day of the 87th Congress I will introduce another
pollution bill with the added feature of a stepped-up program of
research.
Thus far, research has been so inadequate that the question of
pollution elements, not yet identified, may be as serious as the problem
of neutralizing and handling the pollution already known to exist.
Therefore, greater research is an absolute necessity, not as a vehicle for
passing the buck, or as a justification for delay. It is a necessity as
a means to find ways to better abate pollution, and to do it more
rapidly at less cost.
I quote "conservative sanitary authorities" who say that $600
million annually for the next 8 years is the minimum required for the
construction of disposal facilities of human sewage alone. Added to
41
-------
this is the cost of handling industrial and natural pollution, plus the
maintenance of a steady flow of water for waste dilution.
[EDITOR'S NOTE.—Senator Kerr has introduced the new legislation which in-
cludes an increase from $50 million to $75 million annually for the Federal match-
ing funds to help construct municipal sewage disposal plants. The ten-year
total authorization would be $750 million.]
The problem of water pollution, like that of municipal water, is
primarily a local responsibility. Both Federal and State governments
must provide leadership and assistance. At the Federal level, I intend
to do all I can to help pass the necessary legislation to provide both
incentive and enforcement.
[EDITOR'S NOTE.—Senator Kerr, pointing out the need to dramatize the menace
of water pollution, suggested facetiously a "mermaid with a broom" as a popular
symbol necessary to awaken the Nation to the need to clean up its streams. Such
a symbol, he said, would do what Smokey Bear and the Litterbug label have done
to alert the public to the need to combat forest fires and to prevent littering of
streets and highways.]
Senator Francis Case, of South Dakota, Ranking Minority
Member of the Senate Public Works Committee
[Excerpts]
In addition to the millions of cubic miles of ocean water, how much
more salt and otherwise minerally polluted water exists in under-
ground pools and streams, I lack the imagination to estimate. But
our knowledge of artesian supplies and shallow wells that are heavily
saline in character indicates that a tremendous reserve does exist
when man achieves the conquest of desalination and demineralization.
We are at work on this job. In 1952 Congress passed a bill which
authorized a program of research contracts with private and public
institutions in the desalination of water. It attracted little general
attention at the time. We had difficulty getting appropriations. I
recall once, when a Boston scientist was being badgered by questions
as to what he would do with the money, he asked: "If I knew what
we would find out," he replied, "we wouldn't need the research."
But we did get some funds and in 1953 research contracts were
made with some of the organizations or institutions which had shown
some interest in the field.
First thoughts were of sea water because of its abundance. Cali-
fornia Congressmen Fletcher, McDonough, Phillips, and Engle, the
latter now Senator, had all pushed bills on the subject in the House.
Senators Anderson of New Mexico, O'Mahoney of Wyoming, Cordon
of Oregon, Hayden of Arizona, Wiley of Wisconsin, and Johnson of
Texas, were among those most active in the Senate. My special
interest stemmed from a fairly intimate acquaintance with alkali
42
-------
water and its brackish cousins in the arid and semiarid regions of the
West.
The initial program was organized in the Interior Department by
David Jenkins of Ohio. Subsequently, Secretary Seaton created a
full-fledged Office of Saline Waters and placed former Nebraska Con-
gressman Dr. A. L. Miller in charge. His professional knowledge
and energetic direction have done much to bring the program to where
it now is—-one of the most promising and constructive activities of
the Federal Government in the whole field of water conservation and
utilization.
Research contracts on various processes have been carried on with
both oceanic and inland waters. In 1955 we extended and expanded
the original authorization. By 1957 a number of processes showed
real promise. Senate committee hearings developed testimony which
supported the belief that results warranted practical, full-size demon-
stration plants. In 1958 Congress passed, and President Eisenhower
approved, a bill to authorize five practical-size demonstration plants—
three to deal with sea water, two to treat inland brackish waters.
This program is now under way. The location and the processes
of each one are revealing as to the nature of this water pollution
problem and the range of solutions.
Plant No. 1 is now 40 percent complete at Freeport, Texas. It
will convert 1,000,000 gallons per day of Gulf waters into potable
drinking water at an estimated cost of 97 cents per thousand gallons.
If increased to a 10 or 15 million gallon capacity, the cost can be cut
in half, it is believed. This plant will use what is known as the
long-tube vertical distillation process.
Plant No. 2 will be at Point Loma, San Diego, California. Ground-
breaking ceremonies are being held December 19, 1960. It, too, will
produce 1,000,000 gallons per day, using water from the Pacific Ocean
in a multiple effect evaporation process.
Plant No. 3 will be at Webster, South Dakota. Contracts for it
have recently been signed and construction will start in the spring.
This plant, using electrodialysis with water passing thru membrane
stacks, will treat waters that are about 2,200 parts per million in
solids. Many towns of the West have a constant battle with such
waters that eat out or clog water pipes and sewer lines with a variety
of effects upon the human system. Its capacity will be 250,000
gallons per day and the cost is expected to be in the vicinity of 50
cents per 1,000 gallons.
Plant No. 4 will be at Roswell, New Mexico. There, water will be
used that has a hardness of 24,000 parts per million. A process
will be used of forced vapor circulation with drop condensation.
Plant No. 5 will be located somewhere on the East Coast of the
United States to work on waters of the Atlantic Ocean. The process
will probably be an adaptation of natural freezing similar to one
43
-------
that has received considerable publicity for use by the new State
of Israel.
Dr. Miller envisions an eventual cost of water recovery by these
methods approximating 30 to 35 cents per thousand gallons. This
can be put along side of an average distribution cost for American
cities of 35 cents as estimated by the American Waterworks
Association.
The contaminated waters of the Potomac river flow into the
Atlantic ocean. And even the longest of rivers winds at last into the sea.
The very processes of distillation and recovery which are being
developed in the saline water program may offer the answer to many
local water pollution problems with which your conference will deal.
And may I remind you that the disposal of atomic wastes probably
carries the ultimate threat in water pollution. Eadioactive raindrops
disturb not only water supplies but milk and growing crops. Even
lead-lined boxes deposited at sea offer cause for concern—especially
since bathysphere divers last summer discovered that fish living at
the bottom of the ocean's deepest trench depend upon oxygen carried
to them by deep-sea currents.
One of the staunchest supporters of the desalination program has
been Senator Anderson, for many years chairman of the Joint Atomic
Energy Commission. His interest springs, in part, from his belief that
what is developed in this program may be important to man's survival
in an atomic age.
This program of desalting or demineralizing the great ultimate
reserves and storehouses of the world's water in the oceans and the
underground reservoirs may seem so vast as to be discouraging, as
are some of the profit-protecting practices employed by industry and
the topsy-grown habits of modern life which pollute our streams.
But progress is being made.
Representative John A. Blatnik, of Minnesota, Chairman of the
Rivers and Harbors Subcommittee of the House Public Works
Committee
[Excerpts]
I plan to introduce extensive amendments to the Water Pollution
Control Act when Congress convenes hi January.
These proposed amendments will call for (a) greater Federal re-
search, (b) expanded Federal enforcement jurisdiction, (c) stepped-up
Federal aid to communities for the construction of waste-treatment
plants, (d) extended Federal grants-in-aid for State pollution control
activities, and (e) the establishment of an independent agency in the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to handle Federal
water pollution programs and activities.
The problem of water pollution has been too long ignored by all
levels of government, by industry, and the public as well. Despite
44
-------
12 years of Federal efforts, the pollution problem is worse than ever,
costing the Nation over a billion dollars a year in lost resources.
Water pollution is no longer primarily a health problem. The con-
trol of pollution is a key aspect of the entire water resource problem.
Effective pollution control is necessary to permit repeated reuse of
water in the coming years when the demand for water will equal and
exceed the available supply.
Industry opposition to Federal pollution control legislation is short-
sighted in view of industry's great need for water. Industry should
cease its opposition to Federal grants to municipalities, especially in
view of industry's support of tax benefits for themselves for the con-
struction of industrial treatment facilities.
Representative William C. Cramer, of Florida, third ranking
minority member of the Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors
of the House Public Works Committee
[EXCERPTS]
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956 is a "step in the
right direction" but I plan to strengthen the Act by introducing
amending legislation in the 87th Congress.
Amendments to the 1956 Act will have four principal objectives:
1. To strengthen State and interstate water pollution control
programs.
2. To make more effective assistance to municipalities in the con-
struction of necessary sewage treatment works.
3. To provide for more effective prevention and control of water
pollution caused by Federal Government installations.
4. To strengthen the role of the Federal Government in abating
pollution of interstate waters.
I intend to introduce legislation which would extend the provision
for Federal grants to State and interstate water pollution control
agencies for administration of their programs.
Legislation which, if passed, would make it possible for several
communities to get individual Federal grants and use these funds in
the construction of a single sewage treatment facility.
I would make all interstate navigable waters and coastal waters
subject to Federal abatement enforcement authority whether or not
there is a showing of interstate pollution if abatement action is re-
quested by a State or municipality with the concurrence of the State,
and I would also authorize the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare to issue final orders in enforcement actions.
Discharges from Federal installations should be subject to adminis-
trative findings and recommendations in Federal water pollution
abatement actions conducted by the Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare.
45
-------
I believe that these proposed amendments will provide an improved
statutory base for the Federal-State water pollution control and abate-
ment program.
With the shift of people from farm to city as the mechanization of
farm operations has reduced the need for farm labor, it is almost trite
to point out that we have become an urban Nation. What is of greater
significance is that we are rapidly becoming a metropolitan Nation.
Between 1950 and 1960, over 85 percent of the net increases in popu-
lation occurred in metropolitan areas, and it is estimated that by the
end of the century, only about five percent, or perhaps 17 million
people out of a total of around 330 million, will live on farms.
With the area from Washington-Norfolk to Boston, Massachusetts,
becoming largely a metropolitan area, it is obvious that even metro-
politan water problems have become interstate problems, as have many
other natural resource problems. This fact has recently given rise
to numerous requests by States for interstate compact ratification
legislation by Congress. Such compacts obviously are essential and
can serve useful purposes in many instances.
Constitutionally the Federal Government's authority has traditional-
ly been mere ratification, thus permitting the States to act under such
interstate compact authority. Recently legislation with the Northeast
Compact Bills, as an example, proposed a drastic deviation from estab-
lished policies by providing for actual voting participation on such
compact commissions by the Federal Government representatives, in-
cluding the right of veto. This involves a very serious State-Federal
relationship as well as constitutional questions which resulted in the
Justice Department's opposing this approach last session.
Concurrently, with this growth of the metropolis, a rapid increase in
personal income and in general living standards has taken place which
has provided people with both far greater leisure time and means
with which to enjoy it. The resulting trek to sun, sand, and sea has
resulted in a boom in my own home State of Florida which today is
not only stimulating private enterprise to provide for all of these
people who seek recreation and relaxation in a benevolent climate,
but has induced efforts to develop new types of industry and com-
merce to provide economic opportunity on a year-round basis for our
tremendous increase in population which this boom has brought about.
But these situations have brought about a most important bearing
on our national water resources picture. Huge quantities of water
of acceptable quality must, in the future, be provided for these areas.
And of even greater significance, the waste products of these great
congregations of people must be properly disposed of in such a way as
not to foul our rivers, lakes and oceans, if they are to continue to
supply not only water for municipal and industrial use, but for the
support of fish and for the creation of environmental factors required
if we are to enjoy our increasing leisure time.
46
-------
PANEL I
Tuesday, December 13
Water Pollution and Our
Changing Times
Effects of Pollution on the National
Health, Welfare, and Economy
Morning Session
Hon. Thomas A. McCann, Presiding
Chairman
HON. THOMAS A. McCANN
Mayor, Fort Worth, Texas
Co-Chairman
DWIGHT F. METZLER
Kansas State Board of Health
Chairman, Conference of State
Sanitary Engineers
Public Health Service
Resource Personnel
J. H. SVORE
W. E. GILBERTSON
J. R. HARLAN
R. S.'GREEN
When I was asked and I accepted the role of chairman of this very
important session of your Conference, I considered it a great honor
both to me and the State of Texas.
YoUr panel will attempt to cover the subject of water pollution and
our changing times and a discussion of the effects of pollution on the
national health, welfare, and economy.
This is your Conference. This is your panel. We want you to take
a part in order that it may be beneficial to us all.
For the past eight years, from my observation and study as mayor
of the city of Fort Worth, as a member of the executive board of the
United States Conference of Mayors, and as a member of the American
Municipal Association, I have been keenly aware of the critical
situation confronting the country in providing an adequate supply of
water.
After becoming a member of the Water Pollution Advisory Board,
my concern has greatly increased.
I am convinced that the proper development of water resources and
the ultimate availability of an adequate supply of good water will
determine the destiny of our Nation and the ultimate survival of our
people.
47
-------
It is estimated that the Federal Government has spent $20 billion
on water projects, that some $6 billion in water projects are now
before the Congress awaiting authorization, and another $6 billion in
projects has been authorized but no funds have been appropriated.
I know of my own knowledge States and hundreds of municipalities
have expended enormous amounts of money for construction of both
public and private water plants and other facilities in the past six
or seven years. In spite of this effort at the Federal and State level
and the municipalities, and including other public and private agencies,
we do not have sufficient water projects to provide the amount of
water of acceptable quality that we will require by 1975.
Therefore, unless something is done and done quickly, the disturbing
fact is that the United States will face a severe water crisis.
Water resources planning must be conducted on a regional or
interstate basis with each of the major river basins as a comprehensive
unit. Kainfall evaporation and transpiration continue in an un-
broken cycle as water works its way slowly to the sea. The constant
movement of surface and ground water disregards city limits and
State boundaries. Economic, political, and legal factors make it
impossible for a State or a municipality to develop a river basin
resource program without the cooperation and participation at all
levels of government.
No single aspect of our water resources program can be solved alone.
Progress will be made only through the cooperation of the municipal,
State, and Federal Governments.
Now, gentlemen, this is the working part of this Conference.
We're going to ask for agreement and disagreement about what is
said here today. Decorum will be the order. And we certainly hope
we have no discord.
48
-------
Assessing the Water Pollution Problem
DWIGHT F. METZLER
Director, Division of Sanitation, Kansas State Board of Health
Chairman, Conference of State Sanitary Engineers
Only historians will be able to tell whether the accurate evaluation
of the water-pollution problem in the decade of the 1960's was more
important to this country than putting a man in space, but I believe
that it is. A good case can be made for assessing the water pollution
problem, for such an evaluation is necessary if the United States is
to live within its water budget. We must not spend more than we
have by unnecessarily wasting this resource through careless discharges
from our soil, our industries, and our cities. To know whether we are
living within our budget, and to make corrections where we are not,
we must have an accurate assessment of the water pollution problem.
This offers the fastest way to increase the net available water supply.
Solving some water pollution problems made 2,100 miles of U.S.
streams available for use during 1956-59 and benefited 21 million
people. Even with these improvements the waters of the Missouri
River are being defiled by raw sewage from Sioux City, St. Joseph,
Kansas City, and St. Louis; the mighty Mississippi is degraded be-
yond tolerance near its mouth; even with modern sewage treatment,
Chicago must fight for increased diversions from Lake Michigan to
keep the Illinois River usable; pollution of the Potomac is a national
disgrace, and miles of ocean beaches are closed to recreation because
of pollution.
The growth in population is contributing to the pollution problem
and to the necessity for waters to be cleaned and reused. This
growth is dramatic for our population has increased 40 percent in the
past 20 years to 180 million people. It is expected to increase a like
amount in the next twenty to 260 million people with a water use
estimated at 600 billion gallons of water per day. Much of this
growth will occur in water-short areas which already practice some
reuse. With water reuse comes increasingly stringent standards for
49
-------
the release of wastes to streams and ground water. We need to
know how badly the streams are polluted; where the pollutants origi-
nate ; how they act when mixed in a stream; their effects on the bene-
ficial uses of water; and the changes which are occurring in the
streams from year to year.
Accurate answers are needed to these questions to guide public
policy in management of the water resource. Krause has said, "The
Nation's health rests on our ability to accurately measure the pulse,
respiration, metabolism, and blood pressure of the great hydraulic
system of this country and translate it into terminology which will
give the public adequate information on our streams and lakes."
The answers are needed not only by cities and industries seeking
sources of new or additional supply, but they are needed by public
officials who are doing long-range water planning, allocating water
rights, and enforcing a water quality program. They are needed by
persons concerned with agricultural development, fisheries, naviga-
tion, recreation, and wildlife.
Even as there is no justification for gross pollution of waters, there
is no need for requiring treatment far in excess of the requirements
for the beneficial uses of the receiving waters. To keep treatment
needs in balance with a reasonable factor of safety requires regular,
continuous charting of the quality of water in each stream. Today
great gaps occur in the knowledge of the conditions of the Nation's
streams.
Indices for Measuring Pollution and Difficulty of Applying Them
The scientific base for measuring bacterial pollution was established
by Pasteur and reinforced by other great bacteriologists of the late
19th and early 20th centuries. With the understanding of the role
of bacteria in the transmission of filth-borne diseases, came their use
as an indicator of pollution. At about the same time, a start was
being made in measuring chemicals in surface waters. To the bac-
terial and chemical yardstick was added oxygen demand and aquatic
plants as measures of pollution—the former as a determinant of
organic matter which uses up oxygen and the latter as they aid in
burning up pollution.
The bacterial yardstick has been expanded to include the viruses
as their role in disease transmission has been better understood. The
laboratory methods for finding viruses are laborious and expensive so
that very little information is available about their occurrence in
sewage effluents and streams. More is needed, particularly in waters
used for recreation and public supply. The survival of the infectious
agents depends upon many factors such as sunlight, temperature,
nutrients in the water, and amount of dilution. All of these factors
must be considered in assessing the water-pollution problem for a
particular stream.
50
-------
The measurement of chemical pollutants has been made infinitely
more complex by our technological development with new products
for the convenience and comfort of Americans. The manufacture of
many of these new products has created new wastes. Most of these
wastes are mixtures of numerous chemical substances which are
difficult to identify and may resist treatment by conventional or
known methods. Others such as nitrogen and phosphorus provide
food for aquatic plants the same as they do for your lawn. They
stimulate the growth of the plants which later die, decay, and give off
taste and odor-producing substances. Any evaluation of present-
day chemical pollution must include data about wastes from the
new organic chemicals such as detergents, insecticides, weed killers,
and a great variety from chemical manufacture. This means then,
that in order to assess the chemical condition of any river, the chemical
determinations must bo tailored to the wastes discharged to the partic-
ular stream system.
The need for measuring a new pollutant—radioactivity—was
signalled in Chicago on a dreary December afternoon in 1942 by the
first sustaining nuclear reaction. This contaminant can be tolerated
only in minute amounts. It is important in soil as well as in water
and its long-term significance cannot be overestimated. Unfortunately
the Federal and State governments were slow to make extensive
measures of radiation as it existed before bomb testing, but some start
has been made toward closing this gap.
What We Know About Present Sources and Levels of Pollution
Natural
In assessing the water pollution problem, some attention must be
given to what we know about sources and levels of mineral and silt
pollution. The levels vary from very soft to highly mineralized waters
and from very clear to extremely turbid streams. When the early
settlers viewed the Missouri River, they observed that it was too thick
to navigate and too thin to cultivate; so some silt pollution has been
occurring long before cultivation accelerated the rate.
Today, in spite of gross organic pollution to the Potomac River, its
most serious pollution problem is siltation.1 Its annual silt load may
be as much as 40 million cubic feet. The Corps of Engineers has
estimated the sediment yield of the Mississippi River at half a billion
tons per year. Perhaps 50 to 75 percent of this erosion can be stopped,
but the cost is estimated at more than $6 billion. The removal of
silt will benefit fishing and recreational uses of streams, but it may
introduce new problems to municipal and industrial water supplies
which are worse than the old, particularly those associated with
1 Wolman and Geyer, "Consultants Report to the Interstate Commission on
the Potomac River Basin", 1958.
51
-------
aquatic plant life and organic pollution. Less turbid water below
the dams across the Missouri River has stimulated the growth of algae
and other taste- and odor-producing organisms, for example.
Pollution from the leaching of natural salts has limited the use of
large quantities of water in the Arkansas and Red River valleys.
Here the solution of natural beds of sodium chloride and gypsum made
the waters so hard and offensive in taste and physiologic action that
Dallas residents bought drinking water in milk cartons rather than
use the city supply during its 1955-56 water shortage. In these
basins the States and the Public Health Service are cooperating in a
program to determine the sources and amounts of "natural" pol-
lution. Preliminary estimates indicate that natural pollution con-
tributes 4,000 tons per day of common salt to the Red River and
13,000 tons per day to the Arkansas River above Tulsa, Oklahoma.
The water which seeps back into the streams from irrigated lands
adds to the pollution problem because it dissolves soluble minerals
from the land and returns to the stream. Some local studies are
being made, but so far as is known, no country-wide evaluation has
been made of the problem. With new lands being brought under
irrigation each year, a full assessment of this source of pollution is
needed.
Man-Made
Administration of the Federal water pollution control act has re-
quired better information on sources of pollution, amounts, location,
and treatment. The States and the Public Health Service have
cooperated in assembling this information. The Conference of State
Sanitary Engineers is working now with the Public Health Service
on an inventory of sources of pollution and treatment which should
provide the most accurate data so far. Existing information is rela-
tively accurate for cities, but it is sketchy for the 25,000 wet industries
with separate waste outlets.
Facts about the size of the municipal waste treatment problem and
construction trends for the past 10 years do much to indicate what
will be required in the years immediately ahead. The tables which
follow show that the cities had difficulty in keeping abreast of increas-
ing amounts of sewage while cutting away at the backlog of untreated
wastes from existing sewers. Industry had even more difficulty
in eliminating the backlog and keeping up with the spiraling
production which reached the $500 billion level for gross national
product.
52
-------
TABLE I.—Sewage Treatment Needs 1960 and 1957 '
Need
Replacements . _ .
Totals . .
Number of plants
19SO
4,209
722
1,745
6,676
19S7
2.851
1,123
1,630
5,604
Population served
(millions)
I960
31.0
3.5
25.7
60.2
19S7
18.7
3.4
25.4
47.5
1 Hollis & McCallum, "The Pollution 'Balance Sheet'—Where Do we Stand"
Oct. 1960.
Wastes Engineering,
In terms of people, 90 percent of the 5,604 communities have less
than 10,000 population. Only 3 percent are cities of more than
50,000, but they contribute 60 percent of the pollution. This group
of about 150 cities includes 29 million people. Seventy-five of these,
with a population of 12 million, do not treat their sewage. Con-
vincing the public to spend for this purpose when many other needs
are making demands upon their financial resources is a major problem.
The 1957 inventory shows raw sewage being discharged from nearly
22 million persons. Over 60 percent of this occurs in the Northeast,
North Atlantic, Ohio, and Southeast river basins. The most work is
needed in these four areas of the United States.
Table II. Municipal Sewage Works Construction 1957-1959 with portion receiving
Federal aid
[In Millions of Dollarsl
Year
1957
1958
1959 - -
Constructed
with aid of
680 funds
119
159
139
Constructed without
Federal assistance
Amount
232
230
210
Percent
69
59
60
Total
351
389
349
Table II shows the portion of municipal sewage treatment projects
receiving assistance in 1957, 1958, and 1959. Note that nearly two-
thirds of the money spent for construction in those three years was
for projects which received no Federal aid. J| While this discussion is
aimed primarily at the physical problems of assessment, funds to
aid only a part of the eligible cities are a deterrent to the construction
of facilities at a rapid rate. A constant tendency is at work to slow
the construction to that rate which can receive Federal aid.
The Korean war and accompanying material shortage slowed
progress in the early 1950's, but there has been a steady acceleration
since. Even then, the deficit represented by the 5,604 cities in Table
I combined with natural obsolescence of existing plants and popu-
53
-------
lation growth will require a higher construction level each year of the
next 10. The figure below shows the construction level needed to
catch up with municipal needs by 1970 as estimated by Hollis and
McCallum:
FIGURE 1
CONSTRUCTION LEVEL NEEDED TO MEET MUNICIPAL
WASTE TREATMENT NEEDS BY 1970
1000
800
-------
vey now under way is expected to provide more accurate information.
On the basis of present information, industry needs are estimated
at 6,000 new projects and a cost of $2 billion, including in-plant
changes. This adds $575 to $600 million per year to the price tag
for municipal sewage treatment—or a total of $1.2 billion per year.
An expenditure of this order should wipe out the backlog and keep
up with the projected expansion.
The size of the problem caused by radioactivity can only be guessed.
Serious contamination may occur from some uranium processing
plants, but the major problem is probably associated with the dis-
posal of high level wastes from nuclear power reactors. This prob-
lem is of such a magnitude that many persons believe it is the major
hurdle to the widespread peaceful use of atomic energy.
Information about the status of waste treatment at Federal installa-
tions is also sketchy. While the impression may not be documented,
many persons believe that the Federal agencies, particularly the mili-
tary establishments, have lagged behind municipal and industrial
practice. This impression has been fostered by experience at such
places as Sioux City, Iowa, where the air base is discharging untreated
sewage adjacent to the city which is under Federal order to treat its
wastes.
Concern about the matter caused the President last May to ask
Secretary Flemming to undertake a program for the cleanup of pollu-
tion at Federal installations. The President said, "The Federal es-
tablishment must take every possible action to make certain that its
own house is in order with reference to the problem of controlling and
preventing stream pollution." A survey is under way to determine
the facts and an early report is expected.
What We Should Do
It is probably small consolation to you that other countries also
have a pollution problem and that they are concerned about it. A
recent account from Russia reports that "fish and vegetation are
perishing. The health of the people is in real danger and all of this
is taking place because the sanitary laws are being violated by too
many administrators". The article goes on to report that fish are
being killed and human health endangered in 225,000 miles of rivers.
The official organ of the Young Communist League in Russia,
Komsomolskaya Pravda, tells of gross pollution of the northern
Donitz River. Industrial production is said to be affected. I
don't know what the Russians plan, but our work is cut out for us.
Assessment of this problem gives convincing evidence that action
is needed, both to get additional data for better understanding of
the problem and for acting on the basis of data we now have. There
is ample basis for concern that the expected population increase and
683283—61 5 55
-------
growing concentration of people in metropolitan areas will worsen
the pollution problem.
The following recommendations are concerned with improving our
knowledge of the problem:
1. Encourage the States to develop water monitoring programs for
bacteriological, biological, chemical, physical, and radiological quality
as they are related to stream flow. This work should be coordinated
with the efforts of an expanded National Water Quality Network.
2. In monitoring programs, every advantage should be taken of
automatic recording instrumentation.
3. Much more information should be collected upon the effects
which changes in waste loadings have upon the actual quality of water
in streams, especially where some of the contaminants resist biological
degradation. More data should be collected on the condition of
streams both before and after pollution abatement.
4. Develop a program to determine the quantity and character-
istics of industrial wastes discharged.
5. Study the problem of return flows from irrigated lands.
On the basis of current knowledge about the pollution problem:
1. The construction of municipal waste treatment facilities should
be expanded to the $600,000,000 per year level at once, with continued
increase to keep up with population growth and to abate old pollution
by 1970.
2. A similar program of expansion should be applied to the wastes of
industry. This can be accomplished by strengthening enforcement
activities of the States with Federal intervention when the States fail
to act; a national program of public education; and a State or Federal
program of grants or subsidies through rapid tax amortization.
3. The data show that some regions are doing a better job of pol-
lution abatement than others. Should some penalty be applied to
the laggards or some incentive to the leaders? Perhaps Federal grants
should be withheld from the communities which have delayed action
until the water pollution control authority issues an order.
4. Each Federal installation should be required by Congress to
treat its wastes in accordance with the standards for cities and in-
dustries in the area with 1964 set as the target date for providing
some treatment at all such places.
56
-------
DISCUSSION
T. M. SCHAD
Stajlf Director
Senate Select Committee on National Water Resources
Mr. Metzler has presented a very clear and concise assessment of
water pollution problems facing the United States as we enter the
decade of the 1960's. He has given emphasis to the physical magnitude
of the task of providing needed waste treatment facilities, and to the
gaps in our knowledge of how to deal with pollution problems. The
recommendations of his paper appear to summarize the existing think-
ing in this field, and it is to be hoped that one of the outcomes of this
Conference will be the development of positive programs for carrying
them out.
Another major aspect of the pollution control problem needs to be
brought out—the requirement of water for dilution of effluent from
sewage and industrial waste treatment plants. Even where treatment
plants provide the highest economically attainable degree of treatment,
there is a need for water to dilute the effluent. Requirements for
dilution can be considered under three principal categories, as men-
tioned by Mr. Metzler. First, where there is incomplete treatment,
dilution water is needed to provide oxygen for biological reduction of
the remaining wastes. Second, as the percentage of treatment in-
creases, the effluent contains increasing amounts of plant nutrients
containing phosphorus and nitrogen. Unless they are removed by
costly methods of treatment, they stimulate the growth of algae,
which, as it decays, demands oxygen for biological reduction which
must be supplied by dilution water. Third, as the persistent chemical
wastes increase in quantity and strength, dilution water is needed to
keep them at low enough concentrations that they will do no harm.
It seems clear that all three of these requirements will increase
along with our industrial civilization. They call for increasing re-
quirements of water for dilution. For example, in England, where
because of more concentrated pollution loading, waste treatment gen-
erally has to be carried on to a higher degree than in this country, a
standard dilution requirement is 8 to 1.
As a part of the studies for the Senate Select Committee on National
Water Eesources, an attempt has been made to project requirements
for dilution water needed to take care of the effluent from the waste
treatment plants that will be needed to handle quantities of waste
expected 20 years from now. This is estimated to be almost double
those of today. A report on the methods used to determine require-
ments for dilution water has been issued by the Committee as its
Committee Print No. 29. The method is rather complicated for dis-
cussion in detail at this meeting, but it provides a basis for making
rough estimates of dilution requirements for the three categories pre-
57
-------
viously mentioned. On the basis of these requirements, it is possible
to develop relationships between the degree of treatment for a given
level of waste, and the amount of storage required to provide water
for dilution during low-flow periods. More work needs to be done
with the method before it can be used for actual design of waste dis-
posal systems. It needs to be checked against actual field conditions.
Standards of tolerance, that is, standards of permissible chemical
pollution and standards of desirable dissolved oxygen content, need to
be developed and agreed to. Further work needs to be done to reach
agreement as to what percentage of the time an excess of pollution
or a deficiency in dissolved oxygen below the normal standards can
be tolerated. For the purposes of the committee's studies it was
assumed that a residual of 4 parts per million of dissolved oxygen
should be maintained as an average one hundred percent of the time.
Using the method developed for the Select Committee, the amount
of river regulation needed to augment low flows to an extent sufficient
to provide the required amount of dilution water can be determined
for various degrees of waste treatment. Generally speaking, the
amount of dilution water required is inversely proportional to the
degree of treatment. For the entire country, it appears that from
200 to over 300 million acre-feet of additional storage would be re-
quired between now and 1980, over and above the approximately
280 million acre-feet in existence in 1954, to meet the needs for water
for dilution and the increases in consumptive use of water that can
be anticipated by that time.
Therefore, in addition to stepping up the rate of construction of
municipal sewage and industrial waste treatment facilities to a level
estimated in Mr. Metzler's paper to aggregate $1.2 billion per
year, additional attention will have to be given to the needs for stor-
age to provide flows for dilution. Studies made for the Select Com-
mittee indicate that the capital cost of the storage program to meet
both consumptive use and dilution requirements may be about $600
million a year between now and 1980, under the most economical
program, which would involve substantially higher annual expendi-
tures for treatment works than $1.2 billion. There are many possible
combinations of degree of treatment and quantity of storage for low
flow regulation, but the essential points to be kept in mind are that
there will be a need for storage for low flow augmentation for dilu-
tion, along with the additional treatment works, and that the cost
of such storage will probably be in the order of magnitude of about
one-third the cost of the waste collection and treatment facilities.
Details on this subject are covered in a report made to the Com-
mittee by Resources for the Future, which is published as Committee
Print No. 32 by the Select Committee.
Mr. Metzler mentioned that there was no need to provide excess
treatment, or treatment in excess of the requirements, for the bene-
58
-------
ficial uses of the receiving waters. I wouldn't want to argue with
this as a logical statement on this subject, but I hope that the fear
of making rivers too clean will never hold back the construction of
treatment facilities. Even if excess capacity is provided, the rate of
growth of the Nation's waste-producing activities is such that they
will soon make full use of any excess facilities that there is any reason-
able possibility of being able to finance and build.
One aspect not specifically mentioned by Mr. Metzler, but which
will need considerable further study, is the problem brought about by
discharge of pollution into estuaries. In the studies for the Select
Committee we were unable to find that very much research had been
done in this field. Studies have been made of the Potomac and the
Delaware, and some of the other tidal estuaries which receive rela-
tively large quantities of sewage, but these studies leave much to be
desired. There is a need for a great deal more work on this problem
to permit adequate standards to be applied for discharge of wastes
into tidal estuaries.
One further type of pollution not previously mentioned but which
will assume increasing importance in the future, is the heat released
into rivers by the use of water for industrial and power plant cooling
purposes. There will be more and more instances of such thermal
pollution as the number of thermal-electric power plants, whether
they be powered by fossil or nuclear fuels, increases along our water-
ways. The principal adverse effect may well be on fish and wildlife,
but the effect of heat on other types of pollution can be very great at
times. Further study is needed to determine effects of heat pollution
and its relation to other types of pollution.
Answers to some of the problems that Mr. Metzler and I have
mentioned here today can be developed through the carrying out of
the studies proposed by Mr. Metzler for increasing our basic knowl-
edge of the pollution abatement problem. I would expand his recom-
mendations by including recommendations for additional research
into the problems of dilution requirements and development of altern-
ative treatment methods. In closing, I would like to mention also
the need for more adequate consideration to be given in the future to
overall problems of water management for all purposes, including
pollution abatement, as part of the planning for comprehensive
development of water resources of the Nation's river basins.
59
-------
Impacts of Pollution on Health
DR. ROBERT A. KEHOE
Director, the Kettering Laboratory of the College of Medicine..
University of Cincinnati
I would like to preface what I have to say by just a few very brief
remarks for your orientation,
I have deliberately chosen to restrict what I am to talk about this
morning to one phase of this subject and to its most difficult problem.
I have done this partly because of the shortage of time. I have done
it also, however, for the purpose of emphasis, and I trust that these
reasons may be apparent as we go along.
This discussion will concern itself with three aspects of the general
subject which seem to be the most pertinent for the purposes of this
Conference, namely, (a) present chemical hazards to human health
associated with community water supplies, (b) similar hazards which
may be anticipated in the foreseeable future, and (c) what is to be
done to eliminate or control these hazards.
Present Hazards of the Pollution of Water With Chemicals
With respect to present threats to the public health, it must be
agreed that there is little factual information on the ill effects of the
pollution of general community water supplies, other than those that
stem from the presence in the water of pathogenic microorganisms
and parasites. Most of the available information about the effects of
the chemicals which may occur in, or find their way into, water
supplies, has come from experience with them in other relationships,
as in industry or in therapeutic or forensic medicine. What is known
about them in connection with drinking or culinary water has been
derived from the experience of individual or small groups here and
there, who have suffered acute illnesses in consequence of the presence
of some uncommon, natural constituent (fluoride, selenium, hydrogen
sulfide), or because of the accidental contamination of the water of
a well or spring or receptacle, through the use of an improper container
60
-------
or pipe line [lead-lined or galvanized (zinc) tanks, lead or cadmium-
coated pipes, glazed or painted surfaces], or from the spillage or
seepage of some foreign chemical into it (gasoline or other organic
liquids in storage). There is virtually no real information for or
against the thesis that the contamination of many of our urban water
supplies with low concentrations of a host of industrial chemicals
constitutes a present danger. -Moreover, there is no reason for
believing that the facts in this regard are likely to be established
soon. There have been very few satisfactory investigations of this
general problem, and there is no general plan for such purposes.
Some years ago, at the behest of the Ohio River Valley Water
Sanitation Commission, members of the staff of the Kettering Labo-
ratory (Department of Preventive Medicine and Industrial Health,
College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati), began a comprehensive
search of the literature for biochemical and toxicological information
on a series of chemicals that appeared to have fairly high priority,
hygienically speaking, among the list of waste products that are
being discharged into the Ohio Eiver. It was anticipated that this
work, in and of itself, would fail to be highly productive, since we had
some knowledge, in advance, of the paucity of knowledge concerning
the effects of the prolonged absorption of small quantities of ingested
chemicals. Toxicologic investigations, except in relation to industrial
hygiene and occupational disease, have not extended into this field
to any important extent. Nevertheless several years of hard work
went into these bibliographic researches and produced a series of
some 28 reports, more impressive for their intent, format, and binding
than for their yield of the desired information. In these reports
are assembled the pertinent data concerning the following metals or
cations-—aluminum, ammonium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper,
iron, manganese, nickel, tin, and zinc; on the following anions-—cya-
nide, chloride, fluoride, sulfate, and thiocyanate; concerning arsenic
both as cation and in the anionic radical; and on the following organic
compounds—meta-, ortho-, and para-cresol, naphthalene, phenol,
and pyrridine.
In order that there may be no misunderstanding as to the relative
importance of these materials in relation to the public health, it should
be pointed out that the likelihood of the presence of some of these
substances in considerable quantity in the river water was a greater
factor in their initial choice for study, than was their potential or
suspected toxic threat. It will be recognized, however, in all likeli-
hood, that, regardless of specific priorities, these elements or radicals
deserved consideration. (May I interject at this point that we ought
to know a little bit more about a number of things and in what form
they are in this and in the other rivers. We undoubtedly have some
representation in the Ohio Eiver of every chemical that is manufac-
tured and handled throughout the eight States through which this
61
-------
stream flows. These can be identified chemically. Their concen-
trations can be determined. And until we know this, this first basic
information, we really don't know the extent of the problem. This
is only the beginning, but even this we do not have to the extent that
would be desirable.) It may be a source of dismay therefore, to
many of those who are concerned with this general problem, some of
whom may have seen these reports, to realize how nearly useless they
are as basis for appraising the significance of most of these substances
as pollutants of drinking water. Only two of the reports contain
information from which sound and durable standards for human
safety and well-being can be and have been recommended. These
are, lead among the anions, and fluoride among the cations. For
these two elements and their common inorganic compounds, we can
adopt standards for water quality that are realistic and can be counted
on to remain so for some time to come. This is true only because
unusual circumstances have brought forth the comprehensive investi-
gations required to produce facts on which sound judgment can be
based.
A very few of the members of the foregoing list—aluminum, iron,
tin, and chloride—may be relegated to low positions, from the aspect
of public hazard, so that the information now available about them
may be accepted as reasonably satisfactory for present toxicologic
purposes (not necessarily for other qualities of water), but the hy-
gienic questions that are being raised about the others cannot be
answered.
It may be useful, at this point in our discussion, to digress a mo-
ment to point out a simple and obvious truth, which strangely, seems
not to be fully appreciated. There seems to be a notion abroad that
the matter of water pollution is an engineering problem; that the
application of good principles of sanitary engineering is all that is
required to solve it. Aside from the remote possiblity that the use
of more or less orthodox methods of treating water will remove cer-
tain classes of contaminants completely just as a matter of course or
of chance, this concept of the role of sanitary engineering is not a little
lacking in realism. One might be blunt and label it as stupid. Cer-
tainly, the engineer will not be guilty of this oversight, for he, of all
persons, must know the virtue of specifications which define what is
to be achieved. Let us all be honest with ourselves. Specifications
for human health and welfare, in relation to the common contami-
nants of many of our sources of water, do not exist, and we shall not
be able to deal effectively with this problem of public health until
they can be formulated on sound physiological facts.
Some idea of the scope of the investigative program and the volume
of information that may be required to provide hygienic standards
for a specific natural constituent or artificial contaminant of water
may be conveyed by inviting your attention to a professional ex-
62
-------
perience which has been shared with variously skilled members of
the staff of the Kettering Laboratory. One item of our work has
concerned itself with the limits of human safety in the absorption of
lead compounds, and in solving this hygienic problem in its relation
to both occupational and community life. For, because of the oc-
currence of lead in food, in beverages including water, and in the air,
and in view of the variable type and severity of occupational expo-
sure to lead, no standard for any one medium, such as the acceptable
concentration of lead in water, or of any one occupational factor,
such as the concentration of respirable lead in the atmosphere, has a
true hygienic validity of its own, except as it takes its proper place
in the entire environmental situation. Our investigations, initiated
without much background or precedent, and conducted on the basis of
trial and error, were wasteful, in retrospect, of both time and money.
Gradually they gathered basic information and direction, and, after
some thirty years of somewhat pedestrian effort, they have found
solutions of some present problems, have revealed others, and have
pointed out certain methods, not necessarily the best or the most ex-
peditious, of attacking some of the future problems. Out of these in-
vestigations, valid standards for the permissible concentrations of
lead in water, food, and the occupational atmosphere can be derived,
and it is anticipated that such a standard for community air can soon
be had. (These studies, which have provided this information perhaps
in not the most efficient manner possible if we were to look back on
it, have cost over a million dollars. I wonder how we get at this in-
formation for the thousand-and-one other chemical elements that exist
in our streams and lakes?)
The foregoing experience represents only one example, in principle,
of the situation with which we are confronted in the field of water
pollution. Other examples, no doubt, will suggest themselves. A
variant issue is furnished by the case of fluoride, in illustration of the
fact that we are concerned here, not solely with the avoidance of
public risk, but also with the achievement of a beneficial effect on
human health and wellbeing. The problem of a suitable water
supply for human consumption must involve the consideration of
what elements or compounds should be contained therein, and in what
concentrations, as well as what should not be present, or, more likely,
what may be permitted to remain within certain limits of concentration.
Before us lies the necessity of acquiring a sound understanding of
the physiological role played by the earth's mineral elements in the
human organism, and then1 optimum as well as their tolerable con-
centrations in the human environment. At the same tune, the host
of chemical compounds which have come into use, together with the
many which are added annually to the list, present a formidable,
indeed a seemingly impossible, task for the medical investigator.
Many of these chemicals, indeed most of them, will find their way
63
-------
into the food we eat and into the ah1 we breathe, as well as into the
water we drink, in traces or in more readily measured quantities.
Note: I have not gone on here to discuss radioactive materials in
water for the simple reason that this is part of the general problem.
It is not different in a number of respects except in one, namely, that
this hazard is at the present time more readily appreciated and is
also the more readily dealt with. Therefore, I have concentrated
on those others which at the present time it seems to me we tend a
bit to forget or to gloss over largely because of our enormous ignorance.
Hazards of Water Pollution in the Future
Our discussion of our present situation has foreshadowed the future,
with respect to the hygienic aspects of water pollution, and with
particular reference to the introduction of new chemicals into the
sources of water supplies. There is some justification or, at least,
some excuse, for a certain tardiness in our detailed investigation of
the physiologic background—the total metabolism in man—of the
natural mineral constituents of the earth. Those, like man himself,
are part of the matter and phenomena of nature. We have had faith
in the good earth, and in this faith we have suffered some of its
insidious buffetings with a lack of concern that has better betokened
our religious forbearance than our scientific acuity.
When, however, one considers the increasing complexity of our
technology, its further extensions, catalyzed by our growing popula-
tion and the necessities of greater and more varied means of providing
food, clothing, shelter and comfort, communications and entertain-
ment, a discerning eye cannot fail to perceive the overwhelming
artificiality of the future human environment. Out of this will come,
inevitably, an enormous growth of the problems of waste disposal.
How can we fail to appreciate the urgency of developing methods
whereby the facts may be learned, and of establishing the facts as
they are needed for our guidance in matters of human health and safety.
Measures for Detection and Control of Hazardous Pollution
In considering what is to be done, it is clear from the foregoing
remarks that the first step is the acquisition of sound information.
(This says nothing about water that is used by domestic animals that
become our food. They are not in the cities where the water has
some chance of being purified. They are out where the water flows
by them.) Let us be quite clear about this. We Americans are
credited with having an undue faith in legislation and regulation; so
much so, that it is alleged that when we have no idea what to do
otherwise, we resort to legislative or administrative gestures, which
have the flavor, at least, of piety. I am not impressed with the fact
that we differ much from other organized national groups in human
64
-------
society. The fact is that man has always adventured far beyond his
knowledge or even his awareness of his ignorance, and has always
expected to be rescued, miraculously, from the consequences of his
daring, or to be more realistic and less complimentary, his foolhardi-
ness. Certainly in the present state of our understanding, and
our ignorance of the threat which our technologic society is imposing
upon itself, there is need to ponder, to plan, and to invest our time, our
skill and our financial resources, in obtaining the basic information
which we require for our own safety. We cannot and we should not
halt our technological developments, until we can learn enough about
their consequences to ensure our safety. (This may seem heresy to
some. I think some realistic consideration of ourselves as a society
and our general behavior will substantiate the essential truth of this.
We shall not stop what we are doing to be safe. In this particular
respect the slogan is not "Safety First." The slogan is "Safety
Afterward.") Even if this were possible—and it is not-—it would be
unwise to attempt it. Rather, we must learn as we go. We must
consider the potential consequences of our technology upon human
health, and investigate such consequences with the same zeal and
sense of necessity that we devote to the appraisal of its commercial
and economic features.
Let me just say another word about this. Common notion has it
that these things can all be investigated in advance of human threat
in the experimental laboratory for experimental animals. This is a
fiction, and we should recognize this fact. We cannot extrapolate
with any degree of certainty or assurance from animal experimenta-
tion to human experience, in consequence of which I say we must
learn as we go. The experimental setup in the community must be
there before we can investigate it. We can throw around it reason-
able safeguards, those which judgment suggests, but we cannot ascer-
tain the facts except by the observance of the human animal within
his experience.
The answer to these problems lies first in physiological, toxicological
and epidemiological research, hand in hand with the development of
specific potential hazards, whereby facts of hygienic significance can
be established on a scale hitherto unapproached. The second step
lies in the preservation, so far as possible, of uncontaminated water
supplies and the regulation of drainage areas, as well as the disposal
of wastes in streams, so as to limit the contamination of water sources
within specified limits. The information required for these purposes
cannot be obtained except by the combined and coordinated efforts
of government and other public, as well as private, agencies, including
those of industry. Much of the preservation of bodies of water and
streams against pollution with industrial and community wastes must
be accomplished through the cultivation of a sense of responsibility
among citizens in private life, in industrial organizations, and in local,
65
-------
State and Federal agencies of government. Governmental regulation
is a necessary function in the interest of general compliance with well-
substantiated principles and procedures of good practice. In the
long run, however, the responsibility for the maintenance of public
safety from water pollution, as from other man-made hazards, is
vested in the professional and technical people generally who have
knowledge of these matters, and especially in those whose activities
create the potential or actual threat to human health and safety.
The investigative functions and responsibilities of government, in
this field, while extensive, are not all-encompassing, but should be
mainly catalytic and exploratory. Actually the presently available
facilities for research in this field in this country are inadequate, and
therefore it is not suggested that the efforts of government are likely
to be expanded beyond their necessary or proper scope. Rather, the
point to be made is, that in a free society which undertakes to remain
free to develop as its individual and collective ingenuity and wisdom
may dictate, the hygienic consequences of technical and industrial
projects must be examined as a regular and necessary part of tech-
nologic research and development. The acceptance of this respon-
sibility by industrial, as well as other groups, may well retard certain
developments, and may render them more costly in their initial
stages. On the other hand, the eventual cost to our society and its
economy will be much less, and we shall achieve a degree of hygienic
security more in keeping with our technological progress.
DISCUSSION
DR. RUSSELL E. TEAGUE
Commissioner, Kentucky State Department of Health
The history of man's development, life, and progress is inextricably
bound to the availability of water and his use of it. His very exist-
ence is because of it. In fact he is made of at least 70 percent water,
and in order for him to maintain a healthy, biological status he must
replenish his cells and intercellulor spaces daily with a new high qual-
ity supply. Like cities and industries he also uses water to carry off
his individual body wastes.
A physician can't help drawing an analogy between the ten billion
cells organized into a society in a single individual human body and
the community, how it must use water for its chemical processes and
its everyday business and also use water to eliminate its waste. There
66
-------
is no other way around getting rid of wastes, unless some other way
could be found, other than the use of water; so we must use the water.
The future of the society oj man absolutely depends upon how well
and how rapidly he learns to control his aqueous environment. He
must learn to use the available waters to eliminate the wastes of society
as well as to provide an adequate, high quality, safe, supply for the
maintenance of health. Future population growth, industrial expan-
sion, agricultural use, the preservation of a biologic balance of life on
earth, all depend on more knowledge and the use of it.
Even now we must close the gap between what we know about water
and what we do about it with applied science if we expect to maintain
a healthy, expanding society.
Infections and Parasites
History provides a continued series of catastrophies due to water-
borne diseases and epidemics. Water may play a part in the trans-
mission of almost every infectious or parasitic disease known. Public
health has made its greatest contribution in the prevention of disease
and increasing the length of life by the relatively recent techniques
of waste treatment, water management and water treatment. Chol-
era, typhoid, the dysenteries, malaria, and nearly all of the other in-
fectious diseases have decreased or are under some degree of control
in developed countries. Recently, however, many epidemiologists
have pointed out that what has been done to control the enteric water-
borne epidemics, such as typhoid and cholera, probably was not suffi-
cient to control a considerable number of the virus infections.
In a critical examination of the literature (1922-1959), Kabler enu-
merated the various organisms found in sewage and compared the
efficiency of various treatment processes. Almost all bacteria, fungi,
parasites, and viruses found in raw sewage were found in the treated
effluent with all types of treatment. The bacteria of typhoid, para-
typhoid, cholera, salmonellosis, tuberculosis, anthrax, and tetanus, all
of the viruses studied including poliomeylitis and Coxsackie, the
worms, namely, tape, round, hook and pin worms along with schisto-
somes, were found to pass through treatment in all cases, though in
lesser numbers; nevertheless they came through.
Kelly and Sanderson, studying sewage in the summer and fall of
1957 found over 166 strains of viruses. They concluded that second-
ary treatment by trickling filters without chlorination is inadequate
for virus destruction; activated sludge was more effective but not
complete.
It seems that "Time Down Stream" after treatment is very im-
portant. With sufficient time and distance most of the harmful organ-
isms disappear. However, because of many other variables we can
only consider this factor as relative. Even a water intake with treat-
ment up-stream to a city with sewage outfall below is not assurance
67
-------
of safety. A flood with back-stream flow can cause epidemics. Epi-
demics of infectious hepatitis have occurred in this manner.
Water purification for domestic use still has its defects and faults.
The greatest of these possibly is the human element of operation. Too
often water treatment plants are operated by improperly trained per-
sonnel (personnel turnover is too great for safety) and in many if not
most States the sanitary engineering, inspection and supervisory per-
sonnel are inadequate in number, inadequately paid, and inade-
quately trained. Frequency of inspection and laboratory control is in
many places grossly inadequate to assume complete safety from water-
borne epidemics. The conscientious health officer today may very
well feel that he is skating pretty close to the thin edge of safety in
this respect.
Toxicity
Of the thousands of known toxic substances being manufactured
and used in all of our living and manufacturing processes today, very
little information is available. From all sources on toxicity effect in
drinking water a very limited number of compounds, less than 500 in
number, are considered in the literature.
The available toxicity data (mostly developed from studies on air
in a select environment on healthy adult workers) are relatively large
and provide a basis for most of our knowledge on toxicity, both on
acute and chronic effects. No single food is consumed in as large a
quantity or as frequently as is water. Further, other foodstuffs are
exposed in many instances to water, both in preparation and in cook-
ing. Water is used by the entire population from infancy through old
age and it is a well-known fact that the toxicity of a substance varies
radically with age. Infants might require Ko the amount of a material
to exhibit effects of toxification.
I point this out to show how difficult it would be to do epidemiologi-
cal studies on groups of population and have an effective control group
over a full lifetime or span of life to determine the long-range toxic
effects of some of these substances.
Some of the factors which intensify the problem in water pollution
control are relative biological stability of the type of the compounds
being manufactured, the increased number of these compounds and
the increased public acceptance resulting in an extremely high usage
of the compounds. Synthetic detergents made their first important
appearance on the domestic market in 1947. In 1956, 455 million
pounds of synthetic detergents were used. Insecticides, herbicides,
fungicides, rodenticides, plant growth regulators, and other agricul-
tural control products in commercial use now exceed 170 different
compounds, with this list increasing in number every year. From the
advent of the first organo-insecticides of commercial importance
(DDT in the 40's), the compounds have become increasingly stable
68
-------
to biological attack and persistence in water now exceed months. The
quantity of insecticides used in a single year is estimated to be in ex-
cess of 1 billion pounds to 100 million acres, or approximately 10
pounds per acre.
It is known that many of these compounds gain access to the streams
and affect fish life adversely. Some authorities feel that the water is
safe for domestic consumption if no acute or chronic effect is observed
in the fish population. However, this might or might not be true be-
cause of modifying factors such as chelating compounds which can in-
crease or decrease the toxicity ot a given metal. Also, carcinogenic
compounds cannot be evaluated adequately from the effects on animals
other than the animal under study. No chemical carcinogen exposure
or dosage limit have been described for the lifetime of man, and the role
of co-carcinogenic substances is extremely hazy.
The toxicity of inorganic substances which exhibit chronic toxicity
effects of a severe nature, that is, with a concentration of less than 1
part per million, include the following: antimony, arsenic, beryllium,
bromate, cadmium, chlorates, chromium, cobalt, gold, iodide, lead,
lithium, manganese, mercury, nickel, phosphorous (yellow) radium,
selenates, selenites, tellurates, tellurites, thallium, and thorium.
Many of the organic substances exhibit severe chronic toxicity.
These can include the following classes of organic substances: aliphatic
unsaturated acid amides, aromatic polyamines, amidines, aliphatic
unsaturated nitrates (cynides), aromatic hydrocarbons, aliphatic un-
saturated halogenated hydrocarbons, aromatic polyhalogenated
hydrocarbons, and nitro compounds, both aliphatic and aromatic.
Many of these organic complexes are manufactured in large quanti-
ties and include the insecticides and agricultural control chemicals.
As far as is known, the only surfactant which exhibits chronic
toxicity is the cationic type of quaternary amines.
From this discussion of the toxicity of compounds which can gain
access to water, it can be seen that the knowledge of the subject is
extremely limited. The synergistic and antagonistic effects, the lack
of data on the toxicity for whole populations and the extreme difficulty
of procuring this information are in themselves of great concern to
public health officials.
The Association of State and Territorial Health Officers appointed
a subcommittee 3 years ago. From the subcommittee we came
up with one recommendation which I should like to see implemented
from this conference.
There is no central collecting agency for all of the information that
is available to us on contaminants. We recommend that the United
States Public Health Service assume the leadership in collecting all
the information available from the other Federal agencies and other
institutions of learning in this country and provide all the information
that is available to the administrators of water control in regard to
69
-------
contaminants. That is, criteria, standards, methods of testing for,
and the maximum safe concentrations.
Now, this is a terrifically big order. It may take hundreds of years
to get. It may cost billions and billions of dollars. But someone
ought to be collecting and putting together what is known and what
we can find out about the effects of these contaminants.
Radioactivity
Ionizing radiation in any amount, however biological cells may be
exposed, is thought to be harmful. Magnitudes in fresh water today
are in general considered as insignificant. However, attention must
be given to future use and disposal of radioactive materials.
Conclusions
To insure adequate, safe, high quality water for optimum health
protection and permit an expanding society free from water-borne
illnesses we must:
a) shorten the lag between what is known about water control and
what is done;
b) maintain better sanitary surveillance of waste treatment and
water purification facilities ;
c) have more information on the epidemiology of water-borne dis-
eases, particularly as related to many virus infections;
d) obtain more information, both immediate and long-range, on
the effects of toxic substances in water, on individuals, and on popula-
tion groups.
Panel I
General Discussion
Mr. METZLER. This question was asked by Mr. A. F. Dappert
of the New York Water Pollution Control Board: "In the assessment
of water pollution problems should not the problem of pollution
from vessels, water craft of all kinds, equipped with marine toilets
be given an increasing emphasis and attention?"
He has raised an important point here that is of concern particularly
to those cities and those States that are bordering on navigable waters.
Yes, I do believe this, and to show that this is more than just words,
as a chairman of the Conference of State Sanitary Engineers I have
instructed a committee to make a study of this important matter. The
chairman is the State Sanitary Engineer from the State of Michigan,
and we expect working cooperatively with some of the water recreation
groups and the Public Health Service to have an answer as to what can
be tolerated or, rather, what should be done about this problem.
Even inland States such as mine are finding that this is beginning to be
a problem with more reservoirs for storage and power.
70
-------
Mr. SCHAD. This question is from Ralph H. Baker, Jr., Florida
State Board of Health. The question is: "You referred to algae as
a result of increased nutrients. In referring to this you inferred
that the algae would also be considered as a contaminant. Please
explain."
I didn't mean to infer algae itself was a contaminant, but as it
•* j grows and decays it uses up the oxygen in the stream, and it's the dead
X algae you might say that becomes pollution, just as any other type
of organic material that decays. That's what I was referring to,
Mr. Baker.
Dr. KEHOE. This question was asked by D. E. Keed of the Cook
County Clean Streams Commission, Forest Preserve District of
Illinois: "Have the present concentrations of detergents in streams
caused any demonstrated damage to water supplies for human
use?"
This is not the easiest question in the world to answer. I think, *•
however, that it's fair to say that the detergents in streams, generally
speaking, have been more of a nuisance than a hygienic problem as far
as man is concerned. The concentrations involved are in the main
fairly low, and the problem of toxicity here seems not to be great.
I think it is quite fair to say at the present time that this is not one of
our more important problems from the point of view of human health.
It is, I believe, a more important problem in terms of other considera-
tions which are not within my province.
A DELEGATE. Let me question that answer. I think it is a rather
important problem as it travels through the ground and gets into the
water supplies.
Dr. KEHOE. I know of no information at the present time that
would indicate that this has been a significant problem in terms of
human health. I'm not saying that it isn't a problem. I'm simply
saying again, that such information as we have suggests that this is
not a very important problem, hygienicplly speaking. This does not
mean that all the information is in.
Dr. TEAGUE. I have one question here from Abe Eldib of the Esso
Company: "What is the exact nature of the study which established
that quaternary cationic amine detergents are toxic?"
I don't know if I can answer it. I don't have the reference here.
I am not thinking of it as a detergent. There was one substance that
came out which was used for hand washing that is listed as a toxic
substance, but I don't have the references with me.
I'll be glad to look it up when I get back and write to Dr. Eldib.
Mayor McCANN. Thank you very much. Will the gentleman who
was so rudely interrupted earlier stand at the mike and introduce him-
self to this panel group, please?
The DELEGATE. The question Z want to put is to Dr. Kehoe, on
the statement that detergents are not toxic, but certainly they are
more than just really a nuisance.
583283—61 6 71
-------
It has been found that they carry through unchanged in the sub-
strata for very long distances. At least in the East, in subdivisions
and developments, or where a number of these houses are built close
together and have wells, the wells after even a period of a few years
do show up detergents to such an extent that the water supply is really
unfit for use and people are very much hard put to get drinking water
or try to get a new supply. I think detergents have got to be given
more than just a passing nuisance consideration.
Mr. METZLER. This question is from Mr. Svore of Dallas:
"Would you care to comment on the need to treat sewage to a
degree beyond that needed for present-day use of the river down-
stream from the treatment plant?"
I think in my prepared remarks I said let's don't impose standards
far in excess—that is, a great distance in excess—of that needed and
justified by the downstream water users. There certainly is a need
to treat wastes to a degree greater than that required by the immedi-
ate usage. Now, how far in the future depends upon the rate of
development and how fast the water uses are growing. One needs a
cushion. You can imagine the position in which the pollution abate-
ment authorities would be placed if each city and industry up and
downstream were treating at just the level which was satisfactory to
maintain that stream for the various beneficial uses. The next in-
dustry that comes in or the next city that expands its population
would start a chain reaction which would require every one of the
polluters who were treating their wastes to increase the degree of
treatment. This is not practicable. On the other hand, treatment
for treatment's sake should be avoided. We have enough places for the
tax dollar, for the investment of money in good public works, that we do
not need to build facilities that are not going to be needed, that will
not be needed to their full capacity, for the next 10 or 20 years.
I have a question from Mr. Bill Towell of the Missouri Conserva-
tion Commission: "W7hy do you consider return flows from irri-
gated land any greater a pollution problem than runoff and
percolation from natural precipitation?"
This certainly is a good question, and I did not mean to indicate
that pollution from natural runoff and precipitation is not an important
matter. This depends again upon the areas of the country. In
general, however, the big tonnage of pollutants in areas where we have
high-quality water may be carried back by this washing of irrigated
land.
As many of you know here better than I, when you apply irrigation
water to land in order that it may not become clogged and non-
irrigable over the years, it's necessary for some 20 percent of this
water to wash through the soil to wash these salts back into the
receiving stream. There certainly are areas of the country now where
72
-------
streams are highly mineralized only because of the return flows from
irrigation.
There's a good example in my own State where on the Arkansas
Eiver the irrigation in Colorado increases the salinity very substan-
tially and makes the water in western Kansas not usable, water
that otherwise would be highly desirable for most uses.
This is a question from Mr. H. T. Silverman, of the Crucible Steel
Company: "Is it practicable to control pollution by the adoption of
uniform national standards of water quality without considering
varying local needs and waters?"
I don't see how one could possibly think that it's possible to set
down a national standard to follow in connection with all streams. I
believe very much in tailoring the amount of pollution abatement to
the uses of the stream.
If one could imagine, for instance, the quality of waste, of miner-
alized waste, which you might allow to go into some stream such as
the Arkansas River in Oklahoma and compare this with the waste
that you might allow to run into a small water-supply stream, there
is no doubt but what the same standards cannot be applied to the
stream that is already highly mineralized from natural flows and to
water which is of very good quality.
I do not believe it's possible to apply national standards. You need
to develop the standard for every river system; these standards should
not be so inflexible but what they can be changed as the need changes.
Mr. Sol Pincus has asked this question: "In assessing the water
pollution problem, is not basic consideration necessary to reduc-
ing the tremendous unnecessary waste of water in our communi-
ties through leaky mains, unmetered systems, in some instances
amounting to 30 percent of the entire supply? Is not a national
survey of water waste needed to bring attention to this phase of
the problem?"
Mr. Pincus, you said that better than I could possibly say it. There
just is no doubt but what there needs to be more attention given this
problem and I wonder if the fact that your home city is New York
City had anything to do with your asking a question like this.
About a year ago at the American Public Health Association meet-
ing in Atlantic City, in talking to a group of public health people,
this was one of the problems which I pointed out. There is no jus-
tification for purifying water and then wasting it into the underground
or into the outcrops in our streams. This is not only very expensive
but it is very wasteful, and as Americans we really are quite wasteful
of this important resource.
This is another tool which we have to increase the net available
water supply to the people of the United States.
Dr. KEHOE. This question was asked by Dr. Abe Eldib of the Esso
Research and Engineering Co.: "Should scientists wait for the estab-
73
-------
lishment of manifestations of pollutants on health before they
attempt to find new methods to remove pollutants?"
The answer quite clearly is that we should not wait until we have
had manifest effects of a serious sort. We do not have much informa-
tion at the present time on the effects of many potentially toxic
chemicals in water supplies except to the extent that some relevant
information has come from industrial experience, where populations
under medical supervision can be studied, and where the incidence of
disease can, hopefully, be established. In this way we are very likely
to have information which we can apply, at least with some faith, to
the general population.
But how do you establish in a large community the influence of
insidious chemical agents on the health of the people? Often this can
only be done by long, elaborate, carefully-carried-out observations
over considerable periods of time in order to establish that the in-
cidence of illness has been increased within the tune period that is
represented by the presence of pollutants.
My point is that we must adapt our epidemiologic methods to these
problems. We do not have epidemiologic methods at the present tune
to deal with anything other than fairly dramatic forms of disease. As
to chronic diseases, we will have to develop methods, and there are
those at the present tune who are studying to develop such methods.
We certainly need more study of this sort on the populations that
are concerned. But until we have information that indicates some-
thing in the nature of a hazard we are certainly hampered in our
development of standards and the legal application of these stand-
ards in this field. One is required to obtain evidence other than mere
anxiety concerning the possible effect of this or that or of the other
contaminant or combination of contaminants.
Now, this clearly is not a satisfactory answer. The burden of my
talk to you today was not to say that we have the information we can
use in this respect, but that we have yet to obtain it, and in some in-
stances we have yet to develop the methods by which such information
can be obtained.
I shall be very pleased to have Dr. Eldib make his statement.
Dr. ELDIB. I have several reasons for asking the question Dr.
Kehoe just attempted to answer; one of them is that as a member of
private industry I know that some private industries want to help
solve this problem. But like all other problems we tackle, we must
have the incentive defined.
We may spend some of the Government's money, such as that given
to industry as grants or contract research; also, we may want to spend
some of our own. Now, in order for us to spend this money effectively
we want to know what we are going to do with it. What is the problem?
In reviewing this field in the last couple of months I found there are
about 15 types of compounds that may need to be removed. As a
74
-------
scientist one can think of 15 different methods to remove these things.
I can think about foam fractionation, emulsion fractionation, thermal
diffusion, freezing, zone melting, all sorts of techniques some of which
are still in the infancy stage compared to other well-established unit
operations.
Some people whom we need to convince and who are going to spend
the money may say: "Why don't you wait until the effects of the
different pollutants are established, and then when we know exactly
what you want to remove we will go after it?" We may spend a lot of
money figuring different ways for removing a certain pollutant;
for example, a detergent or a wetting agent like a quarternary am-
monium compound. Then after we go through all the necessary
research we may find out, that after all, we didn't need to remove
detergents since they may be proved later on as harmless.
We want very much to help. But it's very important for us—
I'm talking about private industry now; I'm not talking about govern-
ment because I can't speak for them—it's very important for us to
have the effect of different so-called pollutants on health pinned down
as much as possible.
For example, I was interested to hear the gentleman, the former
Texan and now from New York, say that detergents really have an
effect, and I plan to investigate this further with him.
Dr. KEHOE. It is something I would like very much to comment
on, because it represents, in part, one of the central ideas in my talk—
this problem as it relates to industry.
Let me point out that some of our industries have some of the best
toxicologic information that is available. The company to which Dr.
Eldib belongs, to my knowledge, has good sources of information and
advice on toxic materials. They can have all the information that is
available to any of us along this line, plus the fact that the experiences
of this industry, in dealing with chemical materials, give it a source of
information which is not always available to everyone else. The
toxic materials that are used in industrial plants are very likely to
reveal themselves to the industrial medical and hygienic groups in-
cluding engineers.
The thesis that I would like to support is this: When you and you
and you in industry have a problem of waste disposal, it may be as
germane a technologic problem to you as is the production of the
chemical which produces the waste. It is, I believe, the responsibility
of industry in these situations to establish means of waste disposal
that do not result in the contamination of streams in such a way that
other action has to be taken at another and more remote point.
The proper time and the proper place to keep industrial wastes out
of our waters in excessive quantities are at the time and point of their
discharge from industrial plants. In many of our industries—not all,
but in many—there is a concentration of some of the best brains,
75
-------
technologically and otherwise, to deal with the technologic problems
of that industry. The industry should solve its own problem, and
then the community does not have to solve it for industry.
I predict that within a relatively short period of time, the gathering
of toxicologic information by industry for the protection of its own
employees and for the protection of the community against air pollu-
tion and water pollution and soil pollution will have become a generally 1
accepted responsibility of industry itself, either as a single individual v
organization or as an association of industries that have a common
problem. This is the manner, it seems to me, in which prevention
occurs at the point at which the problem is likely to arise. I think J
this is essential.
Dr. ELDIB. I think perhaps I didn't make myself entirely clear.
We make every effort as far as I know to clean up our own wastes, those
which may come out of a refinery or a chemical plant. But I was,
however, speaking a while ago about our responsibility towards the
overall problem. We want to be able to help solve the overall problem.
We want to contribute this little drop so that if everyone contributes
we'll have a bucketful of good.
If, for example, it is established that a chemical such as chloro-
phenol—I'm just picking an example—is detrimental to health,
then we want to know about it so that maybe we can sit down as
research people and find out a method by which we can separate this
specific compound from waste water.
So I appreciate the fact private industry should solve its own
problems, but we want to go beyond that and try to help solve the
entire problem.
Dr. KEHOE. This point of view would certainly be welcome, and
I would not want to disparage it.
Let me point out that if this company can develop a standard that
will say, "This material should not be allowed to get into the water
beyond this point of concentration; we have this knowledge; we have
obtained this knowledge," such information can be published for the
general good of the community. This is one of the ways by which
our standards should come about. On the other hand, I would return
to this point of view: that if it became the generally accepted respon-
sibility of industry to keep its own house clean, we would not have
all these problems to solve later.
Dr. KEHOE. This question was asked by Mr. G. T. Kellogg of the
Arkansas Water Pollution Control Commission: "Would you care to
comment upon the possibility of lead content in public water
supplies which are used for recreation wherein motorboats using
leaded gasoline are utilized?"
With respect to the source of small quantities of lead which get into
streams or lakes from gasoline motorboats using leaded gasoline, there
76
-------
are two possibilities. One of them is that some small quantity of
lead may get into the water from the exhaust of the engine, and the
other is that some of it gets into the water from the spillage of gasoline.
You will not need to be nearly as much concerned about the small
quantity of tetraethyl lead which gets into the water along with
gasoline as you will about the gasoline itself. You will not be poi-
soned by the lead in leaded gasoline, because the toxicity of gasoline
is such, from the aspect of the acute effects, that you will not drink
enough leaded gasoline in your water supply to get lead poisoning.
The other point is that the small quantity of lead which escapes
from the exhaust of motorboats into the stream is a mere dribble
compared to that in industrial wastes that get in from various lead
processing plants along the stream. And even this is not of great
importance, because our water supplies in general are not high enough
in their lead content to be a source of danger except at localized sites
where the quantities of waste material dumped into the stream main-
tain a significant concentration for a time before they are diluted.
A large portion of the lead under these circumstances will also sepa-
rate out as a sediment. This, perhaps is not good, but the lead is
not likely to be carried along the stream in a sufSciently high con-
centration to be significant. Rather, we are more concerned about
community drinking water in which the quantity of lead can add
materially to the quantity of lead which we eat in food, and which
we breathe from the air. We could very well have a standard here
which is practical and easy to achieve, something of a very low order
of magnitude which makes very little contribution to the total lead
intake of the people in the community.
This problem, however, is not a significant one.
This question was asked by Mr. Bernard Garland, an engineer with
the Fulton County Health Department, Atlanta, Ga.: "Please com-
ment on the effects and control or treatment of organic phos-
phates in water."
Fortunately, most of the organic phosphates are hydrolyzed in
water and have a short period of persistence. It is entirely possible
that water contaminated with organic phosphates, such as insecticides
(small streams in localized areas) may for a time have significantly
high concentrations of organic phosphates, enough to cause trouble
principally in domestic animals. There have been such reports. On
the other hand, this relatively short-persisting material is not as much
of a problem in our water supplies as are those insecticides that are
not easily hydrolyzed, that persist for a considerable period of tune in
the water supply.
I am not dismissing this as of no importance, but it is of minor
importance, in the relative sense.
This question was asked by Mr. M. A. McWhinnie of DePaul
University: "Relative to detergents, chemists at food and drug
77
-------
laboratories state that detergents show remarkable toxicity to
chick embryos compared with other compounds based on per cent
hatchability. Study just starting to be pursued."
I think it must be admitted that we do not know all about the effects
of detergents on aquatic life, and on the behavior of streams with
reference to their own biology. At least I have no such knowledge
that would in any sense be comprehensive.
If there is someone here who has that knowledge, I am sure the
Chairman would be glad to recognize him in this relationship, because
this is becoming increasingly controversial as a question, and those of
us who have been concerned with this problem, from the point of view
of the effects in water, do not have all the information that we need.
I think there can be very little doubt that the study that is being
carried out is justified, and I would be hopeful that it would produce
useful information.
All I can do at this point is to take refuge in the fact that I was here
to talk about water from the point of view of the human toxicity, and
I do not know all that should be known about the toxicity of detergents
and their effects upon various other forms of life and various organisms.
It is my belief at the present time, that the problem of detergents is one
of logistics in handling water supplies, sludges, sewage material, and
so forth, rather than one of toxicity. This is not to say that it does
not justify study. I am giving you here an off-the-cuff opinion based
on inadequate information, as I have warned you in my discussion.
This question was asked by Mr. Henry A. Stobbs, Industrial Wastes
Engineer,Wheeling Steel Corp.: "Since the value of water is governed
by its quality at the point of actual use, is there any reason why
this principle should not be adopted as the basis for effective
pollution control?"
My answer to this is that there is very good reason why we cannot
wait until we get to the point of use. This is particularly true in
relation to industrial wastes. The individual who puts his waste in at
the upper end of a stream has one problem. The individual who puts
his waste in at the lower end of the stream, after everybody else has
made his contribution, produces another problem. This problem has
to be handled, I am convinced, from the point of view of specifications
that will say to you in industry: "You cannot put more into this water
at your plant than is wise, in view of the condition of the stream, the
volume of water, the problem of dilution from there on, and the
problem that will arise if other people do the same thing all the way
down the stream."
You will, I believe, have to apply criteria that will say to you:
"This material which you have cannot be dumped into the stream in
any more than such and such a maximum concentration, and you
will have to clean up your waters as you dump them out of your plant
to the point where they achieve this kind of a specification."
78
-------
This is my view at any rate. This may not now be the practical
one, but it will, I believe, come to be the practical one.
This question was asked by Mr. S. C. Martin of the Public Health
Service: "If 'Safety First' is not the watchword for the safety of
the public in the development of new processes and products, what
is the watchword for industry?"
If we had the information to enable us to measure the degree of
hazard that is represented in this or that or the other pollutant, we
would then be in a fine position to carry out the procedures of preven-
tive medicine and hygiene in relation to water. We do not have this
information, nor are we likely to obtain it often until somewhat after
the fact. Where we have toxicologic information that says that
water to be consumed must not exceed a given level of concentration,
we can apply such standards. Where we do not have this informa-
tion, we'll have to obtain it before we make regulations other than
those which are based on judgment. This may have to be snap
judgment, rather than substantial judgment, and it will be hard to
sustain such judgment in the courts of the land. We must first
have the information before we do much about safety first.
Another question: "You have mentioned the information avail-
able to show the relationship of chemical pollution to public
health. Of what significance to public health is the degradation
of water sources on the esthetic qualities?"
This I did not go into, and it is a matter which could justify a
discussion in and of itself.
If the water is not satisfactory for use, people will not use it, or
will find some way of dealing with it before using it. I perhaps
should not say this, coming from the city of Cincinnati in the State
of Ohio. But from time to time over the course of the years, we have
had so much of the taste of dead algae in the water that even I, who
have no fear of the common varieties of dead algae have, in one
instance, felt that it was advisable in my own household to get water
from another source for drinking. Particularly for making a decent
highball. Now, this is an esthetic question, and you can judge as to
its importance.
In the final analysis, if the water that you have to drink is unpal-
atable, you will drink as little of it as possible and this is not good.
From this point of view the problem of taste is a highly significant one.
I am also quite certain that official agencies for communities, coun-
ties and the like that supply water to the whole community, will not
gain the approval of the community if the water that is supplied is
unpalatable and, from this point of view, undesirable. We are much
more likely to have protests on this basis, and effective protests, than
in relation to some insidious poison which does not reveal itself
by flavor.
79
-------
The esthetics of the situation are important, and may well be con-
sidered from the point of view of public health in relation to recrea-
tion. We will not use our recreational waters if it is not pleasant to do
so. This is not good for the community and is not good for the health
of the people.
Dr. TEAGUE. This question is from Mr. Dappert of the New
York Water Pollution Control Board: "Is there any history of virus \
infection epidemics due to inadequately treated sewage effluent
due to inability of existing treatment methods to completely
eliminate viruses?"
The one incident I referred to of the sewage effluent backing up
above the water intake was in Delhi, India.
It's difficult to pinpoint some of the enteric virus infections as to
their actual cause, because some of these diseases are so endemic, so
ubiquitous in nature that most of us are getting affected from time to
time with these viruses.
But when massive doses of virus are obtained, you usuajly have
enough clinical occurrences. The attack rate being low in these types
of diseases, the number of cases is in direct relationship to the number
of persons infected. It is only when you get large quantities of the
virus taken into a large group of people that you get enough clinical
cases to pinpoint the source.
In Kentucky right now we have two epidemics of infectious hepatitis
in rural schools. In both instances, it was coincident that the chlori-
nator on the water supply was not working. I hesitate to imply that
chlorination here is the answer to virus infection. We know that the
enteric virus infection such as poliomyelitis (all three types of the
disease) and infectious hepatitis (which is probably a virus) do seem
to be transmitted predominantly through water.
In line with that I'll read another question that came from Mr.
Manganelli of Rutgers, New Jersey, relating to the incidence of infec-
tious hepatitis in the United States, its casual relationship to pol-
luted water and disease in the country, with the possible mode of
destruction of the virus with chlorine.
This is probably the most widespread infectious disease in the
United States today—infectious hepatitis. The number of cases has
been going up each year in the last ten years. In Kentucky, my own
State, we had about 3,000 cases of definite clinical infectious hepatitis
this year, and I am sure we must have had hundreds of thousands of
infections because the attack rate is quite low in infection.
In Kentucky, there have been approximately 200,000 septic tanks
built in suburban areas. Many of these septic tanks which are used
for waste disposal in the suburbs are running over presenting a hazard
to children playing in these areas. We believe that the waste disposal
methods that have developed around these massive suburban sprawls
80
-------
are contributing to the transmission of infectious hepatitis in many
parts of the country.
We are sure too that the transmission of the infection of polio-
myelitis still exists in most of our communities. Whether chlorine
will kill it in the amounts we use, one and a half parts per million, is
somewhat questioned by many people.
The researchers at the Eobert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center
are doing studies on the various viruses. Their results indicate that
chlorine will kill them in high enough concentrations, but in the amount
used in sewage treatment and water treatment plants there is some
question whether all the viruses are killed.
We do know the adeno-pharyngeal-conjunctival virus can be trans-
mitted in chlorinated swimming pools water. Epidemics of this have
occurred.
Question: "Does not the National Academy of Sciences collect
fairly complete information on the toxic and health effects of
particular end-use substances?"
They collect this data. There are a number of other Federal
agencies that collect this data. The Department of Agriculture has
considerable information, also the Bureau of Standards, the National
Academy of Sciences, the Public Health Service. My suggestion was
that the Public Health Service take the leadership and try to pull it
all together and to determine the void spots and single them out so
that research can be done to help the practical public health admin-
istrators.
We know substances are in the water but we're not always sure
what they are or what they do, and we hope some Federal agency
would take the leadership in pooling this information for the benefit
of all of us in the field.
Mr. SCHAD. This question was asked by Mr. Duke E. Keed of
the Forest Eeserve District in Cook County, Illinois: "If dilution
is the proper way to solve the effluent problem, why should
Illinois River towns object to Chicago's request for diversion of
more lake water?"
I'll have to plead ignorance. I didn't know that Illinois River
towns were objecting to this diversion. There are some possible
reasons they might not want more water flowing down such as be-
cause it impedes navigation to have more water in the river, but in
general this thing looks pretty black-and-white here in Washington.
I thought that the State of Illinois wants this diversion, and other
States don't, and I didn't realize there was a difference of opinion
in the State.
I would like to comment this way: I don't want to leave the wrong
impression that I said dilution is the proper way to solve the effluent
problem. I'd like to just say that under the present status of our
81
-------
knowledge, we need a combination of treatment and dilution to give
us the most economical handling of our waste disposal problem.
Now, there is another question on the Great Lakes situation
addressed to Mr. Metzler which I will answer. Then, if he wants
to comment further, he can.
This question is from Mr. Bayly of Carlton University, Canada:
"Is it possible to work out an agreement regarding pollution on
international waterways, particularly the Great Lakes system?"
I would say, of course, that it is possible. It takes a lot more work,
just as it takes a lot more work to get an agreement covering water-
ways affecting two States than it does to solve an intrastate problem.
I thjnk there is a mechanism for attempting the solution of these
difficult problems involving international waterways by the use of
the International Joint Commission. I would hesitate to predict
how long it will take them. These things take years. But I don't
think we can say that it's impossible just because it's complicated.
I think it's complicated because Canada is at a different stage of
development than we are. They may not be as much concerned
with pollution right now, but they will be. And as the examples
come home to them, they will be more and more willing to participate
and share the costs of whatever is needed to handle pollution abate-
ment on the Great Lakes.
I would like to say also that in such things as complicated as
pollution in the Great Lakes we need more information, and I for one
am very much heartened by the fact that the Public Health Service
is now undertaking a major study of pollution in Lake Michigan and
the possible effects of a diversion into the Illinois River. We need
this information before we'can decide what to do.
This question is asked by Mr. F. J. Coughlin of the Association
of Soap and Glycerine Producers: "7s not the basic solution to
ground water pollution, which was referred to earlier in a state-
ment from the floor, the installation of community sewers and
sewage treatment to protect the ground water? Or should we
depend on community water treatment plants to assure that
adequate water quality is avaihrble?"
Well, I think the basic solution is community sewage treatment
and sewer installation. For economic reasons we frequently may
extend water mains when we don't have sewers, or we may just build
subdivisions without sewers because of the cost. But I think it's
very shortsighted, particularly since we don't know the effects of all
of these residual chemicals such as the detergents which are cumula-
tive. It may take decades for their effects to be known, and in the
meantime, with the ground water movement as slow as it is at some
places, there will be a building up of a pollutant in ground waters if
something is not done about it.
82
-------
So I think the answer certainly is we should consider installation
of community sewers and sewage treatment as soon as we build sub-
divisions or extend our cities. We have to or else we're just leaving a
problem to our descendants.
This question was asked by Mr. Donald D. Kingsley, chief sanitary
engineer of Walsh Engineers, Inc.: "Stream pollution classification
is frequently vague as established by many States and too often is
influenced by vested interests. Can it not be within the scope of
the Public Health Service to define criteria for stream pollution
classifications on a national level?"
I would answer that my hope is that as we gain more information
this will become one of the primary roles of the Federal Government,
that is, helping to establish standards, particularly with respect to
interstate streams. Right now, in my opinion, we don't have enough
information to establish adequate standards.
Now, Mr. Metzler has also asked a question that I'd like to discuss
in the same context. His question is: "With respect to the necessity
of storing water to supplement stream flows for dilution of treated
wastes, what role do you see the States taking in such a program?
Will they buy space in Federal reservoirs as provided in the Water
Supply Act of 1958, or perhaps will they construct their own facili-
ties for supplemental storage?"
I think that the proper division of responsibility for the water
pollution control problem between Federal and local interests is a very
important question that is going to have to be resolved. As I see it,
water pollution control is about in the same stage now as possibly
the function of flood control was 25 years ago before the 1936 Flood
Control Act was passed. We're just getting into something that is
going to be more and more important as the years go along and as
our country develops.
There will have to be a definition of responsibilities between the
States and Federal Government. At the present time, and under
our present legislation, I think it is very appropriate for the States—
I think the States should be encouraged—to participate through pro-
vision of storage in the Federal flood control and reclamation reser-
voirs, but I think that something more is going to have to be done.
I think we will probably need new legislation to set up a program
to solve this problem. Such legislation should also go into this matter
of standards for pollution on interstate streams and also on the works
needed to provide the water for dilution.
Dr. KEHOE. This question was asked by Mr. L. C. Burroughs of
the Shell Oil Company, New York: "You indicated that gasoline in
the exhaust of outboard and inboard marine engines is extremely
toxic, much more so than the lead. Do you know of any cases of
harmful health effects from traces of unburned hydrocarbons in
drinking water attributed to this source?"
83
-------
First, let me point out that I did not say that gasoline was extremely
toxic. It is a very irritating material in the alimentary tract. And
the frequent and persistent drinking of water containing enough
gasoline so that you can smell it, will result in a very considerable
irritation of the alimentary tract, with diarrhea. A little bit more
will produce blood diarrhea, and a little bit more yet will result in a
serious condition.
What I meant to say was that, because of the small quantity of
lead and the overwhelming concentration of gasoline in commercial
leaded gasoline, the gasoline will produce a toxic effect long before
the lead will do so. I also went on to say that you cannot drink
enough gasoline to give you tetraethyl lead poisoning, if you are
dealing with a standard type of gasoline, because the acute effects
of the ingestion of gasoline will not permit you to continue long
enough to swallow enough lead to yield a cumulative effect.
With respect to the question of whether cases of this sort have
been seen, I know of none, and I think the likelihood of their occur-
rence, in connection with streams and larger bodies of water is
negligible. But the result which I described above has occurred in
connection with the contamination of wells and springs, wells in
particular, from a gasoline storage tank that had sprung a leak and
had allowed the gasoline to get into the drinking water.
Under these circumstances, several cases are on record in which
people, having a source of contaminated water have continued to use
it in spite of the distasteful characteristics of gasoline—of water
containing enough gasoline to smell. Thus, in this manner, gasoline
intoxication has resulted.
This is not likely to happen when drinking water is readily obtain-
able from some other source, but if a well is the only convenient source
of your water and it has gasoline in it, the people in the household
may continue to use it, under these circumstances, with ill effects.
This question was asked by Mr. Harold L. Jacobs of the Delaware
Water Pollution Commission: "What is the likelihood that the
so-called exotic chemicals which are not subject to biological
decomposition—that is to say, in the stream—will be affected by
the body processes?"
I cannot cite off-hand a specific example of this sort of thing,
but it could be—I think it may well be—that a material, a chemical,
which is not decomposed within a stream, may be dealt with meta-
bolically in the body in a relatively satisfactory manner. I can think
of a situation, for example, in which a small quantity of cyanide may
occur in drinking water. (This just occurs to me in thinking over
the possibility of an example.) Sufficiently small quantities of
cyanide in the body are comparatively harmless, because they are
converted to thiocyanate and are excreted as such, this being much
less toxic.
84
-------
PANEL I, Afternoon Session
Hon. Thomas A. McCann, Presiding
The first speaker this afternoon will be Seth Gordon of California,
who is well known to many of us here today.
Impacts of Pollution on Fish and Wildlife/
Recreation/ and Esthetic Values
SETH GORDON
Conservation Consultant
California State Department of Fish and Game
I have long been proud to be among that vast army of vocal con-
servationists who hold that water pollution control must be approached
from the broad concept that our public waters, both inland and coastal,
must be kept Jit for all human uses and enjoyment and not offend the
esthetic senses of civilized people.
To prove my point, I shall present some background which led to
the present status of the pollution control program.
Skiras the Unsung Pioneer
Leaders of public thought, especially conservationists, early in
this century sought to arouse public opinion on the effects of water
pollution and their broad long-term implications. The medical pro-
fession was concerned chiefly with water borne disease.
Among those concerned with the broader implications was the late
George Shiras 3d, a conservationist Congressman from western
Pennsylvania. He introduced the first bill to have the Federal Gov-
ernment assume definite responsibility for the elimination of pollution
from interstate waters. Mr. Shiras died the recognized pioneer in
wildlife flashlight photography—not as the pioneer in Congress to
initiate Federal water pollution control.
Little was done about the problem, however, in an organized way
until the National Conference on Outdoor Recreation was organized by
85
-------
President Coolidge in 1924 and functioned over a 4-year period
under direction of a committee of Cabinet members who asked the
Izaak Walton League of America to undertake the task of surveying
pollution in the Nation's inland waters.
Results of Survey Startling
The results of that first survey were startling. They were reported
in the May 1927 issue of Outdoor America, the league's official publi-
cation. Basic concepts underlying the survey are revealed in this
one-sentence quote:
"A civilized community is morally bound to take care of its wastes
in a decent and sanitary manner, and not throw its filth out the back
door to incubate and spread disease."
The survey established that 85 percent of the Nation's inland waters
were polluted, and that only 31 percent of the urban population of the
United States then lived in sewered communities which boasted fa-
cilities, many of them very inadequate, for the treatment of their
wastes.
A few months after the survey was made public, Vice President
Charles G. Dawes, in a Nationwide broadcast, commented:
"The fresh waters of Young America are defiled beyond those of
any other nation in the world whose civilization and development are
comparable to our own. * * * Our problem is to purify our lakes and
streams, not only for the contribution that clean streams make to the health
and recreation oj our people, but also for the economic value of the
aquatic life they ought to support."
That organized campaign, launched some 35 years ago, and pursued
unceasingly, brought about the Federal Government's current respon-
sibilities in connection with the pollution menace.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act specifies the development
of comprehensive programs with due regard given to improvements
which are necessary to conserve waters for public water supplies,
propagation of fish and aquatic life and wildlife, recreational purposes,
and agricultural, industrial and other legitimate uses.
We Are Still Far Behind
How much better off are we today? How much progress have we
made?
According to recent Public Health Service reports, 21.5 percent of
the 102 million people living in communities served by sewers still
discharge their raw sewage into public waters. Nearly 2,900 new
plants are required for the treatment of this raw sewage. Some 3,000
other communities need replacement or enlarged facilities to meet their
obligations to downstream neighbors.
Industrial waste treatment construction also is still woefully short
of current needs. Even the needs themselves are not accurately in-
86
-------
dexed. Koughly, an additional 6,000 industrial waste treatment
projects should be in operation right now.
Since the turn of the century, the volume of municipal wastes dis-
charged into our watercourses has more than tripled and the volume of
industrial pollution is said to be ten times greater.
Obviously, these are some of the things Congressman Hull, of Mis-
souri, had in mind last year when he told a convention of the National
Wildlife Federation that:
"As the result of accumulated misuses of our water resources * * *
we are faced today with a monumental water problem * * * which if not
attacked aggressively today will overwhelm us tomorrow. * * * Polluted
water can kill people, and it can kill industry."
Pollution—an Ugly, Creeping Menace
Eecent widespread usage of new chemicals and synthetics, including
insecticides and herbicides, has dramatically changed the character of
the Nation's wastes. Known methods of waste treatment won't
remove these and other new organics being spewed into our water-
courses. Some of them have been traced downstream from distances
as great as 1,000 miles. Just how harmful are they? What can we do
about them?
Someone has wisely said that this type of "pollution is an ugly,
creeping menace which does not make itself immediately evident." An
unsuspecting public does not see it, and is therefore unaware of what is
happening.
Biological changes resulting from pollution are like creeping paraly-
sis. They may be a long time developing. But once a stream or other
surface water dies, an equally long time may be required to restore
the natural usefulness, productivity, and beauty of it, even after
rehabilitation gets underway.
Things the Public Does Know
The scope of this paper does not permit a state-by-state review
of pollution's known impact on fish and wildlife, recreation, and esthetic
values; the total miles of stream and acres of lakes, ponds and im-
poundments that have become sterile or badly impaired; the large
areas in our bays that have become unproductive for aquatic re-
sourses; the miles upon miles of public beaches that have been closed
to recreational uses.
But the public is fully aware of the effects of certain kinds of pol-
lution, both industrial and municipal, where these have caused
dramatic kills of fish and other marine resources. They are deeply
conscious of the fact that health agencies have closed many public
beaches, prohibited swimming and other skin-contact sports, and for-
bidden the use of oyster, clams, and other foods taken from polluted
areas.
583283—61 7 87
-------
A Few Typical Examples
Let's cite a few examples of what has happened to fish and wildlife,
including aquatic resources not commonly classed as either.
On the Atlantic Coast there are many: Oyster harvest from certain
polluted waters has long been prohibited. In many badly polluted
beds the oysters have actually disappeared.
Other commercial fisheries as well as sport fishing have likewise
suffered severe setbacks at numerous points along the Atlantic Coast.
Many hundreds of miles of fishing streams in the East were rendered
worthless by combined municipal and industrial pollution. The latter
includes acid water from hundreds of abandoned coal mines and culm
banks, some of which have been remedied, but not enough.
And I suggest you take a look at what has happened to the produc-
tion of aquatic resources right here on the Potomac. More of that
later.
Waterfowl Suffered Too
A serious decline of the Atlantic Coast brant population some years
ago was directly attributed to pollution. In large areas normally
covered with eel grass, staple item in the brant's diet, this food was
found to have been wiped out by pollution.
During the big duck decline of the mid-Thirties the diving ducks,
especially the canvasbacks and redheads, became alarmingly scarce.
Unfavorable breeding ground conditions plus destruction of their
favorite feeding grounds by pollution caused the decline—not over-
shooting.
These two favored species of the duck hunter are again in trouble.
No shooting of canvasbacks and redheads is allowed this year. How
much of the present decline is chargeable to polluted waters on winter
feeding grounds?
The Great Lakes Fisheries Fiasco
Improved fishing gear and unrestrained competitive commercial
fishing over a long period of years were credited for the Great Lakes
fisheries failure. Lately the lamprey eels have been blamed. Despite
an all-out effort to avert disaster, we still are losing the battle.
Would we be better off today if, 35 years ago, all concerned had
taken the advice of the late Dr. Henry Baldwin Ward? He recom-
mended a simple two-pronged approach: one concerned regulatory
measures; the other, more important, was that the nursery grounds,
nature's own fish factories, be rehabilitated by eliminating domestic
and industrial wastes.
There have been heavy losses of waterfowl to pollution on the Great
Lakes and their connecting waters. One occurred last December when
some 10,000 ducks—mostly the scarce canvasbacks and redheads—
88
-------
were destroyed on the Detroit River by the release of untreated
sewage.
Mid-Continent Troubles
In the great Midwest, hundreds of miles of some of America's beau-
tiful streams are still so badly polluted that fish productivity is far
below its potential and phenol taste has ruined market outlets. Rec-
reational values in general have been ruined or badly impaired.
Both commercial and sport fishing have suffered numerous setbacks
along the entire Gulf Coast from pollution. Various areas have been
declared off-limits to the oystermen because the bivalves were dan-
gerous and unfit for food.
In the Intermountain Region many miles of choice fishing waters
have suffered heavy losses from pollution, both municipal and in-
dustrial. Often implicated here are flows from both operating and
abandoned mines and mine tailings dumps. Many of the latter are
most costly to correct and frequently the owners cannot be located.
In the same region the Bear River National Waterfowl Refuge is
not producing its maximum. The 500-mile-long interstate stream,
for which the refuge is named, is badly polluted. This river could
produce wonderful fishing its entire length if cleaned up.
Far West Has Many Problems
In the Far West, pollution's impact on fish and wildlife, aquatic
resources, recreation and esthetic values has presented some unique
problems. It has been most difficult to maintain salmon and
steelhead runs in streams there. There anadromous fishes are of vast
importance to both commercial and sport fishermen, as well as the
many businesses of the region which depend solely upon them.
Salmon and steelhead must surmount high dams, rapids, and other
obstacles to reach their freshwater spawning grounds. But worst of
all is the fact that some of the major streams are so badly polluted
in their lower reaches that the fish are blocked in their migration.
Experimentally, in California, young salmon raised in a big Federal
hatchery are being hauled overland to brackish waters to bypass the
dangers of known polluted areas.
Abandoned Mines Among the Hazards
Some of the western salmon and steelhead streams have the same
abandoned mine and mine tailings dump drainage problems men-
tioned earlier. They also are bedeviled by large gravel dredging
operations which not only destroy salmon spawning riffles and beds
but also cover the eggs downstream with silt.
Periodically these sources of pollution destroy many thousands—
yes, millions—of young salmon, steelhead, and other fish, both
sport and commercial.
89
-------
Thirty years ago (August 1930), Dr. W. A. Clemens, director of
Canada's Pacific Biological Station, discussed problems inherent in
the conservation of the famous sockeye salmon runs of the Pacific
Coast. Naming pollution and high dams as the two greatest obstacles,
he said this with reference to pollution:
"The pouring into the water of substances injurious to plants and
animals is inexcusable. In this age of science there should not be a
single problem of industrial waste incapable of being satisfactorily
and economically solved."
Dr. Clemens' contention has been proved correct in many of the
situations in the West. But science and the willingness to apply it
still lag in eliminating pollution. Annual losses to the commercial
and sport fishing industry continue to run into the millions of dollars.
Native Oysters Gone, Too
The Pacific Coast no longer sustains its native oyster fishery. It
was practically wiped out by pollution more than a quarter-century
ago.
Today, thousands of cases of seed oysters, from parent stock far less
desirable in flavor and quality, are imported each year from Japan to
sustain the industry. Since these exotics do not reproduce in West
Coast waters, the industry is being maintained as an annual put-and-
take program, an enormously costly process.
The bays, estuaries and lagoons along the Pacific Coast play a
tremendously important role in the production and maintenance of
both commercial and sport fishes, and the aquatic food supply upon
which the fishes depend. But many of these waters have deteriorated
badly through pollution.
San Francisco Bay, for example, the scene of large occasional fish
kills by careless industrial operators, is still badly befouled by pol-
lution, including large volumes from Federal installations. The
production of aquatic resources there is far below its potential. Public
health authorities must issue annual warnings against eating any of the
clams which reproduce abundantly in the South Bay. Swimming
and other skin-contact sports are forbidden.
Is Salt Water Suitable for Dumping Wastes?
Along the beautiful southern California Coast, several large metro-
politan areas pour enormously large volumes of sewage and industrial
wastes into the Pacific. They are given primary treatment only,
then are widely dispersed through expensive diffusers.
These large outflows are believed to be seriously impairing the
reproduction of both commercial and sport fishes, and the food organ-
isms upon which they feed.
Studies are underway to determine how far-reaching the effects of
these wastes actually are on fish life. We do know, and the public is
90
-------
well aware, that large recreational areas around these outfalls have
been closed to swimming and other skin-contact sports.
I predict that very soon public demand will compel the operators
of all such sewerage systems on the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Gulf,
to install secondary treatment plants.
Long outmoded is the contention that unlimited volumes of partially
treated wastes can be dumped indefinitely into salt water with safety.
While losses of wildlife from pollution have occurred sporadically
throughout the West, such losses have not been extensive in recent
years. The worst killer is still botuliam, which occasionally destroys
large numbers of ducks and other fowl, due to inadequate water level
controls.
To conclude this phase of my report to this Conference, let me cite
the fact that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports that nationally,
the area of fish and wildlife habitat rendered unproductive each year by
pollution is greater than that created by all public agencies conducting
fish and wildlife restoration programs.
Recreation is Big Business
Leisure-time activities in America, often grouped under the desig-
nation of recreation, according to LIFE magazine, are now respon-
sible for an annual outlay of $40 billion, or more than 8 percent of
the gross national production.
Much of this large outlay is water-oriented. Included are swim-
ming, fishing, hunting, boating, water skiing, skin-diving, and many
other activities.
So important has recreation become in our daily lives that the
Congress has set up a special commission to make a national inventory
of recreational facilities and future needs. The States of California
and New York have recently completed such studies of their own.
How Many People Are Involved?
Now let's take a look at the numbers of people involved in this
recreational program.
More than 32 million Americans purchased hunting and fishing
licenses last year. Additional millions, mostly youngsters, pursue
these sports but are license-exempt. The Nation's fishermen and
hunters spent an estimated $3.5 billion. By 1980 it is predicted that
60 million persons will be buying such licenses, and they will pour
$6.3 billion into our economic stream.
In 1959 there were 81 million recreational visits to our national
forests, 90 million in 1960. By 1976 it is estimated such visits will be
in the neighborhood of 250 million; by the year 2000, about 653
million.
Pressures on our national and state parks and other public lands
have skyrocketed in the same startling manner. The National Parks
91
-------
alone had 67 million visitors in 1960. The U.S. Bureau of Land
Management, which manages almost 500 million acres of public
domain, in its PROJECT TWENTY-TWELVE, predicts that recre-
ational visits to national parks and forests, state parks, and public
domain lands will jump from 400 million in 1960 to 1.75 billion by
the year 2012.
Eight Million Pleasure Boats
In 1947 we had 2,440,000 pleasure boats in use on our rivers,lakes
and coastal waters. Ten years later it was over 7 million, and today
it is estimated to be 8 million. In 1959 recreational boating was a
$2 billion industry, almost three times its size of eight years earlier.
Skin-diving, a sport which developed since World War II, has
soared into a $100 million business.
These are but a few of the recreational pressures which are dependent
upon clean water to survive and prosper. Additional millions of
Americans enjoy picnicking, beachcombing, bird-watching, and other-
wise relaxing along our streams, lakes and ocean fronts. To them
esthetic values are paramount! Who among us would want them to
do their picnicking, etc., by the edge of unsightly, polluted waters.
A Few of the Impacts on Recreation
The foundation of the country's outdoor recreation industry is
primarily clean water in our rivers, lakes and the ocean front. Water
pollution has the effect of crowding more and more people seeking
recreation into less and less space.
Last year a New York City newspaper reported that only 36 miles
of the city's 400 miles of waterfront were still fit for swimming.
On San Francisco Bay two additional important beaches were added
to the long list of California's waterfront areas closed to public
recreation uses.
Narragansett Bay, long the playground of New Englanders, was
invaded by algae induced by cesspool seepage.
Along the shores of the Great Lakes pollution is increasing faster
than are efforts to control it. Milwaukee, one of the pioneers in city
sewage treatment works, was forced last year to close seven beaches
because of pollution in Lake Michigan. And Cleveland is losing its
fight to keep beaches open for swimming along Lake Erie. Buffalo
gave up long ago!
Washington's River Getting Worse
Sampling of water in the fall of 1960 at Great Falls, Md., showed
that the Potomac River was more polluted than at any time in the past
decade. No one will deny that we have made an open cesspool of
George Washington's river, and that great recreational and esthetic
92
-------
values have been needlessly sacrificed right here at the Nation's
Capital.
On the Oregon Coast obnoxious odors and foamy liquid wastes
turn tourists away from Newport Beach. Kaw sewage flows onto the
beach through an open stream, and wastes from a nearby paper mill
are piped only 1,400 feet offshore.
Some months ago the Speaker of the House headed a delegation
appearing before a Congressional committee to urge appropriations
to help stop salt water from oil wells from downgrading the famous
Lake Texoma, on the Texas-Oklahoma line, because "needed factories
refuse to come into the neighborhood" due to lack of desirable recre-
ational opportunities.
Our Nation's recreational facilities are woefully inadequate now.
What will they be 40 years hence, unless we clean up our polluted
waters without further delay?
We Need New Philosophies
The foregoing examples of pollution's impact on fish, wildlife,
recreation and esthetic values should convince the most skeptical that
we need some new philosophies, some bold, new approaches.
Immediately there are those who will say, "yes, but what?"
1. First and foremost, the current philosophy of how much pollution
can we add to our waters without public rebellion must be replaced
with one of pollution removal and stream enhancement.
2. Those who are legally and technically responsible for cleaning
up the pollution mess must join hands with the conservationists.
Though their approaches may differ, both are working for the same
objective—clean water.
3. Some states set maximum pollution loads for municipalities or
new industries seeking approval for new waste outlets. In such
situations are we allowing an ample cushion to accommodate future
users of the same watercourse?
4. Sanitary engineers have been most efficient, but their training
should be broadened to recognize social values. All water pollution
elimination programs should include biologists, and probably recre-
ation specialists as part of the working team.
5. The drive to stop publicly-owned institutions and other installa-
tions from polluting our waters should be given top priority. President
Eisenhower showed the way last spring with reference to Federal
installations. Isn't it tune that our Governors and Mayors do like-
wise?
6. Why are we so slow in complying with repeated recommendations
from conservation and other organizations that we stop dumping
atomic wastes into our streams and ocean waters?
93
-------
7. Finally, we must aim much higher in all of our pollution control
efforts. Informed people are saying that water pollution is much
bigger and much more important to this country than its present ad-
ministrative level in the Public Health Service indicates. If this be
true, and I believe it is, isn't it time we do something about it?
And what is true of our inadequate Federal effort is equally true at
the State level.
We must aim much higher if we are to win the battle for clean waters.
We must be much more aggressive if we would avoid a water crisis in
America. Complacency won't get the job done!
Mr. GREGG. Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, fellow mem-
bers of the Panel: I would like to take advantage of a point of
personal privilege to tell you how proud I am that Seth Gordon was
once Conservation Director of the Izaak Walton League about 30
years ago and to have the record of this Conference reflect that
every American lives a little bit richer life for the contribution that
he has made to making our recreation opportunities a little better.
In pondering how we might discuss Mr. Gordon's paper on impacts
of pollution on fish, wildlife, recreation, and esthetic values, we
thought perhaps it might be useful to see if we couldn't get you some
opinions from the people who use the value. Specifically we thought
it might be helpful if we would contact our own people, the men and
women who belong to our organization, who are active outdoor
enthusiasts, and to ask them what effect water pollution has on their
own specific recreation habits, hoping that by developing some informa-
tion on this we might be able to apply it statistically at least a little
bit and give us a fresh perspective on the impacts in terms of people.
DISCUSSION
FRANK GREGG
Executive Director
Izaak Walton League of America, Inc.
What effect does pollution have on the recreational habits of the
American people? At what point in the water quality scale does the
recreation user—the angler, the boater, the waterfowl hunter, the
swimmer, and all who respond to the elemental appeal of water in
their individual ways—decide that a particular section of lake or
stream or bay no longer serves his need?
A clear answer to these and related questions would provide both
basis and incentive for establishing pollution policy and programs
that would protect and enhance recreation values. But the possi-
94
-------
bility of translating subjective judgments into water quality criteria
is remote. Precisely because the judgments are personal, however,
the opinions of the recreational water user himself are important—
the recreational value of our waters is determined by the decisions of
people to use, or not to use, them.
This paper will summarize responses to a survey on water recreation
and pollution conducted among chapters of The Izaak Walton League
of America, a national conservation organization of outdoor-minded
men and women. The survey is not represented as definitive. But
the responses are so close in important respects to recreation habits
of the average outdoorsman as reported in the 1955 "National Survey
of Fishing and Hunting", published by the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, that we may claim them to be worthy of considera-
tion.
The responses indicate that at the present time 6 out of 10 of our
people have what they consider at least "adequate" water recreation
opportunity. But 4 out of 10 do not. And the responses point
unmistakably toward a threat of future recreational famine for
additional millions; toward an opportunity to double the capacity of
our waters to meet future recreational needs by cleansing them of
pollution; and toward the need for high goals and vigorous programs,
if the threat is to be avoided and the opportunity realized.
The questionnaire was mailed to chapter presidents about October
10, 1960. Chapters were asked to arrive at a consensus among their
members on these matters of judgment and opinion:
The member's personal opinion of the quality of his local water
recreation opportunities; his use of these local opportunities; his use
of more distant waters; his opinion of the capacity of local waters to
meet future needs; whether gross pollution of local waters sharply
reduces their attractiveness to him. or renders them unfit for his
recreation; and to what extent he thinks he might use his local waters
for recreation if they were unpolluted.
The response to the questionnaire has been satisfactory. Over 190
chapters out of 580 reported in time to be represented in this paper.
Reports that appeared not to reflect a consensus, or to be in error for
other reasons, were discarded. The following comments are based
on an analysis of questionnaires from 159 representative communities
across the country:
The first question asked the chapter members to appraise local
water recreation opportunities within a one-half-hour drive of the
respondents' homes. Thirty chapters reported "excellent"; 62 "ade-
quate"; and 67 "inadequate." These appraisals are consistent witk
answers given to subsequent questions.
Chapters with "inadequate" local opportunities reported they had
to drive an average of 2% hours (one way) to reach what they consider
"adequate" opportunities—perhaps indicating that the 1-day outing
95
-------
is available to considerable numbers only by stretching the hours of
daylight.
The answers to questions on frequency of use appear lo be signifi-
cant. Those with "excellent" local opportunities use those resources
21 trips a year on the average, compared to just over 12 for the
"adequate," and 11 for the "inadequate" groups. Perhaps more
important, chapter members with "excellent" local sport take their
families with them 11 times per year, compared to seven family trips
in "adequate," and six in "inadequate" areas.
Somewhat surprisingly, the absence of excellent local opportunity
may not inspire many more trips to distant points. The question on
frequency of use of waters outside the locality brought answers of 2.9
trips per year for "excellent" and 3.6 for "adequate" and "inadequate".
Ah1 three take the family about three-fourths of the time, with the
"inadequates" averaging slightly higher than the other two groups.
We may speculate that a certain minimum quality of sport must be
available to maintain the outdoorsman's interest, or to justify his
investment in tackle, boats, motors and related equipment. Perhaps
as local opportunities are lost to competing recreational uses and
urbanization—and pollution—the outdoorsman puts away his rod
and gun and turns to whatever alternate pursuits are available. If
so, we may say with finality that all of society is the loser for this loss
of contact with the outdoors, especially since the loss may extend—
through lack of an introduction—to succeeding generations.
The reporting chapters' opinions on future recreation opportunities
are consistent with other replies. Those in "excellent" areas reported
their waters capable of sustaining half again as much use in 19 out of
24 cases. Thirteen said their local resources could take twice or more
the present use. Several noted that use could be multiplied if it were
evenly spread through the week, and, to a lesser extent, through the
year. But of the "adequate" areas, less than half think a pressure
half again as great can be absorbed; only 5 out of 41 see hope for meet-
ing doubled pressures. And 40 percent of the respondents, as pre-
viously noted, reported that their local opportunities are inadequate
today.
There is clearly a relationship in the areas reported on between
pollution and adequacy of opportunity. Sixty percent of the "ex-
cellent" and "adequate" areas reported periodic pollution severe
enough to effect recreation. The waters involved were reported as
polluted about two-thirds of the recreation season. Ninety percent
of the "inadequate" areas reported significant pollution present over
80 percent of the local water recreation season.
Pollution sources were remarkably evenly divided among municipal
(54), industrial (46), and siltation (56).
Pollution so severe as to simply render the affected areas unsuitable
for recreation were reported in approximately the same proportions
96
-------
as less severe pollution. Chapters in the "excellent" group reported
13 instances of severe stream pollution and 4 in lakes; "adequate"
areas reported 31 in streams and 9 in lakes; "inadequate" areas re-
ported 41 in streams and 13 in lakes.
The loss of waters for recreation reported by this sample amounted
to 85 cases of stream pollution totaling 4,308 miles of stream, and 26
cases of lake pollution totaling 14,519 acres.
A key survey item—perhaps the heart of the entire question of
impacts of water pollution on fish, wildlife, recreation and esthetic
values—is in the question asking for a consensus on the number of
times per year members of reporting chapters would use the presently
polluted local water resources, if they were restored to and maintained
in usable condition.
The replies are revealing. The "excellent" group indicates that
they would use the relatively small proportion of polluted local
waters—if cleaned up—about 8 times per year. The "adequate"
group, predictably, says 10 times per year. And the "inadequate"
group—with unmistakable yearning—estimates its use at 17.8 times
per year, if its waters were cleansed of pollution. (The estimate of
use appears to be valid; note that the "excellent" group reported it
uses its close-to-home waters 21 times per year.)
Analysis
It is tempting to apply the implication of this modest survey of
outdoorsmen to available statistics on numbers of fishermen, water-
fowl hunters, boaters, and other assorted recreationists. We will
yield to it briefly.
Information from state game and fish agencies shows that a half
million fishing licenses were sold in 42 counties reported on in the
survey as having adequate or inadequate opportunity. Using the
reported estimates of use if polluted local waters were cleaned up (10
more trips per year in adequate areas in 18 in inadequate areas), we
find that almost 7 million (6,836,356) man-days of recreation are lost
annually in these counties to polluted waters.
A projection of survey figures to the entire nation is similarly
interesting.
There were 20 million fishing licenses sold in 1959 and a couple of
million migratory waterfowl stamps. Boat owners who aren't fisher-
men or waterfowlers swell the total. So do wives and youngsters
along for the ride. So do tens of millions of people, not classified,
who seek the water and the water's edge for recreation. But settle
for 20 million, the number of fishermen over 12 years of age alone—an
unncessarily modest figure, we can agree.
League members reported they would make from 8 to 18 more
trips per year locally if their presently polluted local waters were
cleaned up. The weighted average for all three groups was 13, Since
97
-------
the average League member takes to the water for recreation about
the same number of times as the average fisherman as reported in the
1955 Fish and Wildlife Service survey (17 as compared to 16.4), we may
reasonably apply the weighted average of additional trips to the 20
million. Based what appear to be valid responses from the survey,
there are something on the order of 260 million fishing trips a year to
local waters not taken because of water pollution.
The figure can be added to with similar data on the opportunities
for other forms of water recreation lost to pollution. It can be
discounted, if anyone wishes to do so, 10 or 20 or 50 percent, for that
matter, without changing the conclusion that it forces upon us:
Pollution is presently destroying and diminishing fish and wildlife
production and recreation and esthetic values to an extent that makes
the ancient alternatives of "fish or progress" as a justification for
pollution a palpable distortion of the recreation values of our waters.
What investments in boats and motors and rods and reels and creels
and cameras and cottages and gasoline are not made because of hun-
dreds of millions of recreation trips not taken to local waters? What
returns in invigorating exercise, restored spirits and plain human
happiness are not realized because of water pollution? A new Fish
and Wildlife Service survey to be published next year will help answer
the question of economic losses. The noneconomic loss is incalculable.
And what of the future?
People in 40 percent of the representative communities covered in
the survey report they presently have inadequate water recreation
opportunity. A few more than half of the areas are reported as
capable of serving half again the present use; less than a third can
serve twice as much with the present amount and condition of water.
Yet the population grows, and experts emphasize that recreation
demand grows far faster than the population—perhaps, we may sug-
gest, precisely because the pressures of the world make recreation a
need as well as a want of our people.
Summary
The survey confirms, with allowance for error but not for funda-
mental change, the grim picture of the impacts of pollution on our
recreational waterways that conservationists have insisted is accurate.
How much would a nationwide clean-up help? The survey indi-
cates that the number of trips per year to local waters would more than
double in the 40 percent of communities reported as "inadequate."
In presently "adequate" areas their use would go up about 80 percent.
And even in presently "excellent" areas the use would increase about
60 percent.
How can the clean-up be accomplished? Not, we contend, by the
currently widely advocated notion that wisdom compels us to use our
waters to a debatable "maximum" for waste dilution. On the con-
98
-------
trary, any such maximum-use-for-waste-disposal philosophy will con-
demn us to a surface water resource just clean enough not to pose a
direct threat to public health but far below the standard necessary to
maintain recreation and esthetic values.
More people, more industries, new processes, new pollutants
(insecticides and pesticides should be noted) force us to discard the
"load it to the hilt" philosophy.
We must, as Seth Gordon has said, adopt a conservation philosophy.
The concept of stewardship applied to the problem holds that we must
accept the positive policy of keeping our waters as clean as we can to
serve the widest range of present uses with the greatest possible margin
for future uses—as opposed to the negative policy of keeping them as
dirty as we dare.
This Conference can help significantly by:
•—recognizing the recreation value of our water resource as a full
partner with domestic, industrial and agricultural values in water
quality management policies and programs;
•—accepting the conservation philosophy of water pollution control,
including specifically the necessity for maintaining water of such
quality as will meet recreation needs;
—-helping those directly responsible for pollution abatement find
better ways to tackle their problem; and
— agreeing on programs placing prime responsibility on sources of
pollution, but also making full creative use of the delegated powers
of government—local, State and Federal—to study, educate, per-
suade and assist; and, where necessary, to speed action through
vigorous enforcement of strong, equitable laws.
DISCUSSION
MRS. E. LEE OZBIRN
President
General Federation of Women's Clubs
Water pollution has been termed our national housekeeping problem.
How I wish that I, a natural-born housekeeper, possessed a magic
broom that I might sweep all this pollution out of the streams, rivers,
lakes, and waterways that a prodigal nature lavished on our country,
and restore them to their pristine purity for all to use and enjoy! But,
alas, there is no such magic tool.
Does it not seem incredible that while we were producing push-button
appliances, thinking machines, super highways, and all the wonders
of our modern technological era, we permitted this insidious menace
99
-------
of pollution to creep and spread so that great numbers of water
recreation areas, once our national pride, are now scars on our national
conscience?
P^ven now, while we are planning to visit outer space, we might do
well to visit our own front yards and observe the countless water
areas in the East and West, North and South, yes, all over the country,
which have been removed from public use because they no longer
meet the health requirements for water sports, and are posted—
"Keep Out—Water Polluted." All too familiar is the threat of our
vanishing shoreline for play purposes. Of New York City's 575
miles of coastline only 35 are suitable for swimming.
To fully appreciate the impact of water pollution on recreation and
aesthetic values let us briefly consider some facts and figures. At the
top of the list is the irrefutable fact that water is a necessary part of
recreation for a vast majority of people. Life Magazine in a recent
survey queried its correspondents all over the country on their leisure
time pursuits, and the answers overwhelmingly emphasized water
sports—boating, swimming, fishing, water skiing, and skin diving.
There is a therapeutic effect which water possesses. It induces a
feeling of exhilaration and relaxation, while it restores and re-creates
our spiritual and physical self. Such revitalization is important in
our hectic modern life in helping us to maintain a healthy equilibrium.
The total number of water recreation enthusiasts must represent
an astronomical figure, to judge from some recent statistics. A
Gallup poll in 1959 estimated there were 33 million swimmers and 32
million fisherman. The Outboard Boating Association claimed 35
million small boat users. It is a comparatively short time since
water skiing became popular in this country, yet according to esti-
mates 6 million now indulge in this sport. Skin diving, another new-
comer to water activities, accounts for many millions more. This all
adds up to hundreds of millions of recreation hours which depend on
water—clean water—and has brought a new word into our vocabu-
lary—aquamania.
I daresay there are many people who would place the economic
value of water recreation activities at the top of the list. Certainly of
the 40 billion dollars spent annually on leisure time recreation, water
sports account for a huge slice. Boating alone contributes some $2
billion, while women bought $225 million worth of bathing suits just
last year. Yes, the economic value is mighty important to our
Nation's prosperity.
But there is another value of water recreation which is equally im-
portant, though it cannot be measured by any statistical yardstick—
and that is the intangible, aesthetic value. Who can assess the worth
of happy memories we carry through our lives of picnics at the lake,
Sunday afternoon drives with the family along the bay, or sitting on
the beach relaxing while the children splash around in the water.
100
-------
Who knows what masterpiece of painting, or poem, or song might be
inspired as its potential creator idles along in a canoe on the local
Loch Lomond? (Has anyone heard of a poem or song dedicated to
the polluted Potomac?) In the lives of millions of families this value
in terms of happiness and pleasure is immeasurable and incalculable.
Why has this problem of water pollution and its impact on recre-
ation areas become so demanding of immediate remedial action?
In the span of a single generation in our country the very nature of
our water supply, our most preeious natural resource, has been
greatly altered by the ever-increasing amount of untreated and
partially retreated wastes that are being dumped into our rivers,
lakes, streams, and coastal waters. This situation got out of control
before its magnitude was realized, and we have not been aggressive
enough with our treatment programs to catch up, let alone get ahead
of this grim condition.
A river or lake lost through pollution to recreational enjoyment
requires a very long period of time to restore it to its natural beauty,
even after treatment gets underway. Mr. Gordon and Mr. Gregg
have given us some impressive figures in support of this. Thus we
have created a vicious circle—pollution of our waterways increasing
at a faster rate than treatment, which in turn reduces the amount of
water recreation areas at the very time that there is an ever increasing
demand for such water acreage.
It is this increase in the need for more water recreation areas that
points up the urgency of accelerated remedial action. When more
people have more leisure time which they devote to recreation, more
facilities are demanded, and particularly facilities for outdoor recrea-
tion which includes water sports.
We recognize how imperative it is that pollution programs be ac-
celerated to provide for the present needs. What about the future?
Must we not at the same time anticipate the demands of the mounting
recreation load ahead? Think of the water recreation acreage that
will be needed in the next decade, with its estimated increase in popu-
lation of about 34 million, and the increase in leisure time which will
result from the work week which may then be 32 hours? Foresight
and vision are demanded of us now if we are not to pass this dilemma
on to future generations.
What are we doing to avoid this? Since another panel is concerned
with the ways and means, I will not go into specific details, but I
cannot stand before you and present a summary of this deplorable
situation without expressing my strongly held views on the action
I believe should and must be taken.
In the past, it seemed as if pride in one's community would be suffi-
cient to deal with any local pollution problem. This has proven to
be unavailing. States alone seemed unable to carry the financial
burden of such a gigantic task, and as a result, the Federal Govern-
101
-------
ment entered the battle with the Federal Pollution Control Act. It
is indeed heartening to find that this Act specifically includes in its
provisions the words "recreation purposes." Moreover, in a recent
"stop pollution order" issued by Secretary Flemming, and served on
Kansas City, Kans., and Kansas City, Mo., and a long list of indus-
trial firms in those cities, the action declared, and I quote, "that this
pollution not only hurts the water supply in several cities, but also
impedes development of the Missouri Eiver for recreation purposes."
Public consciousness seems to be awakening to the seriousness of
the situation, and municipalities, States, and industry here and there,
recognizing its criticalness, are taking some remedial action. This
is certainly encouraging, but time does not permit this to be done
inch by inch'—huge strides must be taken. The answer seems appar-
ent to me'—-we must have legislation and legislation with teeth in it.
Just where this should begin remains to be established, but it is our
duty as responsible, responsive citizens to press for proper legislation
that will make available for recreation purposes all water areas, be
it Boggy Creek, in Sentinel, Oklahoma, or the Potomac, in our
Nation's Capital.
102
-------
Effect of Water Pollution on Industry
LELAND C. BURROUGHS
Assistant to the Vice President—Manufacturing
Shell Oil Company
All of us use the term "water pollution" as though it were a specific
thing capable of precise definition. This is not the case at all. What
may be considered pollution by one user of a stream's water may be
completely ignored by another. An industrial user who may care
nothing about taste and odor can be seriously affected by a small
amount of nitrate contamination. The situation would be reversed
for a muncipal water works.
Because streams and lakes have the ability to purify themselves
they have always been used for disposal of aqueous wastes. Those
who use streams for this purpose feel they have a right to this privi-
lege within limits, although selfish interests may cause abuse of this
privilege. Beyond question, some industrial plants must be included
among those with selfish interests; however, State and Federal laws,
and the pressure of public opinion have forced close controls on
industry.
There are others less closely controlled. Farmers who sue to col-
lect damages for industrial waste damage to livestock or property
may themselves employ poor soil conservation practices, thereby affect-
ing industry downstream. Municipalities have caused industries to
lay out large sums for waste treatment in order to protect the city
water supply while these municipalities are themselves dumping
volumes of sanitary sewage and other wastes into the stream and the
citizens are unwilling to correct this pollution although it is causing
serious downstream effects. The U.S. Public Health Service is to be
commended for its efforts in making the individual citizen aware of
his responsibilities in abating stream pollution.
When, then, is a stream polluted? Of course, we recognize that
water pollution can be judged in many ways depending upon such things
583283—61 8 103
-------
as nature of contaminants, amount of contaminants, ability of the
water to purify itself, use of the water, individual opinions as to degree
of pollution, etc. Nevertheless, most definitions of water pollution
recognize that all natural surface waters have some capacity for
assimilating contaminants and that there are sound reasons why this
capacity should be, and probably always will be utilized. This is
true because stream contamination comes from countless sources
including such things as decaying vegetation, silt, natural salt deposits,
industries, municipalities, and agriculture. The number of sources
is increasing daily as are the problems of control.
As has been said many times, "Pollution becomes a major problem
when the assimilative capacity of a stream is exceeded." But this
is vague and may be considered as assuming that the water will not
be used until it has adequately diluted its waste load or purified itself,
which is, of course, unrealistic. With increasing population and in-
dustrial activity along streams there will be less and less opportunity
for self-purification of streams.
A good definition of pollution seems to be that of Dr. Richard D.
Hoak, of Mellon Institute, who has stated "Pollution is the discharge
of material that unreasonably impairs the quality of water for maxi-
mum beneficial use in the overall public interest." This definition
leaves open the question of "What is unreasonable impairment of
water quality?—and rightly so as quality needs for various uses can
differ widely. For the purposes of this paper, no effort will be made to
define pollution within any close limits but rather to speak of it broadly
as the discharge of material causing objectionable effects in the
receiving waters.
In considering the impact or effect of water pollution on industry let
us first discuss the effects on industry of using water from polluted
streams or other sources. There are thousands of industrial plants
ranging from one room units discharging into city sewers to immense
and complicated industrial plants with waste treatment facilities and
separate outfalls. These plants are units of many industries including
foods, chemicals, steel, automobiles, plastics, mining, petroleum,
ceramics, pharmaceuticals, fermentation, distilling, machinery, paper,
etc. Water quality and quantity requirements vary between these
industries and, in fact, differ broadly between units of a single industry.
For instance, two plants of a single chemical company may have
vastly different water needs because manufacturing processes are not
the same or because different chemicals are produced. A food or
beverage company may require water of high purity because it is
used in marketed products. On the other hand, a paper company
may use water only in the manufacturing process.
While it is not possible in a single presentation to discuss the water
quality and quantity requirements of individual industries, certain
generalities can be drawn.
104
-------
1. Industry uses large volumes of water for cooling purposes. This
may amount to one-half to two-thirds of the total usage. In many
industries such as petroleum, chemical, and power, the water may be
taken through closed-pipe coolers and condensers and returned to
the lake or stream on a once-through basis. Water quality require-
ments for such service are modest with the most objectionable
pollutants being (a) mud or silt which is erosive and deposits in the
cooling water system, (b) corrosive pollutants such as acids and (c)
organic matter, particularly slime-forming organisms. Scale-forming
compounds (hardness) are objectionable. These constituents as well
as bacterial slimes may seriously interfere with heat transfer through
cooler or condenser tubes. A number of large industrial plants
located near the coast use sea water for once-through cooling purposes
even though this water is quite corrosive due to its salt content.
Many industrial plants, both large and small, use spray ponds or
towers for removing the heat from process cooling waters and thereby
have made it possible to reuse the water many times. There is some
loss, due to evaporation in the tower, and withdrawals to the sewer,
to maintain a satisfactory level of dissolved solids. These losses
and withdrawals are usually replaced with clean water taken from
wells or from city water mains. Large refrigerating or air-conditioning
units usually have a recirculating type of cooling water system. In
some instances, particularly where the water is taken from deep
wells, it must be softened before being used for make-up purposes
in a recirculating system. This treatment reduces scaling of tubulars.
It may be said that salt is the most objectionable pollutant in
industrial cooling water taken from surface water supplies. Where
the problem is critical an industrial plant may install sedimentation
basins to remove the solids or use wells or other water sources.
Although large volumes of water are used, the consumption is small
and volumes returned to a stream are closely the same as those
withdrawn.
Waters which have been used for cooling purposes through closed
systems are rarely the cause of stream pollution. There is, of course,
the possibility that the cooling water may increase the temperature
of the surface water into which it is discharged, usually by not more
than a few degrees. This type of "pollution" has been much dis-
cussed and its importance probably greatly exaggerated. It has not
been firmly established that water quality is significantly impaired
by temperature changes, within limits, particularly when the warmth
is contributed by a continuously operating plant such as a power
company. The temperature of a stream may vary over a range of
say 40° F. from winter to summer and heavy rainfall may change
the temperature of a stream a number of degrees in only a few hours.
2. Industry employs water for many process purposes. These
include (a) cleaning of products and process equipment, (b) use as a
105
-------
solvent for chemicals, (c) testing of tanks and process equipment for
leakage, (d) hydraulic removal of bark from logs, (e) scrubbing of
gases and liquids, etc. In many cases water may be a major part
of the product being manufactued. Water quality is critical in some
industries simply because it contacts or enters the product. It is
estimated that about one-fourth of the water required by industry is
used in the manufacturing processes themselves.
The degree of purity needed varies over a broad range but in general
reasonably clean and silt-free water is required. River water, even
though essentially free of man-made pollution, is seldom suitable
for use as process water due to its content of silt and other con-
taminants. Lake water has limited application. Most industrial
process water is taken from wells or treated surface water supplies.
It is difficult to generalize as to industries' needs. For example, the
food industry must have tasteless water of high purity, the textile
industry wants water of low hardness, the paper industry needs
water free of turbidity and substances that could color paper, the
beer industry must have odorless and tasteless water free of nitrates,
bicarbonates, ferrous iron and copper compounds. Chlorides cause
difficulty in the steel industry, iron and magnesium are a problem
to the producers of plastics. The manufacture of pharmaceutical
and biological products requires water purity considerably above
drinking water standards. The chemical and oil industries use many
separate and distinct manufacturing processes and water quality
needs vary accordingly. Many other examples could be cited to
show that industry-process water quality requirements are varied
indeed and that the natural impurities in the water supply, be it
stream or well, may be of greater concern than those caused by the
activity of man. Also, regardless of the water source or degree of
pollution, treatment may be necessary to prepare water for specific
industrial use.
3. It is probable that about 10 percent of the water used by
industry goes to boilers for the production of steam. There has been
a pronounced trend toward higher and higher boiler pressures and
temperatures in recent years. This is necessitating the use of boiler
water of exacting quality specifications if corrosion, scaling, and frequent
boiler shut-downs are to be avoided. In general, boiler feed water
should be reasonably free of dissolved solids, particularly those which
are scale-forming or may cause priming. Eegardless of source and
cleanliness, water for boilers usually requires softening to remove scale-
forming compounds.
4. Industry has many non-process uses for water including fire
fighting, washing of equipment, special cooling applications such as
tanks and pump glands, irrigation, and miscellaneous. Quality needs
for these services are not high; however, the water must be free of
106
-------
silt. Perhaps no more than 2 to 5 percent of the water use is for
these purposes.
5. Each industrial plant must have an adequate supply of water
for drinking and all sanitary purposes. Usually this water is taken
from wells or purchased from a city water company. This supply,
because of its purity, is also satisfactory for most industrial applica-
tions. However, potable water supplies do not meet the critical needs
of many industries until they are subjected to further purification.
All industries use water—some in tremendous amounts. It is sig-
nificant that in spite of this fact there are only rare and isolated
instances where an industrial plant has considered or proposed any
sort of limits to control the level of general contamination of its
water supply. There are, of course, cases where the waste discharge
of a nearby municipality or a neighboring plant has caused a major
water quality problem. Such situations, with the source of the objec-
tionable pollution clearly indicated, are usually worked out between
the parties involved, with recourse to the courts under existing laws,
if necessary. In general, it may be said that units of industry accept
their available water supplies with relatively little complaint, and
treat or purify them as necessary to meet their individual require-
ments. The cost of purification of water will vary according to the
circumstances but is usually not great as industry's greatest water
need, that is for cooling water, does not demand high water quality.
One may not discuss the effect of stream pollution upon industrial
use of water taken from the stream without looking at the other side
of the coin and considering the effect of this pollution upon the level
to which the purity of the return waste water must be raised to avoid
objectionable effects. It has already been stated that the vast major-
ity of industrial plants will return to a stream volumes of water nearly
as great as those withdrawn. Parts or all of this water will contain
potential pollutants originating from process wastes, leaks, and spills.
Traditionally, industry has discharged limited amounts of wastes into
lakes and streams without objectionable effects. With increasing pop-
ulation and growth of industry most companies have found it neces-
sary to reduce waste discharge to much lower levels in order to main-
tain satisfactory conditions in the receiving waters. They have been
strongly encouraged to do so by social pressure from the local citizens.
One of the first steps normally taken by an industrial plant in its
studies to reduce discharge of contaminants is to examine carefully
all possible means of lowering the volume of waste water. In so
doing, the size of the facilities needed for treating this water for re-
moval of objectionable constituents will be smaller and the cost will
be lower. More efficient use of the water taken into the plant has
been achieved in many ways, including changes in manufacturing
processes, greater reuse of water, a change from cooling with water
to cooling with air, careful control of water flows for cooling bearing
107
-------
and pump glands, and others. Keuse of cooling water by circulation
to spray ponds or towers results in great reductions in the volume
of water discharged from a plant.
It is common knowledge that an electric power plant, using steam
turbines for driving the generators, may return to the boilers vir-
tually 100 percent of the water resulting from condensing the steam.
Since little make-up water is needed, the problem of treating this
fresh water to remove objectionable chemical constituents or pollut-
ants is a minor one.
Many other industrial plants which use steam solely for process
and heating purposes also conserve water by reusing steam condensate
in boilers. A large oil refinery, for example, uses well water for a
particular process requiring year-round cold water for cooling. The
warmed water is then used as boiler feed water. The following ap-
proximate figures apply at this refinery for winter peak boiler loads.
Gallons
per
minute
Fresh boiler water 3, 250
Steam condensate return to boilers 1, 050
Total 4, 300
Steam condensate, water treater blowdown, and boiler blowdown to
refinery sewers 3, 200
It is of interest to note that one-fourth of the steam production is
from steam condensate. Very little water is lost or consumed, as
the volume from boiler sources discharged into the refinery sewers
is only slightly less than the fresh water to the boilers.
It is disturbing to industry that some municipalities are extremely
reluctant to spend the money necessary to provide adequate sewage
treatment plants even though this may amount to relatively few dol-
lars per resident. The general attitude seems to be to cause industry to
achieve low levels of contaminants in effluent waters, thereby providing
more room in streams for untreated or inadequately treated municipal
sewage. This attitude persists in some cities even though Federal
grants pay a significant percentage of the cost of municipal treatment
plants. Industry pays the entire cost of its own facilities and its taxes
contribute importantly toward payment for the municipal facilities.
Industrial management, for the most part, does not believe that
pollution of industrial water supplies will increase to more critical
levels in the near future. In fact, it is virtually impossible to predict
with any satisfactory degree of confidence the extent to which an
estimated rate of industrial expansion, in combination with normal
population growth, would affect stream pollution. Virtually all large
industrial plants being built today are including provisions for control
of waste water quality. State and municipal regulations demand
adequate clean-up of waste waters and many require that detailed
108
-------
plans for treatment of waste waters from new industrial plants or
revisions or extensions to existing manufacturing processes or waste
treatment facilities be submitted for approval. The citizens of
municipalities are becoming increasingly aware that they, as well as
industry, must assume financial obligations for control of municipal
wastes. Industry is certainly aware ol its responsibilities arid is
spending much money on facilities and research. These efforts are
bearing fruit and their continuance is assurance to industry of satis-
factory future water supplies.
More and more frequently in recent years, articles by so-called water
resources experts have warned that there is a general water shortage
and that in 20 years this shortage will be critical to the extent of
seriously affecting technological and industrial progress. Such fore-
casts are usually based on "use" of water by industry and munici-
palities without proper regard to the fact that water may be used
countless times without being lost. In fact, water is not consumed.
It can be lost only by evaporation, by soaking into the ground, or by
transportation to another location.
It has been said that it takes 2% gallons of water to make a phono-
graph record, 5 gallons to process a gallon of milk, 8 gallons to produce
a pound of sugar, 150 gallons to make the paper used in a 5-pound
Sunday newspaper, and 600,000 gallons to make a ton of synthetic
rubber. While these figures may be interesting they have little or
no significance, as the water is not evaporated or lost but largely
reused or discarded to a stream. Some industrial plants use closed
systems in which water is reused countless times, thus conserving
water and avoiding the possibility of causing stream pollution.
Summary
Industry's greatest water use is for cooling. The most objectionable
pollutants are silt and organic matter, although corrosive and scale-
forming substances can also cause problems. Increased attention
to soil conservation practices and other steps to reduce silt loadings
of streams would be beneficial.
Continuous recirculation of cooling water to spray ponds and towers
is practiced extensively by industry as a means of conserving water.
Water for this purpose is usually taken from wells or municipal water
supplies. Pollution is not a frequent problem although treatment is
sometimes necessary for removal of objectionable constituents.
Industry's water quality needs for process purposes vary over a
wide range from such noncritical requirements as the washing of gravel
to the exacting qualifications of the pharmaceutical industry.
Whether the water source is stream, lake or well some form of treat-
ment by industry is necessary to condition the water for may applica-
tions. Boiler feed water must be clean and satisfactorily free of
scaling constituents, corrosive substances and organic matter.
109
-------
Industry must have an adequate supply of water for drinking and
sanitary uses. This source of supply is also used by many industries
for certain process and cooling purposes. Pollution of this water is
rarely a problem to industry.
For the great majority of all industrial water uses municipal and
industrial water pollution has not caused problems. Certain applica-
tions have necessitated special purification treatment to remove
contaminants. Industrial plants usually accept their available water
supplies with little complaint and provide treatment as necessary to
obtain the required water purity.
Industry believes it has been and is making good progress in abating
industrial pollution of surface waters, in developing answers to its
waste disposal problems, and in conserving its water supply by im-
proved efficiency and reuse. With a continued industrial program and
equal efforts by municipalities and agriculture to reduce water
pollution, industry confidently believes that pollution of its water
supplies will be less and less of a problem in future years.
DISCUSSION
K. S. WATSON
Consultant
Water Management and Water Control
General Electric Company
Mr. L. C. Burroughs has in his paper adequately covered major
water uses in industry and the effect of pollution on these uses. Since
this is the case, I will not in this discussion cover the same material
but will briefly consider some other related areas which have been
called to mind.
Industry is obviously interested and concerned with water pollution
control as a result of her ever-expanding water requirements. For
industry to make the necessary contributions to the economy for the
continuation of national growth and prosperity, adequate water of
the proper quality must be available for cooling, process, boiler,
sanitary, and miscellaneous purposes.
Pollution Control
In recent years industry has been more and more motivated by the
responsible corporate citizenship concept. Within the scope of this
philosophy is the desire to discharge an effluent which does not seri-
ously pollute the receiving stream. In an effort to properly protect
the stream, responsible industry as a matter of course designs along
110
-------
with the design of new manufacturing facilities, necessary equipment
to control and treat wastes. Plant expansion projects are also being
given the same consideration. Controlling pollution from existing
plants is more difficult but great progress has also been made in this
area.
This brief review of industry's efforts to control plant wastes leads
to a slightly different twist to the subject under consideration. It
might be worded as follows: "What are the effects of pollution control
on industry?"
It is apparent, perhaps, that the major effect that the incorporation
of waste control and treatment facilities into manufacturing plants
does have is that of increasing industry's investment in its physical
plant. The manufacturing plant also becomes more expensive to
operate in proportion to how extensive the waste control facilities may
be. All this, of course, adds up to the fact that it becomes more ex-
pensive for industry to carry on business. In the final analysis,
therefore, industrial products must be increased in price to the extent
necessary to cover these additional costs.
New Plants
Industry must obviously consider many factors in deciding upon
the location of a new plant. Two of the considerations which have
been growing in importance in recent years are: the obtaining of a
sound source of water, and finding a location with a satisfactory
waste control climate.
The magnitude of stream pollution is often significant in an indus-
try's consideration of whether the water situation for an area is sound
for a plant-developed supply. In some cases, however, the natural
characteristics of the stream or well water could be such that this
would preclude certain types of industries choosing the area for a
plant location, regardless of pollution considerations. If the industry
is interested in obtaining part or all of its water from the municipal
supply, it will have to satisfy itself that a sound and equitable agree-
ment can be reached with the city in question.
Many factors come into the evaluation of the waste control climate.
A major one is whether the assimilative capacity of the stream under
consideration is such that it can accept the treated discharge from a
new plant in addition to the loads being contributed by existing
municipalities and industries. The industry also must be confident
that the water pollution control program in the State where the plant
is being located is in competent hands, and the climate at State and
interstate levels is such that a matter as important as pollution control
will not be influenced by partisan politics. If the plant desires to
connect part or all of its discharge into the city sewer system, an
appropriate and equitable agreement must of course be reached with
the municipality under consideration.
Ill
-------
Water Legislation
One other effect of water pollution on industry has been to sharpen
industry's interest in water resources legislation. The concept
that pollution control is primarily a State responsibility is a rather
generally held concept so it will not be considered here.
What I would like to briefly consider, however, is what constitutes
a proper format for sound water resource legislation at the State level.
There has been a trend in recent years toward centralizing all water
resource authority in a single State agency. Such a trend can be
sound or unsound depending upon the approach used in a particular
State.
The classic concept until recently has been for each branch of State
government, with an obvious interest in water, to exercise control
over that particular interest. This approach thus verifies the thought
that it is not sound to combine all responsibility for water control in
a single special interest department.
It would seem that one of two sound procedures can be used by the
States to modernize the water legislation structure so it is more in
keeping with the requirements of the times:
1. Existing law can be sharpened up so the various water interests
can be left in existing departments but duplication of effort reduced to
a minimum.
2. A new department of water resources can be created in which all
existing areas of interest can be included as divisions.
Water Treatment
In many respects an industry looks at the treatment of polluted
water much in the same manner as does a municipality. The more
polluted the water is, the more expensive and costly it becomes to
convert it into a satisfactory water supply. In municipal treatment,
the concern is to make the water potable and safe for human con-
sumption. In industry there is often not the same degree of concern
about safe and potable water because many plants use city water or
wells for sanitary requirements.
On the other hand, industry is often concerned with conditioning
a portion of its water supply so its mineral content is lower or changed
in form. This is most often done by softening, deionization or distilla-
tion. Industry's general orientation, therefore, is that if a particular
process requires a special type of water, necessary water tailoring
equipment will be installed to supply the demand. Industrial repre-
sentatives will then probably have the tendency to take the view
that coping with the stream pollution resulting from the increas-
ing complexities of national life merely becomes another one of the
increasing costs of doing business.
112
-------
Mr. FOX. Members of the Panel, Ladies and Gentlemen: When
the topic was assigned to me for this paper today it was entitled
"Benefits of Clean Water." I'm glad of my foresight this afternoon
after hearing the eloquent statements that we have already heard
about the benefits of clean water that I did not stick strictly to that
topic and chose my own subject.
I am pleased that I am to follow Mr. Burroughs, who indicated, I
believe, an important fact here, namely, that there is a question of
taking into account both benefits and costs in considering the problem
of pollution abatement.
113
-------
Pollution: The Problem of Evaluation
IRVING K. Fox
Resources for the Future, Inc.
In a quite general way we recognize many benefits from clean
water. But as far as I know, we have no basis for measuring these
benefits in a systematic manner. The menace to public health is
often advanced as the reason for pollution abatement policies, but
seldom with any bill of particulars. The most common justification
of all seems to spring from a general public reaction against pollution.
The word "pollution" connotes evil; therefore it must be opposed.
But as the quantity of wastes from cities and industry becomes ever
larger with each passing year, as these wastes grow more complex,
as more pesticides and other chemicals wash into our streams, and,
as a consequence of all these things, the quality of the nation's water
resources continues to deteriorate, the need for a much more systematic
approach to tbe analysis of pollution problems becomes essential.
I could recite in general terms the benefits of clean water from the
point of view of public health, outdoor recreation, commercial fishing,
or the industrial water user. This would add little or nothing to
what we already know about the situation. Nor would it stimulate
constructive thinking about what has become our major water prob-
lem. Accordingly, I believe we can use our time here much more
profitably to examine the task of systematically appraising the
benefits of clean water.
My premise is that there are limits to the price we will pay for clean
water. Only where recognized benefits exceed recognized costs, will
it be practicable to institute effective pollution abatement measures.
Not until we have a framework for analysis that will provide a rela-
tively precise understanding of benefits and costs, will we have a
sound basis for the design of public policies and programs for effective
water quality management. We do not have such a framework today
114
-------
and this I believe is one of the reasons that we remain unclear about
the kinds of policies which should be adopted to assure appropriate
standards of water quality.
One reason that we do not have a suitable framework for the
analysis of benefits and costs is that we are dealing with an unusually
complex problem. Numerous interrelated factors must be taken
into account in the design of an appropriate system. My objective
here is twofold: (1) to identify what appears to be some major ele-
ments of the problem and (2) to suggest some lines of study which
will help us establish a suitable basis for benefit-cost evaluation.
An elementary yet essential first step is to establish a classification
of the kinds of water quality deterioration which is useful for purposes
of benefit-cost analysis. There are many types of pollution and
their effects upon water values vary a great deal. Silt causes one
kind of water quality deterioration. Heat from cooling processes
causes another. Salts accumulate as a consequence of irrigation.
Organics are contributed by cities and many industries. The synthetic
organic wastes and the inorganic chemicals contributed by industry
pose quite different problems. The sanitary engineers and the
biologists recognize these differences in research and abatement
activities. Nevertheless, a classification needs to be articulated and
data related to it so that such data can be used for evaluation purposes.
I'm not qualified to suggest a suitable classification system. The
development of such a system will require the coordinated attention
of people from several disciplines including the social sciences. Until
we have a classification system designed to serve the purposes of
evaluation, we cannot evaluate benefits and costs in a systematic
manner.
A second essential step is that of defining quite precisely the different
kinds of values with which we are concerned in water quality manage-
ment. An over-simplified concept of benefits and costs must be
avoided. Most of us will agree that the benefit-cost ratio—as it has
been developed and applied to construction projects—has not been a
completely satisfactory measure of water project desirability. Aside
from technical deficiencies in the practices for benefit-cost analysis
which have been applied by the Federal construction agencies, a major
defect has been that evaluation practices have dealt effectively with
only one of several sets of values involved in water development,
namely those values that can be expressed in dollars. This defect
should be avoided in applying a system of benefit-cost analysis to
pollution abatement.
A differentiation among values may seem elementary but I submit
that much of the difficulty over pollution policy stems from confusion
over the values we want to optimize. Pollution of the Potomac is
considered "serious" or "critical" but I gather waterborne disease is
not evident among the population of the Washington metropolitan
115
-------
region. The story of Chanute, Kans., suggests that organic wastes
in sources of municipal water do not constitute a serious health prob-
lem. This may be erroneous but it underscores the necessity of de-
fining sharply the justification for abatement measures. If it is for
health reasons, what are the dangers and risks, what are the alternate
ways of avoiding these dangers and what are the comparative costs?
My view is that in addition to public health, other values loom large
in the justification of pollution abatement measures.
I suggest that consideration be given to differentiating among at
least three kinds of values. These are health values, aesthetic values,
and what I will call for lack of a better term, "market" values. Health
values and aesthetic values cannot be measured satisfactorily in mone-
tary terms. Yet some measures or indicators of value can, no doubt,
be devised by imaginative individuals. Market values are measurable
in monetary terms but for a variety of reasons in the case of water
quality management they are not subject to optimization through
market forces. Therefore, governmental action is necessary. Tech-
niques of analysis in the field of welfare economics can be applied to
the assessment of these values.
A third element of the problem of benefit-cost analysis—and by far
the most complex and difficult one—is that of taking into account the
physical and biological aspects of water quality management. A given
stream has a certain regenerative capacity after the effluent has been dis-
charged into it, depending upon the quantity of flow, gradient, temper-
ature, and other factors. Because of the variability of stream flow,
this regenerative capacity varies from time to time. Uses differ as
to the water quality that can be tolerated. Aquatic life requires a
certain quantity of oxygen. Domestic water must meet rigid stand-
ards for public health reasons. If water is heated its value for cooling
purposes is reduced. These physical and biological aspects involve a
large number of interrelated variables which have defied handling in a
systematic way to date. To translate various mixtures of effluent,
contributed at different locations under varying conditions of stream
flow, into costs to downstream users at a series of locations is an
unusually complex task. Yet, this is the problem that must be solved
if we are to go beyond informed judgment in appraising the values
associated with water quality management.
A fourth factor that should be considered in the assessment of water
quality values is that of technological change. Technical innovations
alter the character of effluents with which we must deal. Also,
technology can improve our capability for dealing with the pollution
problem. One of the major tasks in evaluating the impact of pollution,
or of proposed pollution abatement measures, is that of taking into
account the probable effect of technology over time. Values may
increase or decline during the life of a given investment as a conse-
quence of technological change. For example, if low cost techniques
116
-------
could be devised for treating organic wastes so that dilution water
would not be required to maintain oxygen content, investments
in reservoirs for low flow regulation might be of much less value within
a few years.
A fifth consideration that a system of evaluation should take into
account is the political institutions through which action is achieved.
This requires that attention be given to the incidence of benefits and
costs. It is a characteristic of the pollution problem that those who
contribute the effluent to a stream often do not bear the inconvenience,
the monetary costs, or the loss of other values from such pollution.
Thus when we speak of a benefit or cost it is important to recognize
how these costs and benefits fall, i.e., who will receive the benefits
and who will pay the costs. This is not a simple task because both
benefits and costs tend to spread out through our society. It is
not only the owner of the plant discharging untreated effluent into a
stream who benefits from the opportunity to do so with impunity.
Those who purchase the product of the plant may pay lower prices
than they would if it were not possible to discharge untreated effluent.
As a result policies for water quality management will almost cer-
tainly have important income redistributive consequences. The
extent and nature of such redistribution will help determine what
policies and programs can be adopted. A major deficiency of benefit-
cost studies for water construction projects has been the general
failure to give attention to the income redistribution effects of water
development.
It is evident that a given pollution abatement policy or program will
benefit some political jurisdictions or interest groups and impose costs
on others. Since streams run across state boundaries, the benefit
from waste discharge into a stream in one state may result in costs
to the states downstream. Also, since pollution abatement measures
may impose costs on a water using industry, states and localities
will be concerned about the effect of abatement regulations upon the
location of industry. Inasmuch as alternative policies will result in
different distributions of benefits and costs, pressure groups, which
are important institutions in our political system, will seek to in-
fluence the adoption of policies which will serve their own objectives.
A determination of the incidence of costs and benefits would help
the individual citizen determine the course of action that is in his
own best interest. But beyond that it would provide the basis for
determining how the costs of water quality management might be
shared equitably—among levels of government and among individuals.
To sum up discussion of the five points we have just noted, I suggest
that we start building a system of benefit-cost evaluation for water
quality management that is broadly conceived and designed to facili-
tate intelligent decision making by public officials. Such a system
must clearly differentiate among the different kinds of water quality
•
117
-------
deterioration. It must define the kinds of values which society may
seek to optimize. It must translate the physical and biological effects
of pollutants into measures of value, while taking into account the
probable impact of technological change upon these values over time.
The system itself must be designed to serve the political institutions
through which decisions about water quality management are made.
From this general structure of the problem let us turn to a brief
review of some lines of study which should be helpful in the design
of a system of water quality evaluation. The following suggestions
are offered:
1. Determinations of the effect of many new chemicals upon living
organisms, particularly people, and an assessment of alternative means
of dealing with chemicals that have a toxic effect upon human and animal
life. It is my impression that we know too little about the biological
effects of many new chemicals. I assume further that continuing
study will be essential because new chemicals will continue to appear
in industrial effluent and runoff from land areas where chemicals are
applied for a variety of reasons. This may be the most serious prob-
lem confronting us at the present time because of its importance to
public health. Until we know more about the effects of new chemicals
and about alternative means of dealing with them, abatement policies
and programs cannot be evaluated in any systematic manner.
2. More precise determinations of the effects of different kinds of
pollution contributed at a specified upstream location upon the quality
of water at a specific downstream location under different streamflow
conditions. This should be done for each of the major classifications
of pollution including organic pollution, heat pollution, etc. Until
such effects are specified in a meaningful way, we have no way of
knowing what the effect of pollution really is.
3. Determinations of the cost of providing water of appropriate
quality at a given downstream location to serve specified demands in the
face of potential contributions of specified quantities and types of effluent
at given points upstream. This is a logical corollary to the second line
of study suggested above. It would involve a comparison of the cost
of eliminating the pollutant at the point of effluent discharge with the
cost of upgrading the supply at the point where it is to be used. It
should be emphasized that "costs" should be expressed in terms of
different values such as health, aesthetic and market values.
4. Determination of the incidence of costs and benefits under alternative
methods of water quality management. That is, who bears the costs
and who receives the benefits? How do they fall upon individuals,
communities, regions, and the nation?
5. Examination of the effect of pollution abatement requirements
upon industrial costs and in turn upon the location of industry. Would
118
-------
the availability of streams with large capacities to absorb wastes invite
industries to locate in particular areas if certain standards of stream
quality are specified?
6. An assessment of the outlook for technological innovation as it
might alter the water quality management problem in thejuture. What
techniques are on the horizon which will further complicate the
pollution abatement problem? Also, what techniques are in prospect
for dealing with pollution more effectively? What is the likelihood
that these techniques will enter the picture; when, and what will be
their impact?
There may be other important lines of study which should be
pursued to arrive at a satisfactory system of evaluation for water
quality management. This paper will have served its purpose if it
provokes thought and discussion of the problem. My own view is
that the adoption of sound policies and programs for pollution
abatement depends upon the development of a systematic framework
of evaluation.
DISCUSSION
A. J. BlEMILLER
Director
Department of Legislation, AFL-CIO
On behalf of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of
Industrial Organizations, I express the hope that this Conference will
rise to its major challenge; to lay the groundwork for establishment
of a comprehensive national policy for the control of water pollution;
and to set forth a framework of progressive programs to achieve the
goals of such a policy.
This Conference can be recorded as just another study group or it
can be the catalyst for informed and wide debate on the question of
what must be done and how best to do it.
Labor strongly objects to the President's message earlier this year
rejecting legislation which would have liberalized the 1956 Water
Pollution Act.
Far from being a "uniquely local blight," waste impregnated rivers
and streams in the United States constitute an increasingly serious
problem which in the aggregate is truly national.
Water is an indispensable natural resource on which every human
use depends. Water that can't be used because it is filthy reduces
present and future supply. It inhibits local, State, regional and
national economic growth; it poses known and unknown dangers to
583283—61 9 119
-------
public health; it curtails expansion of recreation; and further dis-
locates the already badly disrupted balance of nature.
Almost everybody with an interest in the problem agrees that water
pollution is a bad thing and that it must be stopped.
There is general agreement that a greater effort must be exerted to
clean up America's waters, if only because present programs are not
keeping up with present requirements and because population growth
and economic expansion over the next few decades will inexorably add
to the dilemma.
It has been estimated that by 1975 there will be 230-240 million
Americans using 453 billion gallons of water each day, a per capita
daily use of 1,968 gallons.
If these forecasts are valid, there will be 50-60 million more Ameri-
cans than in 1960, using an aggregate 112 billion gallons of water
each day, with an average per capita use of 236 gallons more than the
1960 average individual use. It also means that about 88 percent of
a total estimated supply of 515 billion gallons of usable water will be
required to meet the needs of America in 1975, just 15 years from now.
The United States used 60 percent of this supply in 1960 and^only
8 percent in 1900.
Achieving abundant, clean supplies of water therefore will become
crucial within the next two decades. To the extent that water pollu-
tion is not abated, there will be that much less water available for
future requirements.
The great urban belts of the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts, and of
the Middle West and Southwest, have already absorbed millions of
people from farms and small towns. This process of urbanization is
expected to gain momentum.
As a result a few river systems will be forced to carry an inordinate
burden of human and industrial waste. Into these rivers are carried
thousands of acres of topsoil washed into watercourses by spreading
real estate developments, satellite areas to the great cities, public
works of various kinds—planned and executed for the most part
without regard for sound land conservation practices.
New varieties of industrial wastes created by new processes, chemi-
cal, atomic and others, have in large measure defied efforts to treat
them. In some instances, they even interfere with treatment of
conventional waste. Nuclear waste products dumped into running
water have raised the spectre of radiation illnesses, adding to the
potentially harmful but still largely undefined effects of the new
chemical effluents.
The tremendous expansion of steam electric power stations using
great quantities of water to generate electricity produces thermal
contamination by raising water temperatures thus reducing the
ability of streams to produce the oxygen needed to purify waste
materials.
120
-------
Finally, filthy water murders fish and wildlife and stands as a
barrier to expansion of outdoor recreation. A recently published
monograph by the United States Senate's Select Committee on Na-
tional Water Resources indicates that by 1980 such recreation will
demand the colossal total of 7.5 billion visitor days in national, State,
county, and municipal parks, with water requirements for this purpose
increasing more than 60 percent over those of 1960.
Labor, since the end of World War II, has become increasingly
concerned over the country's mounting future needs and the failure
thus far to plan and execute broad recreational programs to meet them.
The work week continues to shorten as productivity rises. Popula-
tion, personal income levels, and length of paid vacations are increasing.
Means of transportation and access to outdoor recreational areas
continue to improve. Relatively few years ago, families of working
people could scarcely have conceived of spending a week or more
touring the Southwest, or camping in one of our national forests or
parks, or visiting seashores or mountain resorts, recreation is now
routine to hundreds of thousands.
Americans as vacationers, particularly to outdoor places, have made
the recreation industry possibly the fastest growing in the United
States. It is as truly a mass industry as the automobile industry.
Therefore, programs to expand facilities must be based on mass
demand, no matter what agency is involved.
It was not a "uniquely local blight" which created the broad interest
and participation in this Conference and which brought together
representatives of varied organizations, at all levels of government
and of the public generally.
The question is not whether America should immediately shoulder
the unmet task of water pollution abatement. To us, the question is
when will we begin to carry out the broad policies and programs that
are needed?
There are many irrelevant arguments that still stand in the way of
progress. There is the one about "States rights" which ignores
"States responsibilities." Then there is the one which places a sacred
seal upon budgeting considerations and a secondary value to human
needs. A much oversimplified argument which lulls the public into
a sense of complacency holds that if such issues as water pollution
are studied to death, somehow things will be put to right.
We believe that a national policy of water pollution control should
be an integral part of a national policy on natural resources and energy.
For the central problem is a unity. It has been expressed in terms of
comprehensive, multiple-purpose resource development of regional
river basins. Gifford Pinchot, many years ago, more practically called
it "the use of the earth for the good of man."
River systems have a way of scorning surveyors' boundary lines.
They persistently flow downstream. If there is any waste deposited
121
-------
in them, some of that waste is bound to plague the good people below,
whether they live under the same or different political jurisdictions.
Labor through the years has had enough bitter experience with
state-administered social and economic programs to view with any
optimism proposals to perpetuate the theory that such questions as
control of water pollution are best left to the exclusive province of the
various states and their municipalities.
Under a national pollution policy, the United States must develop
national standards for control of waste discharges. The closest ap-
proach toward this goal has been a few interstate compact agreements
which have operated with only indifferent success. The states
which have established standards and regulations have done so for
the most part with little thought of how they might affect other states.
Sometimes rigorous state antipollution laws and regulations are
placed into effect without recognizing the financial problems of
localities called upon to comply with them. Many towns and cities
are hard put to raise necessary capital for schools, playgrounds, roads
and streets, public welfare and various community facilities. Some-
times the tax base is inadequate. Sometimes legal ceilings are placed
on allowable municipal debts. Attempts to provide state funds to
meet such situations, such as New York's Water Pollution Control
Board, have not been of much avail.
There must be an increasing part "played by the Federal Govern-
ment to augment the modest 10-year grant program of aid to
municipalities caught in the financial bind to build needed sewage
treatments plants. Labor strongly endorsed the 1960 amendments to
the 1956 act, which would have increased annual Federal authorization
for this purpose from $50 million to $90 million over a 10-year period.
Is even $90 million a year enough to stimulate construction of plants
to a degree sufficient to do away with the backlog and meet future
requirements?
The costs of water pollution control programs must be met under
adequate programs which will enable communities to obtain financing
for treatment facilities so that future needs can be planned for
instead of suddenly erupting in the faces of the citizens of a community.
If control of water pollution is regarded as indispensable, then the
economics of abatement cannot be ruled solely by the consideration
of dollar reimbursement obtained from such devices as user charges.
Certainly, protection of the public health and of outdoor, water-based
recreation by multitudes of citizens are benefits of pollution abatement
that have a most important place in all policy goals and program
planning. ,
The use of long-range public budgeting in the future, aided by
a Federal capital budget, would aid in obtaining a realistic fiscal
appraisal of investments made on both short and long term approaches
in the public sector of the economy.
122
-------
Labor continues to feel strongly that the regional river basin
approach is the best yet discovered for dealing with land and water
development and conservation. Water uses and pollution problems
may vary considerably from one river system to the next for many
reasons.
Eegional authorities could be established to develop flexible stand-
ards and regulations for pollution control programs. They could be
Federal corporations responsible to Congress for regulating water
pollution activities, acting as the agency responsible for carrying out
a grants-in-aid or low interest loan program to states and munici-
palities. They could provide a continuing program to handle
municipal and industrial wastes and to set standards of how clean
water must be and of plant design and operation. Such standards
would have to be met by State or local entities before financial
assistance would be forthcoming.
Those levels of government and private industry not in need of
Federal aid would be required to meet standards imposed by the
regional corporations in planning and constructing any waste treat-
ment plants.
The regional corporation would also undertake intensive research
and development, pilot and demonstration programs with the goal
of both understanding the causes and effects of water pollution and
how to abate it.
The AFL-CIO strongly feels that- the national anarchy in water
pollution control policy and programs must be ended if the indis-
pensable resource that flows in our rivers, that is contained in our
lakes and underground reservoirs and that washes our coasts is to be
fully used. Quality control of water will largely determine if a water
supply upon which nature has placed definite limits can be used to
those limits or not.
The immediate needs consist in setting forth the dimensions of the
problem so that every citizen may know its seriousness, in determining
by full and informed public debate how the job may best be done,
and in setting about doing it without further needless delay.
Panel I
General Discussion
Mayor McCANN. Before getting into the question period, I would
like to recognize at this time Mr. William E. Towell, the director of
the Missouri Conservation Commission, for a brief statement on what
has been presented by Mr. Burroughs.
123
-------
Mr. TOWELL. Mr. Burroughs in speaking for industry makes
several statements I cannot let go unchallenged.
He says that because streams and lakes have ability to purify
themselves that they have always been used for disposal of aqueous
wastes. My comment to that statement is: Does that condition
make it any less wrong if such disposal endangers health and happiness
of all mankind?
Mr. Burroughs further states that farmers and municipalities are
less closely controlled than industry in discharge of wastes. And if he
is right, which I doubt, does any one wrong justify another?
Mr. Burroughs states: "It has not been firmly established that
water quality is significantly impaired by temperature changes." I
might add here that in addition to the printed statement he added "as
far as I know." Let me suggest to him that he might change this
opinion after only a few moments' talk with almost any fisheries
biologist.
The next statement by Mr. Burroughs is one that invites rebuttal.
He says that traditionally industry has discharged limited amounts of
wastes into lakes and rivers without objectionable effects, and here
again he added "in many cases." If this is true, and if municipalities
and agriculturists can claim an equally fine record, we might just as
well close this Conference and all go home.
Another quote: "Industrial management for the most part does not
believe that pollution of industrial water supplies will increase to more
critical levels in the future." I "hope he is right. But I wonder if he
thinks our population explosion with all its added production demands
can be handled without strict pollution enforcement right now.
Might I suggest to our industry friends and to all others at this
Conference that the time has come to stop saying there is no pollution
problem or that it is a local or a state problem or that the problem is
almost solved or that we need more research or that soil erosion is the
real problem or that we need another Conference. Instead, let us
adopt here and now a new philosophy regarding pollution, a philosophy
which will embody this thinking: First, that water shall be kept as
free as possible of wastes—not seeing how much they can safely absorb ;
second, that those who use public waters have a responsibility for re-
turning them at least as clean as they were received; and, lastly,
that no user of public waters has an inherent right to pollute.
Mayor McCANN. Mr. Towell, thank you very much for those
comments, and I would like to make them part of the record for con-
sideration in this evening's panel, if you would give them to Mr. Svore.
Mr. GORDON. This question was asked by Mr. Harry Schlenz,
Water and Sewage Works Manufacturers Association: "In the address
by Mark Hollis in the opening session on Monday and in your
paper, reference is made to synthetic organic chemicals. If such
124
-------
materials persist in defying an attempt to remove them by sewage
treatment and water treatment means of an economical nature,
should there be legislation to prevent their use in commercial
products which are sold throughout the country?"
My answer to that is that first this is one of those things that
sneaked up on all of us. Many of us were not aware of the implica-
tions of some of these synthetics. But since we have gotten as far
into it as we have, the solution seems to be one that should be found
by both the producers of the synthetics and the Federal agencies
through their laboratory facilities. I don't think that you can just
per se recommend legislation to prevent the use of such commercial
products at this stage of the game. It's too late—unless we find
upon further study that human beings and the things upon which
they depend are being very seriously affected.
The other question is by Fred A. Thompson, Director of the New
Mexico Department of Game and Fish. Here is a question from a
biologist: "Will you please discuss the effect of soil erosion as a pol-
lutant especially in our Western States?"
This is one that will take just a couple of minutes to answer. First,
I did not attempt to cover it except as it applied to the dredging,
gravel dredging, operations on salmon and steelhead rivers in the
West. In my judgment, this is one of the most important phases of
this whole pollution problem, and ordinarily we don't look upon it as
pollution. It's not so classified generally.
But you have about four different kinds. First, careless farming,
failure to apply soil conservation practices. Two, in the West, over-
grazed watersheds which in many cases not only cause clogging of
streams but also are responsible for intensifying floods. Third, we
have careless lumbering and improper placement of roads and skid-
ways in a large number of areas on private lands which are responsible
for destroying streams. Fourth, you have our own State highway
builders from one end of the country to the other through careless
disposal of material from excavations which they don't intend to use
for fill. All of these things are bad, and we must work diligently for
the elimination of erosion which destroys our streams.
Mr. GREGG. This is a question from Fred E. Tucker of the Na-
tional Steel Corp. "To obtain the fullest beneficial usage of our
streams, effective regulatory bodies have adopted the practice
that the discharge into a stream should be governed by the full
assimilative capacity as measured at the point of use. What is
your thinking on this?"
This question strikes very close to the heart of the pollution con-
troversy. It can be described, I think, by trying to determine what
quality we want in our waters and eventually will be answered by the
kind of research suggested by Irving Fox. We may assume, for in-
125
-------
stance, that we are going to use the full assimilative capacity, and as
soon as we add another increment of pollution in oxygen demand or
any other measure, we begin to knock off certain values. As you begin
to decrease the esthetic value, eventually it's not satisfactory for
drinking, for making highballs, or for swimming, fishing, boating, and
so on. So each increment that is made for waste assimilation does
have an effect. And the word "full" or "reasonable" has no meaning
at this time because we don't have the criteria by which to measure
them.
I would say that certainly we should use streams for the full
assimilative capacity that they have for absorbing waste, but I am
quite certain that I would not define "full" in exactly the same way
that I might if I operated a pulp mill, for instance.
The Izaak Walton exposition is, if we do the very best we can in
public policy and as private citizens and industries in abating pollution,
we will be very fortunate just to keep even. If we begin by saying
that we are going to use waters to the maximum capacity for waste
treatment, we will maintain them at a level which is just above that
required to keep from killing each other, but we certainly won't be
taking full advantage of the waters' capacity to serve the widest
range of human uses, including recreation.
Let me go back and second-guess myself. I should make one thing
very clear: that conservation people, including those on this panel,
clearly recognize that we need the industrial society and that our
streams are going to be used to receive process waters and so on. We
accept it. We're glad about it. We have to eat, wear clothes, and so
on, ourselves. And in presenting these points of view I hope they're
not interpreted as being incorrigibly hostile to the interests of industry.
I have to eat just like anybody else does.
This is a question from A. F. Dappert of the New York Water Pol-
lution Control Board: "What can conservation groups such as the
Izaak Walton League do or what is being done to educate owners
or operators of marine toilet-equipped water craft to so equip or
operate boats as to prevent the pollution of water?"
I'm not competent to speak nationally. I can say that in several
states that I'm familiar with, our organization has supported or
initiated legislation to render marine toilets inoperative on inland
waters.
In Illinois the State Conservation Department has initiated legisla-
tion, and we have supported similar legislation in Wisconsin and in
Minnesota. I think that with your permission I will ask Seth Gordon
to comment further on that. He might have something specific.
But as far as inland waterways are concerned, our position has been
that until proven methods of chemical or other treatment of wastes are
available we will support legislation to keep them inoperative.
126
-------
Mr. GORDON. I hate to get into this because it is a very big subject.
This is one of the problems that has confronted all of us, and more
and more we're coming to a realization that if you must provide toilet
facilities around certain reservoirs that are being used by the public
and deny people the right to use craft which have toilets on them, you
certainly will have to get into this very problem of what to do with all
of the craft that now use facilities. Sooner or later, believe it or not,
you're going to be into it in a big way, because a lot of these vessels
that come into our harbors have been in the habit of dumping all of
their filth overboard right there. Some of them are occupied by large
numbers of men, military and others, that are spilling wastes into bays
and harbors in large volume—-volume of the kind where we would say
to a facility on shore, "You have to clean it up."
Sooner or later ships must be so designed that the wastes can either
be pumped ashore and taken to a sewage treatment plant or treated
on board in some way.
Mayor McCANN. I'll recognize at this time Jack Palmer of the
Tzaak Walton League, Illinois State division president.
Mr. PALMER. I don't know whether this is the time to say this or
not, but I'm rather amazed at the number of people that think
pollution is something that is moderate, that it's new. It is not.
In 1922, in October to be exact, Dr. Henshall, in the Izaak Walton
League paper—Outdoor America, which is what we call it now—
printed an article on pollution just covering the same points that we
are covering today, with the exception of the insecticides and pesti-
cides. I hope that 38 years from now we do not have the same
problems coming up that we do today.
Our pollution problems in those days covered industrial as well as
agricultural states from New York to Wisconsin, to New Orleans,
and the entire Midwest. They are the same that we have today.
Mayor McCANN. Mr. F. J. Coughlin, the Association of American
Soap and Glycerine Manufacturers would like to make a statement.
Mr. COUGHLIN. I'd like to pick up the point about the toxic
impact of new chemicals, whatever their source, and agree immediately
with everyone who says that more needs to be done in order to evaluate
their safety.
It seems to me it's important to consider ways and means of doing
this efficiently. My suggestion is that we use a direct approach by
measuring the effects of these substances in drinking water as con-
trasted with raw water. This would eliminate much unnecessary
expenditure of manpower and money in safety evaluations which
would have to be undertaken if it were necessary to study all the ma-
terials that are present in the raw water supplies, but which are not
present in drinking water, especially after it has received municipal
treatment.
127
-------
The problem of the evaluation of safety of residues of surface-active
agents from detergents illustrates this point. First, there are tre-
mendous amounts of detergents used by the women in this country,
and in passing I should say that this use contributes to cleanliness
and has a tremendous impact on public health. Now, in spite of the
amounts used, only trace levels reach water supplies. For example,
the Ohio Kiver below Cincinnati over the past 5 years has averaged
about 0.16 of one part per million of ABS, which is alkyl benzene
sulfonate, the surfactant present in maybe three-quarters of the house-
hold synthetic detergent tonnage which is sold through the grocery
store channels. This data has been 'published in the May, 1960
Journal of the American Waterworks Association, pages 607-12.
In considering the possible effects of detergent residues on humans,
feeding studies have been completed on rats, feeding them at a thou-
sand and five thousand parts per million of ABS in their diet. Eats
fed the test substance were just as normal as the control rats, and
this is for their lifespan of two years.
A second study in which the rats were administered the surfactant
in their drinking water confirmed the first and establishes that, using
the best toxicological techniques, there is no health hazard from de-
tergent residues. These studies have been published in Toxicology
and Applied Pharmacology, July 1960, pp. 464-473.
I'd like to go back to the point about the use of drinking water as
a basis for safety evaluations. Spot checks of Cincinnati drinking
water, after treatment, show that the level of the detergent surfactant
residue has been reduced from the 0.16 ppm, the average for the
Ohio Kiver, to less than 0.03 ppm and this is in ordinary treatment.
Thus it is apparent that there is a considerable removal of detergent
residues. I believe this is true also for other organic matter which
occurs in raw water when you think of the changes that occur from
treatment of drinking water.
Mayor McCANN. Mr. L. C. Burroughs has several questions.
Also he has an opportunity to rebut Mr. TowelPs comment if he likes.
Mr. BURROUGHS. Mr. Chairman, I don't think this is the proper
place for debate. I do, however, want to make this comment about
what Mr. Towell said: All treated waste water will contain contami-
nants. There will never be a time when treated water, be it industrial
or municipal water, does not contain some level of contaminants.
It is a matter of opinion as to what standards of receiving water quality
define the levels at which wastes may be discharged.
I am not, of course, suggesting harmful amounts be discharged into
any stream, and I should like to inform Mr. Towell that I have quite
a bit of information about the effect of temperature, and I do recognize
the fact that there are many instances where temperature pollution is
harmful. I feel that this subject is being overtalked about right now.
128
-------
I believe the time should come soon when we can quit talking about
temperature pollution as being such a tremendously serious thing.
This question was asked by Mr. W. H. Jukkola of Jones and Laugh-
lin Steel Corporation, Pittsburgh: "In view of the fundamental
concept that a beneficial use of streams is to carry away wastes,
should treatment of these wastes be provided beyond that neces-
sary to protect other established uses?"
It is impossible to know exactly what is a satisfactory treatment
level. It is not that clearly defined.
Almost all industrial plants are discharging wastes into streams
with other industrial wastes and with municipal wastes, so that if an
industrial plant is required to put in a waste treatment plant most
certainly it should be built with some extra capacity. It is good eco-
nomic sense to build a plant with extra capacity if one has to be put in,
because certainly that extra capacity will be needed before much time
has passed.
Mr. Jukkola adds: "Is it not a proper function for those affected
together with local or regional authorities to determine these
beneficial uses in the over-all public interest?"
I would say that is correct. It is one of their functions. But no
industrial plant should stick its head in the sand so to speak and wait
for somebody to come after it.
An industrial plant certainly should be aware of the effects of the
wastes it is discharging, and if these wastes are harmful and objection-
able that industrial plant should do something about it.
Mr. Towell has directed this question to Mr, Watson who is not
here, but I'll attempt to supply an answer. The question is: "Mr.
Watson lists two requirements for location of a new industrial
plant—(1), a sound source of water, and (2), a satisfactory waste
control climate. By 'waste control climate' does he mean a
locality that will turn its back on added pollution just to acquire
the new industry?"
No community is long going to turn its back on objectionable pollu-
tion. Actually today new plants are required in most States to
provide adequate treatment facilities at the time of construction.
I think what Mr. Watson had in mind was this: That such things
as waste discharge into a city sewer, for example, can be an extremely
expensive thing if the city charges high rates for such discharges.
There may be unnecessarily restrictive waste water quality limits in
that area set by control people, limits that an industrial plant feels
that they would not wish to attempt to conform with.
Another thing, of course, that enters into this picture are the opin-
ions of people involved. These will vary greatly as to the elements
that might make up what is known as a waste control climate. I am
sure that no industrial plant would ask for an exemption which would
permit it to discharge harmful amounts of wastes, because such an
exemption would certainly not hold for very long.
129
-------
This question was asked by Mr. Jack Palmer, with the Izaak Walton
League, Illinois State Division, says: "You have mentioned that a
satisfactory waste control climate is an important element in
decisions on plant locations. Would being required to maintain
water in condition suitable for recreation be considered unsatis-
factory?"
This certainly would not be considered unsatisfactory. A plant
must provide a level of waste treatment that will maintain satisfactory
conditions in the receiving waters, and recreation is one of the im-
portant uses of lakes and streams. I hope I have defined what Mr.
Watson had in mind.
This question was asked by Mr. Duke Keed, Cook County Clean
Streams Committee, Forest Preserve District: "What can be done to
reduce 'one-shot' or accidental pollution of streams by the
frequent practice of running power house, airport, industrial, et
cetera, floor drains to storm sewers?"
This is a question that must be answered by each industrial plant
or each location. I don't believe a general answer to such a question
would suffice.
In the oil industry we usually provide separators and ponds or basins
on our waste water sewers to catch any accidental discharges of oil.
A pipeline could break during the night releasing large volumes of oil
to a sewer. Likewise due to equipment failure, chemicals could be dis-
charged which would cause pollutive concentrations of chemicals
outside of an industrial plant. Steps are being taken to minimize
these possibilities in existing plants and in the installation of new
facilities.
This question was asked by Mr. Roy Weston: "What is the cost of
complete waste treatment in the petroleum industry based on
cost of product?"
The cost of complete waste treatment is a rather vague thing and
will vary greatly from one refinery to another depending on the size of
the refinery, the products being manufactured, the type of crude oil
being run, and many other factors. I do not believe this question can
be answered except on the basis of one individual plant or another.
He also adds: "How does the cost compare to gasoline tax?"
The cost is very small compared to the gasoline tax. The public
pays the tax, of course, and where the tax may bell cents the cost of
waste water treatment may be a very small fraction of one cent. The
refinery price of gasoline is about the same as the gasoline tax. Allow-
ing for costs of manufacture, the cost of crude oil, and other expenses,
the actual profit per gallon of gasoline is only a very few cents. Waste
treatment costs are more significant in this frame work of comparison.
"How does this cost affect profits?" The cost will affect profits
by the amount of the cost, whatever it happens to be for a specific
refinery. There is no one answer to this question.
130
-------
This question was asked by Dr. Glair Boruff, Water Pollution Control
Advisory Board: "How may Federal, State and local governments
aid industry and encourage waste abatement?"
For the most part, industrial plants feel it is their responsibility to
investigate and develop solutions to their own water pollution prob-
lems. Such study must include consideration of correction not only
through treatment of the wastes but by changes in manufacturing-
equipment and procedures. Such changes may very well involve not
only product quality but also capital layouts, unit production costs,
and ability to compete in a free market.
Industrial water pollution problems can be investigated only by ex-
perienced industrial technologists capable of examining the feasibility
of each possible corrective measure. Such studies are expensive and
time-consuming. The industrial plant pays for the investigation, pays
for the treatment facility, pays local and State taxes on the facilities,
and pays a continuous cost for daily operation of the facilities. On the
other hand, municipalities, also recognized as major sources of stream
pollution, have the benefit of Federal and State scientists and labo-
ratories for investigation and research, and receive Federal grants
towards construction of waste treatment installations. Industry taxes
at the Federal, State and local levels pay a large percentage of the
capital cost of municipal sewage treatment plants and of their daily
operating expenses. Further sizeable increases in Federal appro-
priations for municipal sewage treatment plants would increase
industry's tax contribution.
Most industrial plants know how to improve the quality of their
waste waters, but the costs are prohibitively high for many. Federal,
State and local governments could do much to increase construction of
industrial waste treatment facilities by providing financial incentives.
It is suggested that this could be accomplished at the Federal level by
permitting industry to consider the cost of waste treatment facilities as
an expense item for tax purposes. State and local governments could
also help by exempting these facilities from property taxes.
Mr. FOX. This question was asked by Mr. Jack Palmer of the Izaak
Walton League, the Illinois State division president: "You have out-
lined basic points of a system of evaluating costs and benefits in
making decisions in waste pollution control. Will you please
elaborate further on how and by whom such a system could be
set up?"
If you would ask me that question 6 months or so from now I would
be in a better position to answer it. One of the things we are hoping
to do at Resources For the Future beginning about the first of the year,
is to initiate some studies in the problem of evaluation of water
pollution abatement measures or water quality management.
I will make just a couple of observations at this point. First, on
the question of by whom should such a system be set up, I feel there is
131
-------
a role and a responsibility for a great many different people and
institutions in such an endeavor. It would be helpful to have aggres-
sive leadership by the Federal Government in this field. There has to
be leadership in order to focus the efforts of various interests and
groups that can take part in an undertaking of this kind.
As I said in my paper, it is essential that there be work not only by,
say, the economists and people concerned with the social sciences, but
also by a number of disciplines in the physical sciences.
I think it is likely that we do not have the kind of data required
for a good system of evaluation, and to secure these data there must
be communication and considerable joint effort by several disciplines.
Beyond the leadership of the Federal Governent, work by univer-
sities, industry and State governments, in different parts of the country
under quite different conditions will be urgently needed.
This question was asked by Mr. A. W. Albert of the Vermont
State Water Conservation Board: "Does your cost-benefit evalua-
tion propose the elimination or the modification of the riparian
rights doctrine?"
Well, it proposes nothing with regard to water rights. The possible
effect of the research I have suggested on water rights is a good
question. I would like to observe this: As all of you know, we have
had considerable discussion in recent years about modification of
water allocation law. My own judgment is that we have made
relatively little progress because we have failed to take into account
the significance of recreation and the impact on water quality of
waste disposal in considering adjustments in water law. Until we
know much more than we now do about what is involved in allocating
water rights to various uses, including recreation use by the public,
and about how to take into account the waste disposal problem, we
won't proceed very far.
In specific answer to Mr. Albert's question I anticipate that as we
get into this matter farther and understand water quality management
better, some modification of the riparian rights doctrine will result.
This question was asked by Mr. Roy F. Weston: "You have
inferred that pollution abatement can be justified economically.
Will you propose that pollution abatement be limited to those
cases in which the economic advantages of such abatement are
clearly indicated?"
This is a good question and it gives me an opportunity to clarify a
point. It depends on what you mean by the term "economic."
When speaking of "economic," if you mean those values that can be
measured in dollar terms, then I did not infer that you would justify
abatement on the basis of "economic" considerations alone. I was
talking about a variety of considerations, including esthetic consider-
ations, health considerations, and then what I called market values.
I would be the first to say—in fact, I feel quite strongly—that
132
-------
one of the major limitations of benefit-cost analysis as it has been
applied in the water resources field is that existing practices have not
provided a good approach to considering those aspects of water
management that are not measurable in dollar terms.
This question was asked by Rev. John Cortelyou of DePaul
University: "You suggest that the many new chemical substances
now considered as pollutants should be looked at realistically with
respect to their effects on biological systems, particularly the
human. The effects on the human system may be a long time
making their appearance on a sufficient segment of the population
to permit one to make a black or white statement about the effect
of this or other pollutants. Should not the attempt to systematize
begin with biological systems that lend themselves more readily to
experimental animals?"
It would have been better if either Dr. Kehoe or Dr. Teague had
been available to answer this question.
I assume that the answer is yes, that you no doubt would consider
experimentation with lower forms of animal life first. But I wish to
make one other observation because I think it is pertinent to this
particular point, namely, that by suggesting the need for study and
analysis of the pollution abatement problem for evaluation purposes
I'm not suggesting that we should stand still in the policy field until
we get all of the information that would be desirable. An effort of
this kind should go forward in both ways. We do not know enough.
We have got to understand much better what is involved in water
quality management. At the same time there is much room for action
on the basis of what we already know.
Mrs. OZBIRN. This question was asked by Mrs. J. A. Booras,
President of the Federation of Homemakers: "Since there seems to be
concern about farm pesticides contaminating streams to lessen
recreational activities, what effect do these pesticides have on
foods, since we're told many of these pesticides are toxic and
cumulative in the body?"
I would seriously doubt that there is anyone in this room that would
have the accurate answer to that question. However, I will repeat
what I said this afternoon, and not being an expert I will say this and
speak a little carelessly perhaps. I would say that to a certain extent
these pesticides do have an effect on foods, but the question is to what
extent? This could best be answered by a chemist. Also, I do know
that the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Interior
are giving attention to this problem.
The recent episode of the contaminated cranberry was an example of
this problem of food and pesticides. This problem needs attention.
Mr. CURRAN. This question was asked by Mr. R. M. Dixon, Texas
Board of Water Engineers: "You alluded to the inability of some
133
-------
cities to finance treatment works and indicated Federal financial
assistance as the single source of funds to make up this deficiency.
Do you disagree or do you agree that special districts with taxing
powers would be able to provide a satisfactory local agency to do
this job at the local level where primary responsibility should rest,
assuming taxable properties are available and adequate?"
My reply is that if a local agency can finance treatment works and
needs no Federal funds, by all means they should go ahead with get-
ting the job done.
Mayor McCANN. The Chairman has a question from Mr. Sam
Paradiso of Eli Lilly Co. of Lafayette, Ind.: "We know that tem-
perature variations in rivers may amount to 50 degrees Fahrenheit
and over. At what temperatures are conditions critical and where
have these conditions been noted?"
I wonder if some chemist or biologist in the audience would answer
that question for this gentleman and state your authority, please.
Would you step to the microphone and state your name and what
authority you use for answering this question, please?
Mr. JACOBS. I would not answer this on my own authority. I am
Harold Jacobs, chairman of the Delaware Water Pollution Com-
mission. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia has run
quite a number of tests on the effects of temperature on fish. The top
temperature that fish can stand will, of course, vary with the fish,
the type of fish, and what they are used to. The temperature which
should not be exceeded is somewhere near thirty-five degrees, which
would be somewhere around 100 degrees Fahrenheit. That does not
mean you should run your rivers at that.
Mayor McCANN. Thank you very much for your help and assist-
ance.
Mr. JACOBS. May I make a short statement?
Mayor McCANN. Yes, you may.
Mr. JACOBS. I have been thinking of this point as I have been
listening to the requests for Federal aid.
Every year I have to go before a budget committee to obtain funds
for the Delaware Water Pollution Commission to operate. I have
yet to find a private citizen that has given any assistance to me or to
my colleagues in obtaining those funds. We accept the Federal funds.
Privately, we wish that we did not have to accept Federal funds.
I think one thing this Conference should decide is that all of us
should go back and at the local level campaign for the strengthening
and improvement of the operations of our Commissions and Boards
that have this job to do and stop crying for the Federal Government
to do the job for us. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves if we
can't do it locally.
134
-------
PANEL II
Tuesday, December 13
Meeting the Growing Competition
for Water
Pollution Control as a Means of
Increasing Water Supplies
Morning Session
Dr. E. A. Ackerman, Presiding
Chairman
DR. E. A. ACKERMAN
Executive Officer, Carnegie Institu~
tion of Washington, Wash.^ D.C,
Co-Chairman
RAY E. LAWRENCE
President, Water Pollution Control
Federation; Partner, Black &
Veatch, Consulting Engineers, Kan-
sas City, Mo.
Public Health Service
Resource Personnel
K. S. KRAUSE
W. W. TOWNE
L. F. WARRICK
Good morning. This is Panel II, "Pollution Control as a Means
of Increasing Water Supplies."
Ray Lawrence, of Kansas City, and President of the Water
Pollution Control Federation, and I are co-chairmen.
We now really begin the working sessions, or the working session,
of the conference.
The theme for this session, and for the conclusions which we hope
the panel will eventually present, I think is fairly clearly stated in the
title, that is, water as a means of meeting water supplies.
By way of directing our attention just a little more in detail, I
think we might keep in mind as we go along the questions which Surgeon
General Burney put before the entire Conference yesterday. He had,
I think, four or five different questions: What research areas are most
urgent? What levels of national support are needed and who shall
provide them? What new parameters do we need in order to obtain
a true picture of water quality? What shall be our national policy
on the utilization of streams for waste disposal? How much shall we
spend controlling pollution and how should these costs be apportioned?
How do these costs compare with the cost of neglect? Finally, what
steps should be taken and by whom when justly apportioned responsi-
bilities are not met?
These are questions which I think the Surgeon General was not
only speaking for the Public Health Service but probably for the
Nation at large when he set those down.
583283—61 10 135
-------
Water Quality Management—
A National Necessity
CLARENCE W. KLASSEN
Technical Secretary
Illinois State Sanitary Water Board
A supply of water adequate in quantity and satisfactory in quality
for all future domestic and industrial uses in United States might be
considered an engineer's dream—-it is something that can be accom-
plished so far as engineering technology is concerned; however, in some
areas of the United States it may not be accomplished for reasons
which have little or nothing to do with engineering. It may be a
question of money, where cities and other political subdivisions unable
to appreciate water's value would not finance such projects, or where
private industrial interests are not yet convinced of the need for or the
monetary return on their investment. In some areas, a clash of local
interests may be an obstacle; in others, necessary water development
may remain in the "dream stage" because of political difficulties.
Technical considerations in such a country-wide program are based
upon real and ascertainable factors such as geology, rainfall, runoff,
pumps, pipelines, and treatment works. Political or governmental
considerations often based upon administration or tradition, may
involve uncertain factors. Public considerations often through lack
of knowledge and appreciation may assume intangible proportions.
Uncertainties in potentially motivating factors may through
knowledge, understanding, and appreciation change from the politically
impossible or the economically unfeasible to the favorable. Financial
considerations become real when the economics are considered. Op-
portunities become real when such factors as price, tradition, and
administration become clarified. The urgent need for coordinated
action becomes apparent when the seriousness of the problem and
potential solutions are considered. This particular paper is presented
136
-------
in the hopes that it will stimulate understanding, promote appreciation,
and motivate the evaluation for the steps necessary to accomplish the
objective-—a national program of water quality management.
Supply Must Meet Demand
It has been said that whenever something is wrong, something is
too big. If a community grows beyond its optimum size or an
industry develops beyond its planned capacity, the resulting problems
eventually outstrip the development or expansion. Our present
water problem has been given this same type of reasoning. The dire
predictions of inadequate water for our future industrial and urban
growth are based upon the projected demands being "too big" for
the supply. This might have some basis if we continued without
reducing wastes, increasing efficient use, and controlling pollution;
however, we cannot afford to even consider this concept of shackling
our industrial and community growth to limitations imposed by what
is presently considered available, usable water. On the contrary, we
must set our target objective to make whatever the amount of water
that is or will be available, meet whatever demands that are or will
be imposed upon its use. This is technically possible.
To supply a demand with a product that can be economically
produced is a traditional problem of management. It is being done
every day through free enterprise and is basically what has made us
a great nation. The management of our water resources, particularly
its quality, is a concept new to some, but to many it is merely the
common sense application of known principles of management.
We are not running out of water if we put to use our knowledge
and prudent measures to make better use of what we have. While
we do need some additional "technical tools,"we are not making full
use of all we now have. We are not making full use of our present
knowledge of preserving and protecting water quality.
The technical aspects are not the serious or major questions. The
principal question is whether we as a people honestly desire and can
economically afford to meet water quality demands. Probably of
more significance—-how long can we continue not to afford to meet
necessary water quality criteria?
Water As A Resource
When we consider the natural resources that we have and can
utilize to build the foundation of our economy, we can evaluate these
resources in many ways-—all of them except water. As a resource,
water is a requirement so basic to this country's existence and
economy that the use of all other resources are either dependent
137
-------
upon a plentiful supply of water or in its absence, other resources
are valueless for use and development. While many of our natural
resources vanish with use, the usage of water merely produces changes
in its position, quantity, and quality.
Kegardless of its particular source, be it wells, lakes, springs or
rivers, the origin of all of this country's water is in some form of precipi-
tation such as rainfall, snow, dew, or hail. From the earth it returns
to the atmosphere by evaporation from the seas, lakes, and rivers,
and by transpiration from plants only again to return to the earth,
an endless cycle which has been repeating itself for centuries. Water
is not manufactured nor destroyed. In its various forms as a liquid,
vapor or solid, there is no more water now than a thousand years
ago, and a thousand years from now there will be no more water
than at present. Water is a limited resource, a limited commodity,
and we must not be deterred from that concept.
When in its cycle, water leaves the clouds each time for its travel
to the earth, it is pure bacterially and minerally but by the time it
has percolated into the ground or flowed into a lake or stream and is
ready to be withdrawn for use, its original pure state has always
been changed minerally and bacterially, depending upon the pollu-
tional material with which it has come in contact, either from natural
or man-made sources. A major question in developing a suitable
source of water for domestic or industrial consumption is "how near
to the original mineral and bacterial pure state is necessary, desirable,
or economical?" The answer to this question obviously must be
determined by the many factors and considerations involved in each
particular local area. The engineer planning works for using a water
source is usually confronted with a simple problem in economics,
that of providing an adequate amount of suitable quality within the
limits of the money available and the quality that is warranted.
We have read that there is no over-all national water problem.
This statement related to quantity may be true for the major water
problem most frequently encountered is that of having the right
amount of water of proper quality at the right time and place; how-
ever, we do have an over-all national water problem. Regardless
of location, the current national water resources problem is that oj main-
taining the quality of our new and used water suitable for reuse.
Demands and Supply
In considering the demand for use of water, both present and future
an incomplete picture results unless we differentiate between con-
sumptive uses which physically remove the water molecules by
evaporation or transpiration, and nonconsumptive uses which return
the water to its source without diminishing it in quantity. It has been
138
-------
common to combine nonconsumptive and consumptive uses when
estimating total water withdrawals or uses. A true picture of available
water irrespective of quality can only be secured by differentiation
between these two types of uses.
First, let us consider the over-all supply, demands, and their dis-
tribution. Based upon data from reports of the Senate Select Com-
mittee on National Water Kesources, the United States has an average
of 30 inches of rainfall annually which results in 4,300 billion gallons of
water daily. Of this, 3,100 billion gallons or 70 percent is consumed
through evaporation and transpiration; however, we cannot consider
this all "lost" as it supports cultivated crops, forests and native
grass. This amount cannot be considered in the ordinary sense of
manageable water. The remaining 30 percent or 1,200 billion gallons
can be considered manageable; however, at present about two-thirds
or 800 billion gallons a day of this drains from the land, some soaks
into the ground, and the remainder flows off into the lakes, streams,
and into the oceans. During its flow much of it serves and must be
available as water for navigation, water power, recreation, and also
as a vehicle for transporting wastes, both domestic and industrial,
natural and man-made. At present, one-third of this manageable
water or 400 billion gallons is withdrawn and used for industrial and
domestic purposes. Of this amount withdrawn, 130 billion gallons
can be considered consumptive for it is lost through evaporation,
transpiration and consumed in manufactured products. The re-
maining 270 billion gallons constitute a nonconsumptive use and
are returned to the surface streams as the spent industrial or domestic
water. This is the quantity particularly amenable to quality control.
The over-all amounts of consumptive and nonconsumptive water
will differ according to the water use. At present our water with-
drawals are as follows:
Use
Irrigation - - _ .- -- _- . — „-
Percent of
total
46
46
8
Percent of use
consumptive
60
2
10
Factors affecting a material future increase in irrigation (and its
correspondingly high consumptive use) are complex and involve such
things as Federal financing of high-cost irrigation projects, low-cost
alternates for increasing agricultural production, and various regional
political considerations. Some authorities have indicated that a
material increase in the use of water for irrigation is questionable.
It is generally accepted that industrial and domestic uses will account
for major future increases.
139
-------
It is estimated that in 1980, the Eastern states will need 200 percent
more water than presently used or 450 billion gallons per day. The
Western states are estimated to need an increase of 50 percent over
their present use or 180 billion gallons. Based upon our present type
of uses and considering the present wastage and absence of conserva-
tion measures, this 630 b.g.d. amount required in 1980 will closely
approach the total amount of estimated available manageable water.
This daily increase must either come from the 800 billion gallons now
used in replenishing ground water, for navigation, water power and
recreation, or through additional reuse of the present spent water
consumption, or, most probably, a combination of these two. The
already competitive uses will be sharpened. Ground water recharge
by necessity is increasing. Navigation and water power uses will
need at least their present amount and recreational authorities have
indicated an increase in the amount of water desirable for that par-
ticular purpose.
This brings into sharp focus all of the factors involved in making
reusable the water that has already been used at least once.
The "desalting" of saline water has been hailed as an important and
promising factor in supplying needed potable water in the future;
however, it is highly probable that the demineralization of our spent
water supply (normally referred to as sewage) will be a more practical
and feasible means of converting presently undesirable water to one
of usable quality. A problem of aesthetics rather than techniques
would be involved. However, we must face the inevitable fact that
we all cannot continue to enjoy the luxury of using water only once
and discarding it. It could be said that "everybody can't live
upstream."
Again on the positive side of additional future available water, as
wastes are more adequately treated, at least a portion of the minimum
low flows now needed for dilution would become available.
Water quality management and control revolve around those
materials remaining in the water from a previous exposure or use that
render it unlit for reuse. Problems involved in reuse obviously
include the prevention from entrance and the removal after entrance
of such materials that are and will render water unfit. While minor
in quantity, they are major in importance. The control of quality
through the control of pollution is the basis for, is fundamental to and
is the key in water quality management.
Water Quality Management
Actually, what is water quality management? First of all, it is
nothing new. We have had it in operation in various areas, to some
140
-------
degree, for many years. Now it must be multiplied in scope, common
sense, and by intelligence.
Many of the principles that apply to the prevention, abatement,
and control of pollution can, with little or no modification, be applied
to what we can call water quality management—both have as their
basis, water use. The allocation of water use (although not normally
referred to by pollution agencies in those terms) is based upon the
consideration of quality and quantity. Water use is the basis for
every practical and effective water pollution control program. Deter-
mining the necessary degree of treatment is based upon the use of the
stream below the particular point of discharge and considering the
dilution afforded. The application of these principles has been in
actual use by successful state water pollution control agencies for
many years.
Water quality management is a profession, an art, and a science.
It is a profession because of certain known facts and principles that
have been developed by predecessors in the various fields of water
pollution control. It is an art because it requires the interweaving
and application of certain specific technical, legal, and political skills.
It is a science because there is a great accumulation of knowledge,
facts, and phenomena which is accessible and which has resulted in
established principles to guide its basic activities.
Water quality management has the responsibility of accomplishing
the target objective of an adequate supply of water of quality satis-
factory for all uses. This is and can be attained through the efforts
of other people—those agencies already functioning within our pattern
of local, state, and Federal government. However, on a national
scale, at least initially, a water quality management program should
give direction to and develop people to have an appreciation of its
basic concepts—dispelling such concepts that water can be misused
at no cost. It must initially develop a greater appreciation of the
over-all problem in the minds of many business men who at the present
time have limited their interest in water to merely obtaining it at
low cost for their own plants. It must encourage the adoption of a
broader view to a constructive and positive position, to protect the
future of industry and the country's population. The skills involved
in water quality management must be directed toward maintaining
the economic health of water use, integrating the viewpoints of water
users and water's function, instilling the over-all "service to the
country motive," and providing an organized pattern that is dynamic,
practical, and acceptable. More in detail, these would involve the
forecasting of use of supply, the planning, organization, establishing
and maintaining controls, reviews, appraisals, and proper
communications.
Water quality management must adopt the concept that pollution
of our ground and surface water resources is not solely a problem
141
-------
involving public health, nor fish and wildlife, nor agriculture, nor
industry, nor navigation, nor power, but rather it is the combined
problem of all of these interests and cannot be solved by considering
them separately. Pollution as it affects water quality management
is objectionable only in relation to the intended use of the water.
The concept of water quality management must include the knowledge
that we are living in an age of synthesis and that any particular form
of water use is a part of something else. No field of activity demon-
strates better the need and importance of combining and blending the
quality of different sciences and different professional personnel to
meet our target objective. Unfortunately, water quality control, it
seems, is becoming increasingly the task of specialists in a field which
showed a tendency to grow progressively narrower at the present
time. *
Water quality management involves two basic management
principles: (1) planning, and (2) control or review and evaluation.
The tools of such management include the science of planning through
forecasting and research, standards of performance, controls, and
appraisals. Time permits only a brief discussion of the more im-
portant of these. Planning is the determination of the proposed
course of action for water quality control. It involves looking ahead
in order to anticipate the possible difficulties and eliminate them if
feasible. It includes a constant watch of future needs so that the
present actions can be adjusted to meet these target objectives
utilizing the advantages of improvement through research. Planning
is the pre-determination of what should take place. It must be
thought of in two major steps: (1) establishing a goal or objective,
and (2) the selection of a system and procedures with the adoption
of standards and criteria. Standards are merely operational yard-
sticks which express the result to be expected under certain conditions.
They particularize on what conditions will prevail when performance
has been met. Planning tells us what we are to do. Review, when
properly accomplished, tells us just where we are. The link between
review and planning could be called "feed-back." It is the trans-
mission of intelligence to those making decisions so that the infor-
mation can be an effective element in the next round of planning
and action. Without feedback there is no point in carrying on a
review.
Standards or criteria of quality are the foundations for building a
successful water quality management program. They aid in defining
the parameters necessary in interpreting the broad objectives. They
are often the true parameters within which a program of water quality
management successfully operates. Such standards are of practical
importance for they form the technical and often the legal basis for
any action to require conformance to an objective.
142
-------
Water Quality Management Objectives
The objective of a water quality management program stated in
broad terms should be to secure and maintain available waters in such
physical, chemical, and biological condition that these waters will not
create a nuisance or be harmful, detrimental, or injurious to the public
health, safety or welfare, or to domestic, commercial, industrial, agri-
cultural, recreational, or other legitimate uses, or to livestock, wild
animals, birds, fish, or aquatic life. To attain these broad objectives
on a practical basis requires: (1) the utilization of a stream based upon
its ability to assimilate wastes; (2) the consideration of the physical,
chemical, biochemical, biological, and bacteriological conditions, in
addition to the hydrologic factors in determining the quality of the
water resource; (3) the recognition that no single standard of quality is
applicable to all waters and, therefore, no single standard for the
treatment of sewage or industrial wastes is applicable to all waste
treatment problems; and (4) the recognition of the economics in-
volved in the treatment of wastes consistent with the usage of the
receiving stream.
Water Use Determines Quality Necessary
All legitimate uses to which water is put must enter into the assess-
ment of its quality. Such quality needs differ dependent upon usage.
As an example, for domestic use water must be clear, clean, taste and
odor free, relatively low mineral content, and free from disease-pro-
ducing organisms and chemicals. Sources of domestic supply must be
amenable to reasonable treatment to secure this quality. Agricul-
tural uses require water primarily assessed upon its satisfactory min-
eral content, especially in respect to sodium and other cations and the
presence of boron. Recreational waters must be relatively free from
domestic and industrial wastes and be able to sustain aquatic organ-
isms suitable for aquatic and wildlife food. Industrial water quality
runs the gamut depending upon its requirement. Low mineral content
and low temperatures are only two such requirements often necessary.
The quality of water for power generation and navigation usually is
less demanding.
Present Methods for Determining Quality
Today, to measure the conforrnance to such quality needs, we
have the old standbys of biochemical oxygen demand, the dissolved
oxygen, chemical oxygen demand, chlorine demand, ammonia nitrogen,
hydrogen ion concentration, color, turbidity, temperature, alkalinity
143
-------
(or acidity), hardness, chlorides, sulfates, and total dissolved solids.
More recently a new one, radioactivity, has been added. Coliform
organisms, plankton, and some organic chemicals must be included in
any list today. While this appears to be quite an array of laboratory
tools available to determine quality, unfortunately today all con-
ditions which are altering our water quality cannot be measured by
our present routine laboratory determinations. For many substances
entering our streams, there are no known parameters and for some*
not even laboratory methods to determine their presence. Our
present parameters are in general too meager and insufficient to cope
with the increasing change of water quality resulting from our rapidly
changing environment. Present laboratory means for determining
compliance are in most instances giving us merely a history (incomplete
as it is) of conditions that did exist, one, two or possibly five days
previously. Methods are needed to determine what conditions are
present now so that any hazards to a water's immediate use can be
prevented. Analytical methods and parameters or standards for
evaluating the results of such procedures must progress hand in hand.
Our present parameters were developed before, for example, agri-
cultural runoff contained fertilizer nutrients, herbicides, and pesticides,
and before the modern age of science gave us the hundreds of organic
and inorganic substances that are changing our environment.
Through such application of science we are changing our environ-
ment and the quality of water available beyond the scope of present
conventional means for measuring, and parameters for evaluating,
these changes.
The field of chemistry alone is annually giving us some 400 new
substances which are used for washing clothes, washing dishes,
cleaning cars, killing weeds, and controlling insect pests, not to
mention the long list of industrial and other uses. After these
materials have served their intended purpose, the used substance and
the wastes produced in almost all instances find their way into our
watercourses through the waste collection system. Today we can
merely hope that neither a single substance nor the combination of
substances resulting from their mixing, for example, in a stream are
toxic to aquatic life, animals or humans. I say only "hope" because
in some instances we actually don't know. Adequate analytical
methods do not exist to determine the quantitative presence of many
of these substances. Thus, we do not have parameters for their
evaluation. A recent toxicity study by a large industry of its wastes
discharged to a watercourse could only conclude that during the
eighteen-month test period, whatever the hide terminable substances
that were discharged, they were not toxic. This is not a criticism
of the industry, for such long-term toxicity studies by government or
industry are exceedingly rare and this industry is to be commended for
pioneering in such a vital study. It is mentioned here merely to
144
-------
illustrate the lack of up-to-date and necessary parameters for eval-
uating the quality of water for downstream uses. This might raise
the question: where does the responsibility lie for determining whether
the products of modern industrial development are toxic as discharged
to a stream? The answer does not involve solely technical con-
siderations. Is it the responsibility of government to prove the
industry guilty or is it industry's responsibility to the public to pre-
determine and furnish adequate proof to the quality control agency
that its discharge contains no substances which are toxic to aquatic,
animal, or human life? Our system of free enterprise has and is
producing many products valuable to our quality of living. Is it not
industry's responsibility to assure that its wastes are not detrimentally
affecting others? Admittedly, without up-to-date parameters and
laboratory methods, the difficulty of discharging that responsibility
by either government or industry at present is increased—if not made
impossible in some instances.
Need for New Parameters and Methods
There is a recognized need for the exploration of many of the blank
spots on the water quality control map which not only involve but
require a mutual appreciation by the public, industrialist, water
supply technicians, and the politicians. All must adopt the habit
of working together, of knowing each other's intellectual customs,
recognizing and, above all, appreciating the significance of their
colleague's viewpoint. This is another form of feed-back. Such co-
operation in this field of water quality control is not a mere expression
of sentiment but it is a national economic necessity.
Mention is made here only of those particular "blank spots" which
pertain to parameters and the necessary techniques involved in their
evaluation.
Improvement is necessary in some of our present parameters and
methods as well as the introduction of new ones if we are to continue
to properly evaluate the quality of water for its various legitimate
uses and reuses. One illustrative example is cited.
We are still determining human safety and health protection of a
water almost solely by the standards employing the conform as its
basis. Techniques for performing these bacteriological tests have
been improved but the inadequacies inherent in the basis itself (the
coliform organism) have been and are contributing to the obsolescence
of this particular parameter. This disturbing fact has been recog-
nized by water pollution control agencies who are required to use
these parameters in determining whether a water is safe for human
consumption. More chaotic still are the situations where standards
applied to recreational waters utilize the coliform as the basis. There
145
-------
are no nationally accepted and recognized parameters using this bac-
teriological test for evaluating the safety of recreational waters for
swimming and bathing purposes.
As an engineer interested in the practical application of laboratory
methods to water quality management, it is sometimes puzzling to
note that almost all of the research in water bacteriology and micro-
biology relates to coliform organisms. It would seem that more re-
search time should be devoted to more significant and new organisms
as a basis for judging water quality. It is true that a relatively small
amount of work has been done on enterococcus as an indicator of
potential human health hazards. However, some experiences have
indicated its usefulness in evaluating pollution.
Areas Needing Study
What are some of the areas needing further study and, in some
instances, basic research? Needed improvement in the parameters
of our present tools include the area of determining and evaluating
the effect of detergents on our surface water, particularly in the reuse
of the latter. This should include their effect upon the bacterial
population, particularly the coliform group. Another area includes
the effect and interpretation of the presence of sulphate-reducing
anaerobes. Also, new parameters appear necessary to evaluate the
significance of nitrifying bacteria as a possible indication of a stream's
ability for self-purification and the assimilation of a greater pollu-
tional load. Such studies should include the interfering effect to
their usefulness and the inhibiting of their activity by the presence
of new organics and metallic wastes such as chromium, to merely
mention one. There is much need for study to improve the interpre-
tation of direct microscopic observations of algae blooms, protoza,
bottom fauna, debris, etc. This involves a greater practical use of
aquatic biology as a tool in quality evaluation and prediction. There
are possibly new parameters for the interpretation of actinomycetes
(organisms found in natural waters and in waters containing wastes
from biologic manufacturing process). Such study could possibly
open new doors to determine, for example, if a stream's normal
biologic balance was upset. Bacterial and animal toxicity investi-
gations beyond our present parameters in those fields could conceiv-
ably produce new means of obtaining a more complete picture of
water quality. All of the above suggested areas of study could
result in the improved use of the laboratory tools that at present have
some limitations in their application.
Another category of study and investigation would include basic
research, in some instances, in areas that are not now normally in-
cluded in the category of routine water quality laboratory investiga-
146
-------
tions and evaluation. Briefly, this would include the field of bacteri-
ophage and how it may be affecting the interpretation of our bac-
teriological analyses. The use of antigen antibodies with, for example,
their reaction for serum and blood could conceivably be new tools for
identifying the presence of specific pollutional wastes. Spectrapho-
tometric curves on all known industrial wastes are needed. A wider
availability for the use of identifying organic chemicals by carbon
•nitration, chromatography, and spectraphotometry should open new
avenues for determining the presence and evaluation of these complex
substances.
" It is felt that one particular untouched area requires special men-
tion. This concerns the presence of viruses in water. It is believed
that in this area lies a whole new field of tools for water quality eval-
uation. For example, the present bacterial standards for safe drink-
ing water are of little use hi determining the presence of possibly
potential hazardous viruses. We know, for example, that complete
treatment of water will result in a supply safe for drinking judged by
the coliform standard. However, the question has been raised
whether these waters evaluated as safe based upon our present bac-
terial standards may possibly be responsible for otherwise unexplained
outbreaks of illness because of the presence of certain viruses. It is
believed that the application of the virus technology in the evaluation
of water quality is particularly applicable at this time where water is
to be reused.
Mention must be made of the need for increased study needed in
the epidemiology of the environment, particularly as it involves
water.
An important segment of water quality management involves the
surveillance of streams through proper monitoring to determine how
the waters are being used or misused. Mention of this increasingly
important activity here is merely made inasmuch as the subject is
treated more fully in other presentations on this program.
The robot monitoring program with its instantaneous determina-
tions of water quality which has been inaugurated by the Ohio River
Valley Water Sanitation Commission holds considerable promise for
some of the solutions to the immediate determination of water quality
conditions.
Need for Integrated Control
Water quality management consists of making the wisest use of
every drop of water to serve the multipurposes in the present and
anticipated development of a particular area. This is a theoretical
principle which we all accept; however, in practice we have not
found effective ways to translate this principle into the efforts of the
147
-------
cities, industries, farmers, and the various State and Federal bureaus
in developing and following a unified plan. For example, the oppor-
tunity and responsibility for reducing the waste of water use, and
likewise the protection of its quality, is largely now with "local area
managers." We do not have an integrated pattern of water quality
management within many states nor in the Federal Government.
Administrative responsibility if it exists is often divided. Certain
legal rights, for example, in the withdrawal and use of ground water*
are undefined in many States. Some have little control over quality
as well as quantity.
Interstate water quality control is not new to us. Sound attempts^
and results have been secured in a number of areas, notably in the
Ohio River Valley through the effective efforts of the Ohio River
Valley Water Sanitation Commission. The problems of water
quality management are old but the magnitude of the problem has
changed in such an order that it is almost a different kind of problem
when viewed nationally. Reducing the wasting of water, preventing
and abating the pollution of our water resources, increasing the
efficient use and reuse, and intensifying our efforts to carry on needed
surveys, come within the category of normal and essential problems.
The fact that through our expanding industrial economy we have
multiplied these problems by magnitude and intelligence does not
change these facts. It will, however, require the application of a
variety of professional, technical, legal, and political talents so as to
develop a solid and sensible solution to some of the water quality
management problems that are definitely on the horizon.
Unlike when our Nation was young, our rivers, lakes and streams
must serve a veritable galaxy of purposes essential to our modern
living. Too often in our own channels of narrow and biased thought
we lose sight of their multipurpose use. Use that includes or could
and must include an abundant source of protein food, transportation
for commerce, aquatic recreation, sources of vital domestic water
supply, irrigation for our crops, water for agriculture and animal use,
power for the wheels of industry, a necessary raw material without
which our industrial economy could not expand or even survive, and,
yes, to absorb and transport from our very municipal doorsteps the
waste products of a modern urban civilization. While the uses of our
water resources are varied, if they are overused for one purpose they
may be degraded for another. Too frequently we have attempted
to establish water usages and water quality management on the
basis of financial advantage alone.
148
-------
Conclusion
There are two requisites for doing a great and important work—a
definite plan and a limited time. The time is already limited—we
cannot continue to waste and defile the quality of so vital a resource
as water. There is no time for any superficial solutions, neither is
there a cheap and painless way to control or manage the quality of
our water resources. We do have the know-how; patterns for admin-
istration can be resolved; we can and, in the competition for water,
must pursue a sound, economical, and practical approach to assuring
such a resource of quality suitable for our multipurpose uses. With
our characteristic human nearsightedness we often look at our water
resources as a "today commodity" whereas, because of our advancing
years, we must take the farsighted look through the upper part of
our aquatic bifocal view of this important resource. We cannot
continue to look at water merely as a "present commodity," either in
quantity or quality. In the matter of years this Nation is relatively
young but we have reached maturity and are old beyond our years
in regard to the use of our water resources. Many of our water
quality problems are already old and it is our awareness of them that
is new—the awakening awareness that to assure a supply of water
adequate in quantity and satisfactory in quality for our anticipated
domestic and industrial demands requires water reuse as a necessity-—
the awareness that reuse makes water quality management a neces-
sity—a national necessity.
With our country's potential population and industrial growth
predicted, it behooves all of us today to help translate this awareness
into action—for "in today walks tomorrow."
Dr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Klassen, I think you have brought out
in very clear fashion some of the more complex things that we have
to deal with in reaching conclusions that this panel is expected to
reach. I have often thought that if we used the standards of a
hundred years ago—clean water—it would be simple, that is, we
would not have much to do. But these standards not only seem
strange to us today but actually abhorrent. Likewise, in the future,
and perhaps the not too distant future, the next generation, for
instance, may look back on our standards as being somewhat primitive.
In other words, when we talk about cleaning our water in the not too
distant future, we may be dealing with a far different thing than we
are today, and I think Mr. Klassen has brought this out admirably.
149
-------
DISCUSSION
EARLE C. HUBBARD
Secretary
North Carolina State Stream Sanitation Committee
I am happy to have the privilege of discussing Mr. Klassen's paper
on "Water Quality Management" and of bringing to your attention
my concepts of some of the problems inherent in the management of
the Nation's water resources. These problems are comprehensive in
scope. They confront all levels of government as well as every
individual citizen, and their ultimate solution will require cooperation
on the part of all in the establishment and pursuit of sound objectives.
Mr. Klassen has performed an excellent service in presenting his
much respected views on the various aspects of water quality manage-
ment, including the necessity of such a program on a national scale.
Having studied his paper at some length, I find myself in complete
agreement with his views. Likewise, I find he has covered the perti-
nent aspects of the complex factors (social, political, legal, financial,
and technical) which must be considered in the development of a
well-balanced and rational water quality management program. My
comments will, therefore, be concerned with either emphasizing points
developed by him or with the presentation of new concepts which
should be included in a discussion of the subject.
In the first place, we should consider why we need a water quality
program. Is water suddenly a scarce commodity? Does a critical
shortage exist, or is the problem simply one of imbalance between
demand and usable supply, brought on by population and industrial
growth coupled with unwise management?
Our records tell us that we are not actually exhausting the Nation's
water supply. In terms of quantity, we have substantially the same
amount of water as we have had since the beginning of mankind.
The total supply, although quite variable from the standpoint of
seasons and geographical regions, is quite constant. It is the demand
and the manner of usage which are changing. We must admit,
therefore, that we are not running out of water, but rather we are
running out of time in which to establish and execute appropriate
water management practices.
We must conserve and protect our water resources in order to
survive. Water is unique in that it is absolutely essential to our
very existence and yet mankind has not and is not likely to develop
150
-------
an acceptable substitute. Our survival and our growth potential
are, therefore, dependent upon our ability and willingness to manage
the available supply in such a manner that it will serve both the
present and future requirements of the country.
A comprehensive water resource program entails considerations
over and beyond those relating solely to quality; however, proper
quality management, in the best public interest, necessitates an
examination of all of the factors influencing available supply and
demand. For instance, most uses of water affect in some way its
quality and in turn, quality has a profound influence upon its suita-
bility for a particular usage. We cannot solve the total water problem
by attacking each facet separately. A coordinated program under
which all parts of the whole will be considered is essential. Adequate
quantity alone is not enough. It must be of usable quality. Therein
lies the necessity for an effective water quality management program.
There are many varieties of pollutants which adversely affect the
quality of our streams and each year many new substances are intro-
duced as a result of the manufacture of new products. Many of
these products are of such complex chemical nature that new param-
eters are needed in order to evaluate their effect upon the receiving
stream. Likewise, presently known treatment methods are often
ineffective in removing harmful characteristics. There is, therefore,
need for developing new technology in the field of waste treatment and
new parameters with which to judge the effects of these wastes upon
downstream users. The development of these new tools in the science
of stream sanitation is obviously necessary. Yet, the question of who
should have the primary responsibility for providing this "know-how"
inevitably arises. It would seem plausible that neither government
nor industry should wait upon the other, but that both and all con-
cerned should join in their efforts to develop solutions to new problems.
While there is an admitted need for expanding research efforts in
the field of water quality management, I wish to emphasize the fact
that existing technology in sewage and waste treatment is not being
used to its fullest extent. The characteristics of most of our waste
products, as well as their effects upon our waterways, are well under-
stood. Methods of treatment are, likewise, available. The problem,
therefore, is one of failure, for one reason or another, to fully employ
existing intelligence in the field of pollution control. Certainly, little
comfort can be derived from the knowledge that millions upon millions
of gallons of raw sewage are presently being discharged into the
Nation's waterways. Nor can this wanton practice be excused or
brushed aside on the basis of lack of technology. We should continue
searching for new, more efficient, and economical waste treatment
methods; however, while this research is underway, we must stop
deluding ourselves and actually put into practice treatment procedures
already available to us.
583283—61 11 151
-------
The cost of water quality management, particularly as it relates to
the construction and operation of waste treatment facilities, is of
primary consideration. It is undoubtedly the greatest deterrent to
adequate waste treatment confronting the Nation today. Many
municipalities either are, or claim to be, incapable of financing required
treatment facilities. Industries plead that their margins of profits
are so slim the additional burden of waste treatment would result in
bankruptcy. Such pleas are true in many instances but I suspect io
a large majority of cases the financial capability, or lack of it, is not
the real reason for their resistance to waste treatment. Nevertheless,
the urgency and magnitude of the problem, as well as the need fo¥
some form of financial assistance to many municipalities and indus-
tries, must be recognized. Such recognition, whether in the form of
grants, low interest rate loans or tax exemptions, will expedite pollu-
tion control measures, thereby benefiting the general public. The
present sewage treatment works construction grant program under
P.L. 660, although inadequate, has well demonstrated the efficacy of
financial assistance in getting the job done. This program should be
continued and enlarged.
Finally, we can no longer take pure water for granted. America
has changed from an agricultural economy with small trading centers
to an industrial economy with sprawling metropolitan areas. Wastes,
in the form of used water, are being poured into our rivers in an
ever increasing volume to flow downstream and adversely affect
everyone living along their courses. At the same time, we are con-
tinually learning new ways of polluting these very same waters upon
which we must depend to serve our growing needs, many of which are
of conflicting nature.
The future of America lies in its ability to harness and properly
manage its water resources. In many areas, we have already waited
too long and done too little about pollution and we are suffering the
consequences. Yes, as stated by Mr. Klassen, the problem of water
quality management is old; it is only our awareness of its necessity
that is new. The question is: Do we have the courage to translate
this awareness into a coordinated action program under which all
levels of governmental and private interests will assume and carry out
their respective responsibilities? The cost will be high, but I am sure
we can all agree that the prize will be well worth the price.
152
-------
Priorities for Water Use
HARVEY O. BANKS
Director of Water Resources, State of California
The preceding able discussion of water quality management has
emphasized the magnitude of the growing competition for water.
The demands of our surging economy and population for water for an
ever-increasing multiplicity and complexity of uses present one of the
major challenges of our time.
I question whether any informed person today would argue against
the general necessity of pollution control. This is essential if we are
even to maintain our available water supply at its present level of
quantity and quality. But that is not enough today; the challenge
we must meet is the need to increase the supply.
In a quantitative sense, our available supply of water is limited by
the amount we can feasibly develop for use. Even with maximum
possible degree of treatment and control of the disposal of human
wastes, it seems clear that the available supply will be insufficient to
meet all of the increasing demands upon it unless we can find some
means of stretching the supply. This may depend upon our success
in applying new concepts in establishing priorities for water use.
Priorities are not in themselves a new idea. They are probably
man's most ancient solution to the problem of an under-supply of
water; whether on a ship at sea or in the vast reaches of an empire.
Instinctively, man recognizes elemental needs, and traditionally he
has based his priorities upon those needs in the order of their necessity
to life. First in order has come the quantity necessary for human
consumption; second, the amount required for his domestic beasts;
third, that required to raise food crops. "First things first" is a very
old adage.
Very little precedent exists in history for establishing priorities on
the basis of water quality considerations. Partly this is because
153
-------
water quality problems in the past have been largely local in nature,
but the main reason may well be that until comparatively rece'nt
times the measurement of water quality could be made only on a very
crude basis. If water was fit to drink, it was good enough for any
use and the only tests for potability were empirical, based upon
turbidity, odor, color, and taste. Fortunately, sources of pollution
were relatively few when compared to present conditions. Natural
mineral pollution was recognized; the Bible speaks of "bitter waters"
that were undrinkable, and Hippocrates noted that waters coming
from soil that contained iron, copper, sulphur, alum, or nitre were not
good for drink.
Heavy organic pollution made water obviously objectionable to
the senses of taste and smell—the degree of objection probably de-
pending to some extent upon the cultural level of the prospective
consumer. Some purifying methods, such as sand filtering, were
employed at a very early date, and the Chinese are said to have em-
ployed ordinary alum or aluminum sulphate several thousand years
ago as a coagulant to induce agglomeration of suspended particles in
water and increase their density to the point of more rapid settling.
By and large for centuries, if water did not offend the senses, it was
considered usable for any purpose. Since bitter or smelly water
would naturally be avoided, probably the most perilous source of
pollution was by seepage from sewage wastes. Not until the dis-
coveries of De Leeuw, Pasteur, Koch, and Lister was it known what
dangers may lurk in clear, odorless water.
Today, we are living in a highly sophisticated society, and our needs
for water have multiplied in number and in diversity of quality re-
quired to meet them. New uses for water are claiming an ever-
increasing share of the available supply. At the same time, the older
basic needs of man are demanding greater quantities of water, and
water of a higher quality. Industrial expansion has intensified
competition for water, as has also our population growth, at a rate
undreamed of by our forefathers.
As our needs for water have proliferated, so have our sources and
kinds of human wastes. Stream flow has been used since time im-
memorial as a means of waste removal. In the past, such wastes
have consisted largely of domestic sewage, and the natural processes
of dilution and biochemical oxidation provided a large measure of
treatment. All indications point to the fact that this condition is
rapidly disappearing. One reason is that the increasing demand for
water is diminishing the amount of stream flow available for dilution of
wastes. Another is that the character of waste is becoming more and
more complex and contains an ever-increasing amount of material that
cannot be readily treated by natural processes. Among these are
detergents, insecticides, herbicides and other agricultural chemicals,
and complex highly toxic materials that are long lived and not materi-
154
-------
ally affected by sewage treatment. Radiological materials are creat-
ing waste disposal problems of an extent and nature not yet fully
known.
As these waste materials increase in volume beyond the dilution
capacities of waterways, a point is reached where the need of water
for waste removal must be regarded as one of the major competitors
for the available supply. It must be recognized that the inevitable
wastes resulting from human activity, agricultural, domestic, urban,
and industrial, must be disposed of and that by their very nature, final
disposal of a major fraction of these wastes to surface and ground
waters cannot be avoided. Likewise, it must be recognized that there
are no known economical feasible methods of treating wastes to a de-
gree or of so disposing of them that will not result in some deterioration
of quality of the water resources to which the final product ultimately
finds its way. Water quality problems encompass much more than
public health or aesthetic considerations above.
At the same time, social values involved in water resources devel-
opment and use are assuming a degree of importance comparable to
that of the more traditional economic values with which, in the past,
we have been principally concerned.
We have reached a point where any use of water that does not
give optimum economic and social return is wasteful. To achieve
optimum return, we must be frugal with the quality of water; we
must expend its quality as a miser his coins, so that a given quantity
of water can be used and reused as it moves down the ladder of
quality degradation.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, "Nature has but one
judgment on wrong conduct—if you can call that a judgment which
seemingly has no reference to conduct as such—the judgment of
death. That is the judgment or consequence which follows uneco-
nomical expenditure if carried far enough. If you waste too much
food you starve; too much fuel, you freeze; too much nerve tissue,
you collapse." [O. W. Holmes, Jr., address at Northwestern Univer-
sity, Collected Legal Papers, 272 (1920).]
That we must solve our water supply problems is plain; only the
way remains to be found. Found it must be if we are to avoid nature's
inexorable judgment on uneconomical expenditure continued too long.
Water rights doctrines and laws by which we have ordered our
conflicting interests in the past appear to offer but little help toward
solving our present supply problem. In general, many of our basic
rules relating to water rights were evolved and enunciated as a part
of the common law of England during the centuries between the
Norman conquest and the American Revolution. The common law
was judge-made law in that it was built up bit by bit by decisions
stating the law as it existed by logical extension from statements in
preceding decisions. Because cases presented to the judges in con-
155
-------
nection with land involved conflicts between private litigants almost
exclusively, the common law was primarily concerned with private
rights.
Land was extremely important in an agricultural economy and a
feudal society such as existed in England during the great formative
period of the common law. Feudal tenures by which land was held
by individuals largely determined the social status of the holder, and
possession of land was the source of wealth and power. Feudal inci-
dents of land proprietorship were burdensome, however, and rights
to the possession or fruits of land were determined upon the basis
of highly technical and involved rules. Land, therefore, was a fruitful
source of litigation, and the common law courts were land-oriented
in their thinking.
With few statutes to guide them during the first six hundred or so
years of their existence, the common law courts sought to make the
law, as expressed in their own rulings, definite and certain in all
things. This was especially true in doctrines relating to land law,
because only by making the law certain could men know what their
rights were. It is from this period that we received our common law
water rights doctrines.
Water, unlike land, was plentiful in England and had little real
value except as it served the land and its occupants. With minor
exceptions, as in the case of navigible waters which were in a sense
held to be public property like highways held in the king's name, water
was considered as a part of the land. The common law, in order to
reduce the vagrant substance to a form in which it could be subjected
to definite rules, developed three conceptual compartments into which
water in all the forms in which it is found on land could be fitted.
Rules were then formulated through the years which could be applied
to settle conflicts between private rights involving water.
A number of American States today still adhere to the old common
law concepts of water, and the nature of rights that attach to it
because of the ownership of land. The three old compartments still
remain with us. Water flowing in known and defined channels is
spoken of as streams, and riparian rights attach only to such water.
Diffused waters (usually from precipitation or snowmelt) which have
not yet joined a stream or sunk into the ground are called surface
waters. These waters were too ephemeral to promote many rival
claims to their ownerships, and the common law developed no partic-
ular rights that attached to them. Most disputes that did arise in-
volved injuries to adjoining land, so the common law rules that
developed concerned how to get rid of or protect oneself from surface
water rather than how to hold on to it. Water that has permeated
the soil is termed percolating water, and was considered by the com-
mon law to be a part of the land in the same sense as any other com-
ponent of the land such as sand, rock, minerals, or soil. It belonged
156
-------
to the owner of the overlying land to the same extent as the other
component parts of the land. The rights that attached to percolating
water we know as overlying rights.
Riparian rights are not recognized in some of our Western states,
but in most parts of our country much of the old common law concepts
of water and the rights which attach to it because of its relationship to
the land and thereby to the owner of the land remain a part of existing
law. These rights have been modified in various ways, however, and
there is an increasing trend toward public regulation of the use of water.
Riparian rights appear to have been the'lfirst to be modified to
better meet the necessities of this country. The common law held that
the riparian owner had an absolute right to use the water of a stream.
pond, or lake to which his right attached for ordinary or primary
purposes such as domestic purposes and consumption by his live-
stock. This was an unrestricted right; if necessary, he might dry up
the stream for these primary uses. He had a more limited right to use
the water for some other purposes, called extraordinary or secondary
purposes, such as ponding it behind a dam to operate a mill or for
irrigation, so long as the purposes were connected with or incidental to
the use of the riparian land. He had no right to use the water for
purposes unconnected with the land or to export it. [McCartney v.
Londonderry & Lough, Switty By., House of Lords, A.C. 301 (1904).]
Riparian uses of streams and lakes that adversely affect their purity
and period of flow have been limited more sharply than have those
which affect quantity of flow only. As a part of the natural flow
concept, however, both freedom from material pollution and regularity
of flow continue to be important rights of riparian landowners.
Riparian rights to the use of water attach to the land because of
its position with respect to the source of the water. Such rights are
not created by use or lost through disuse. With the development of
the arid Western United States, it soon became apparent that the
riparian doctrine could not be successfully applied there because of
the limited water resources available, the need for large quantities of
water for mining and for irrigation, and the obvious necessity to
divert water from the few streams with adequate flow and transport
that water for use on lands often far removed, sometimes hundreds of
miles, from the source. Thus, the appropriative doctrine of water
rights was formulated—"first in time, is first in right"—which is the
controlling doctrine throughout the West although superimposed on
the riparian doctrine in some instances, as in California. Appropri-
ative rights are created through use and may be lost through disuse.
Appropriative rights are administered pursuant to State laws.
Even under the appropriative doctrine, the traditional concepts of
priority still apply to a very large extent. In the case of competing
applications for the appropriation of a limited supply, domestic and
municipal use are accorded the highest priority with irrigation ranking
157
-------
second in order. So far as is known, no appropriative rights have ever
been granted for the use of water for waste disposal.
California, where it is necessary to transport huge quantities of
water from the northern one-third of the State which has a large
surplus of water over its needs, to Central and Southern California
where the needs are far in excess of the local water resources, in the
early 1930's established an areal priority to the use of water. The
areas of origin, or surplus, which are developing slowly but inevitably,
have been accorded by statute a first priority to the water needed for
their future development as against the appropriation of water for
export to the areas of deficiency where a highly developed economy
has long since been established.
Industrial and municipal pollution began to present a major problem
during the nineteenth century. The courts tended to treat this as an
aspect of the law of nuisance, even where it unquestionably repre-
sented an unreasonable riparian use and, in some instances, a non-
riparian use. This approach required that the riparian owner show
an injury done to him as an individual different than that done the
public in general. Since a public nuisance does not result in the
acquisition of prescriptive rights to continue the wrongful use of
property, many streams became heavily polluted before complaint
was made. In many instances, such industrial or municipal pollution
had assumed such importance in the economy of the locality that the
courts, balancing the hardships for and against preventive relief, have
relegated a downstream or lakeshore riparian owner to a recovery of
damages and refused to enjoin the continued pollution. In one
instance, for example, a State court refused even to award damages
to a lower riparian owner for pollution incidental to a coal mining
operation. The riparian owner had formerly used the stream water
for a fish and ice pond and a house cistern. The court expressed its
attitude by saying:
It has been stated that 30,000,000 tons of anthracite and 70,000,000 tons of bitu-
minous coal are annually produced in Pennsylvania. * * * If the responsibility of
the operator of a mine is extended to injuries of the character complained of, the
consequences must be that mining cannot be conducted except by the general
consent of all parties affected. [Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Sanderson, 113 Pa.
126. 6 Att. 453 (1886).]
Eelatively few courts, of course, have permitted the necessities of
an industry to eliminate, without compensation, the riparian rights of
individual owners. So serious, however, did stream pollution become
as a result of inaction by riparian proprietors that the legislators of
almost every State found it necessary to control by statute the
pollution of rivers and streams.
Control of pollution in interstate rivers and lakes is now made
possible by interstate agreements pursuant to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1948. [62 Stat. 1155, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 466.]
158
-------
It is interesting to note that England, the home of the common law,
passed the Eivers Pollution Act in 1876, and even before that exercised
jurisdiction over rivers through officers of the Crown, such as com-
missioners of sewers, under the Crown Land Act of 1866.
Litigation involving conflicting rights to the use of percolating
water was late in reaching the courts. The common law rule was first
announced in an English case in 1843. [Acton v. Blundell, 12 Mees.
& W. 324, 152 Eng. Rep. 1223, 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 168 (1843).] That
rule, as I have mentioned, was that rights in percolating water were
regarded as belonging to the owner of the freehold, as the other
substances found in the land. It was further ruled that the owner
might intercept, impede, and appropriate such water while it was upon
or beneath his premises, regardless of the fact that his use might
cut off the flow of the ground water to adjoining land and deprive the
adjoining landowner of its use. At an early day, our courts showed
dissatisfaction with the English or common law rule and began apply-
ing what they called, variously, the rule of reasonable use or correl-
ative rights. Briefly, this rule restricted each landowner to a reason-
able exercise of his own rights and a reasonable use of his own property
in view of the similar rights of others. The rule of reasonable use is
now widely followed in this country, even in States which at first
adopted the strict common law rule. [Meeker v. City of South Orange,
77 N.J.L. 623, 74 Att. 379, (1909).]
Conflicting rights affecting pollution of percolating water do not
appear to have resulted in litigation until well into the nineteenth
century. Pollution of a well by throwing into it the carcass of a dead
animal is said to have been an indictable offense at common law,
[State v. Buckman, 8 N.H. 203, 29 Am. Doc. 646 (1836).] and putting
poison in a spring or well was also early made a criminal offense.
In England, by 1867, it was established that unreasonable pollution
of percolating water would be restrained even though the use which
caused the pollution was otherwise lawful. [Turner v. Mirfield,
34 Beav. 390, 55 Eng. Rep. 685 (1865); Womersley v. Church, 17
L.T.N.S. (Eng.) 190 (1867).] The American courts tended to regard
such pollution as in the category of a private nuisance and to apply
the doctrine of balancing the hardships that had contributed so greatly
to the pollution of our rivers. In other American jurisdictions, lia-
bility of the person causing the pollution was held to depend upon
the question of negligence. As the oil industry grew, many States
adopted statutes to assure landowners of compensation for pollution
resulting from drilling activities, regardless of any negligence. This
has protected private property rights to some extent, of course, but
has not prevented the degradation of ground water by oil seepage
or invasion by saline water.
Thus, our courts have moved through stages of development or
progress within the framework of the protection given private rights
159
-------
by the common law. Public rights have been recognized, but this
has principally been done under the balancing of the hardships doc-
trine, and, while it may have cut into the common law rights of land-
owners, it has been rather more promotive of pollution than protective
of our water supply.
The common law can be abrogated or modified most effectively by
statutory law. In England, where Parliament enacts statutes appli-
cable to the entire realm without limitation, the problems of water
pollution could perhaps be more easily solved on a national basis
than in this country with its 50 separate States. The whole power
of the Crown was vested in the people of this country after the Ameri-
can Revolution; some of that power has been delegated to the Federal
Government, but a great deal is reserved to the people and their
State governments. If this country, then, is to solve its water demand
problem and institute effective qualitative priorities so that by pollu-
tion control our available supply of water can be increased, greater
recognition of the problem and the necessity of solving it is necessary
at every governmental level.
Although there is no well-established body of law for priority of
water for waste disposal, there have been other approaches to this
problem through the adoption of water pollution control regulations.
Systems have been established for stream classification or zoning,
giving consideration to the various uses to which water may be put
and deciding what constitutes the best usage of the watercourse in
question from a quality standpoint. Waste disposal is then controlled
to maintain necessary water quality conditions required for this usage.
In California, the "case-by-case" method is utilized, in which method
waste discharge requirements are established by water pollution
control boards on an individual basis for each separate waste discharge
and for each particular point of disposal. Under the statutes, due
consideration is to be given to all aspects of water development, in-
cluding water uses, waste assimilation capacity, waste disposal needs,
and other needs.
At this point, I would like to quote from a paper entitled "Benefit
Optimization in Water Resources Management, The 1960's and
Beyond", given by Irving K. Fox, Resources for the Future, before
the Interstate Conference on Water Problems on December 6, 1960.
Water Development and Management in American Society: Past and Present
There are three concepts of the role of water development and management
in American social and economic life that have had a profound influence on water
resources policy. These are what I will call
1. the "key to development" concept
2. the "yardstick and birch rod concept, and
3. the "staff of life" concept.
160
-------
Key to Development
Through much of our history water development has been looked upon as the
means through which an area or region could achieve economic development.
It was this conception the first spurred the public improvement of inland water-
ways in the 19th century. Navigation facilities would open up what was then
the West, permit the economies of the Western states to expand and, through
trade with Eastern and foreign markets, support the growth of seaboard cities.
The Erie Canal and New York City are monuments to the validity of this belief.
Beginning in the 1870's, irrigation was viewed as the key to development of
the arid and semi-arid Western states. Irrigation is essential to agriculture in
this region. Agriculture would support centers of trade and these in turn would
lead to the establishment of manufacturing and other activities. Any of us
acquainted with the West know many instances where this vision became a
reality.
From the time of first settlement of the Mississippi Valley, control of floods has
been seen as the key to economic utilization of the rich lands of the valley for
agricultural and other purposes. As control has advanced the lands have been
developed and both agriculture and industry have expanded.
These * * * examples are sufficient to remind you of the extent to which
historically we have looked to public water development as a key to economic
development generally, as well as to economic stability.
Yardstick and Birch Rod
Although the "key to development" concept tended to dominate thinking about
Federal water policy through the 19th century, in the latter part of that century
it was joined by what I am calling the "yardstick and birch rod" concept. Al-
though this phrase was not prominently used until the 1930's, the essence of the
concept can be traced back to the report of the Windom Committee to the Senate
in 1874. That historic report proposed a comprehensive national scheme of
improvement of navigable waterways and the construction of canals—not just in
the interest of development—but also as a means of regulating railway rates and
services indirectly through the competition of alternative transportation facilities.1
The report reflects the belief that direct governmental regulation, as has been
attempted through the Interstate Commerce Commission since 1887, could not be
successful. Even the Senate report which subsequently recommended creation of
the ICC stated the opinion that water routes were "the most efficient cheapeners
and regulators of railway charges."
This "yardstick and birch rod" concept had its beginning in the field of electric
power in a law of the state of Massachusetts enacted in 1891. It was in that year
that Massachusetts came to have—as a result of the persistence of the town of
Danvers—the two pronged policy that has come to be basic in both State and
federal electric power policy: direct regulation of private utility service and rates,
and also indirect regulation through establishment of the right of a municipality,
to provide electrical service for itself and its citizens.
At the Federal level, efforts to establish the "yardstick and birch rod" concept as
public policy culminated in TV A, the REA program, and the inclusion of the
"preference clause" in Federal legislation establishing policy for the marketing at
wholesale of power produced at Federal multiple-purpose water resources projects.
This line of Federal legislation, by helping to support in turn some 3000 municipal-
1 The report also recommended that a two track railroad line from the Atlantic
Coast to the Mississippi for carrying bulk freight be constructed and operated by
the Federal government as another means to the same regulative end. The
political force of this concept was very strong in the last half of the 19th century
and is still held to be valid by some in railroad regulation today.
161
-------
ities, public power districts, and rural cooperatives through the United States,
applied on a wide scale the concept that regulation of private utilities should be
undertaken through the competition of publicly sponsored institutions.
There are many important facets to the complex history of the development and
administration of Federal and State electric power policy. Obviously I cannot
attempt a complete appraisal here. But one can say this: a fundamental con-
sideration underlying Federal power policy is the concept of using federally pro-
duced hydroelectric power to provide competition to the private power industry and
thus stimulate lower rates and higher standards of service. In spite of all the
heat that has been generated over this concept, and all the complex factors that
must be weighed in its fair appraisal, I believe that history has demonstrated the
utility of this concept and that in areas where there has been public competition
lower rates and improved service have resulted.
Staff of Life
The third concept which has had a profound influence on water resources policy
is what I have called the "staff of life" concept. It embraces the idea that since
water has a value that extends well beyond its economic worth, economic criteria
and economic considerations are not suitable indicators of the scale of development
warranted. Four manifestations of this concept will indicate what I mean.
The first of these is the widely held view that every drop of water that falls upon
the land should be put to fully productive use on its trip back to the sea. Failure
to do so is to indulge in waste. From this idea appears to come the view that we
should aim at "full" regulation of the nation's streams and "maximum" physical
development of each dam site. Economic considerations, so it is held, should not
preclude the realization of these objectives.
A second manifestation of the "staff of life" concept is the view that hydro-
electric power should be developed fully to save other kinds of fuel, particularly
the fossil fuels. Back at the turn of the century when the demand for energy
was increasing rapidly, it was accepted that the mineral fuels would eventually be
exhausted and man would be completely dependent upon wood and hydroelectric
power as a source of energy. The maximum physical production of hydro was
believed to be essential to the conservation of the known mineral fuels to provide
"the greatest good, for the greatest number, for the longest time."
A third element of the "staff of life" concept is that since clean water is essen-
tial to sanitation, public health and the control of fires, large quantities of good
water should be available regardless of cost or of "the ability to pay" of those
directly benefitting. Again water development was not to be determined by
economic considerations.
Fourth, the "staff of life" concept has provided support for reclamation,
flood control, and watershed management programs. Here the theory has been
that since every acre of land will eventually be needed to support life, the bring-
ing of land into production through such programs is intrinsically good regardless
of cost.
The Impact of the Post-War Years
There are other concepts which have helped shape national water policy in the
United States, but the three I've described have been of unusual importance.
Moreover, they remain as potent influences on water development in this country.
But should they? At one time most elements of these concepts were valid. But
are they suited to the kind of society and the kind of economy we have today and
will have in the future? It is my thesis that these concepts look to the past and
not to the future, to American society as it was, not as it is and is destined to be.
First, for a variety of reasons I cannot believe that the concept of water devel-
opment as a "key to development" is appropriate any longer. As a means of
162
-------
stimulating economic activity water development alone generally influences such
a small component of the total economy of a region today that such development
does not have the impact it did in earlier years.
The arid and semi-arid West is confronted with a different situation. As
essential as water is to the arid and semi-arid regions of the country, there is
little basis for arguing that water development is needed to stimulate economic
growth in this region. Between 1940 and 1960 the population of the eleven West-
ern States (exclusive of Hawaii and Alaska) increased by 92 percent in comparison
-with a 29-percent increase for the Nation as a whole. If California is excluded
from these figures, the increase for the West is 69 percent in comparison with 29
percent for the Nation. In the face of this growth per capita income levels have
, remained relatively high. The West has found that its climate, its scenery, and
its space are among its principal resources. As I've said on previous occasions, for
much of the West, the major task of water management is to accommodate the
growth destined to occur instead of to stimulate additional economic activity
through water^ development.
The validity of the "yardstick and birch rod" concept in the field of water
development is open to serious question in view of the nature of the modern
transportation and power industries. With transportation facilities as widespread
and diverse as they now are, does publicly developed and subsidized navigation
facilities serve effectively to help regulate rates and standards of service? I
doubt it.
Also I doubt that public development and marketing of hydro is any longer an
effective means of aiding regulation of the power industry. I'm not arguing
against public development and marketing of hydro nor do I contend that the
power industry should not be regulated. My point is that since hydro can supply
such a small portion of the enormous power loads of the present and the future
and since in almost every area the greatest value of hydro is for peaking purposes,
public development and marketing of hydro fails to function as an effective regu-
latory device. Yet, in my judgment, the public-private power controversy—
which has centered largely on hydro—and the failure to reach agreement on alter-
nate means of regulating the power industry, has been a major barrier to the im-
provement of water resources policy in the United States.
Several considerations give rise to serious doubts about the validity of the
"staff of life" concept. Two factors—scientific advance and an enormous
increase in widely enjoyed living standards—have undermined the foundations
of this belief. In view of the breakthrough of atomic energy and the enormous
energy demands of our modern economy, should the fossil fuel supply be an
important consideration in the development of hydro? In view of the rate of
scientific advancement and the flexibility that science promises for balancing
the supply of and demand for water, should reservoir storage be provided for
which there is no visible need? In view of continuing improvements in agricul-
tural productivity that science is making possible, is there a logical reason for
bringing land into production for which there is no foreseeable economic
justification? In view of the level of income that practically all Americans now
enjoy, is there a sound basis for believing that in order to protect public health
and safety clean water must be a practically free good? I doubt that any of
these questions warrant affirmative answers in the 1960's and beyond.
In short, I do not believe that we can continue to look to water management
as a key to development, as an aid to utility regulation, or as a resource which
warrants public investment beyond that justified by clearly identifiable values.
New concepts are needed to guide us in determining the kind of water develop-
ment and management best suited to optimize benefits from the Nation's water
resources. Let us turn to the nature of the problem of benefit optimization
today and in the future.
163
-------
Against this legal and institutional background, where do we stand
at present and what of the future?
To reiterate, the demands on the nation's water resources are
rapidly increasing, in magnitude, in diversity, in complexity and in
scope—the rate of increase will undoubtedly accelerate in the future
rather than diminish; for instance, supplemental irrigation is rapidly
expanding in the humid areas. Many of these demands are com-
petitive and conflicting among themselves, such as water for fish and^
wildlife resources vs. water for disposal of wastes. Changes in water
use are occurring such as the shift from irrigation to municipal and
industrial use, as in Southern California. The pressures on our water
resources are not only economic but also social as in the case of the
demand for water-associated recreation and for the enhancement of
fish and wildlife resources.
At the same time, new sources of energy are becoming available
and new means of transportation so that use of water for these pur-
poses is no longer comparatively so significant. There is some
considerable reason to hope that new sources of water, such as saline-
water conversion and augmentation of our fresh water resources by
weather modification, may be in the offing. Much can be accom-
plished by increasing the efficiency of use of water and in its reuse.
We are now concerned with water as a scarce—and vital—resource
rather than as a "free good" which has, to a large extent, been the
traditional popular attitude towards water. Even scarcer in the
future will be the money which will be required to develop the basic
resource and make it available for use when and where needed. We
must insure that we obtain the maximum economic and social return
for the dollars we have to spend.
In planning for water development in the future, all of the economic
and social demands, both present and future, on the particular water
resource concerned must be taken into consideration. The objective
must be the achievement of optimum, long-range economic and social
benefit to meet the multiplicity of needs of people for water. To
accomplish this, requires some changes in our thinking as to the proper
future priorities for water use.
In certain instances, greater benefit may be achieved by giving
priority to water for fish and wildlife as against its use for irrigation
or power generation or navigation. In other cases, use of a particular
reach of a stream primarily for waste disposal may yield a greater
return than maintaining the quality for the so-called higher uses.
Use of water for industrial purposes may, where water is extremely
scarce, as in the Southwest, be of greater value than stimulating
agricultural development and dedicating the available water supply
to that use. Each situation must be judged on its own merits.
As technology continues to develop and as the Nation's economy
expands in pace with population growth, waste disposal will become
164
-------
increasingly critical. This is dramatically shown in the results of the
study reported in Committee Print No. 29 of the Senate Select Com-
mittee on National Water Resources. The economics of waste dis-
posal will be of ever greater significance to municipalities and indus-
tries. Larger quantities of water in streams and in ground water
basins will be necessary to provide for dilution of wastes resulting
from agricultural, urban, and industrial development. The need to
.provide water from storage works to be constructed under Federal
programs for dilution purposes or for low flow augmentation has been
recognized by the Congress.
Water rights aspects of water quality and waste disposal have not
been clearly determined by our courts or by statute. It appears
inevitable that as water quality deteriorates and interferes with estab-
lished uses of water, litigation regarding water quality will increase
in frequency and magnitude; therefore, water quality rights will, of
course, achieve greater recognition and more precise definition. Ad-
judication of water quality rights may hinge upon resolution of such
factors as natural water quality conditions and fluctuations, water
quality requirements, identification of sources of degradation and the
influence of each, chronology of water utilization and waste disposal,
and relative benefits of waste disposal and water quality maintenance
for other uses.
Water rights litigation, like all litigation, is expensive and may
develop into a long drawn-out series of hearings in various courts.
Indeed, experience indicates that such prolongations are more likely
to ensue in water rights litigation than in other matters.
To some extent, at least, the waste-disposal problem could be
•mitigated by proper zoning for future urban and industrial develop-
ments. This possibility has not been explored to date to any
significant degree.
In any event, it seems clear that we must develop and accept new
concepts as to the establishment of proper priorities for water use with
waste disposal taking its proper place among the necessary uses of
water as well as water for recreation and for fish and wildlife resources,
in the competition with water for municipal, industrial, and agricul-
tural purposes. We must also accept the fact that priorities of use
for a particular water resource may well change with time. We must
also face up to the necessity of making more efficient use of our
water resources supplies. Reuse of water must be achieved to the
maximum feasible extent.
The task of maintaining the quality of the Nation's water resources
at the requisite levels to satisfy all the competing and conflicting
demands thereon will be increasingly difficult and expensive. A
comprehensive long-range water quality and waste-disposal plan is
essential for establishing qualitative water use and waste-disposal
priorities; we are accustomed to think in terms of long-range planning
165
-------
from a quantity standpoint but little has been done as regards quality.
Such a water quality plan should take into consideration present and
future conditions with respect to water development, waste disposal,
and qualitative needs of all water uses to be made. It should be
prepared in conjunction with statewide water development planning
and, if possible, nationwide planning. It should take into considera-
tion the quantities, characteristics, and points of disposal of wastes,
the stream flows that will be available for waste dilution in the future,.
and the waste assimulation capacity of those flows. It should estab-
lish water quality objectives at various strategic points suitable for
water uses contemplated under water development plans. It should
evaluate the estimated quality of water, taking into consideration
both waste disposal and water use, and determine what water quality
objectives can and should be met for each reach.
The objective of such a long-range plan should be the establishment
of qualitative priorities for water use to the end that pollution control
may be an effective means of increasing our available water supply
and that our water resources may be utilized in a manner that will
result in the maximum benefit to the people of our Nation and our
States. Quality deterioration, per se, is not necessarily bad—the
question is, in any particular case, to what extent should deteriora-
tion be allowed for optimum benefit.
In conclusion, I should like to emphasize that (1) the traditional
ideas concerning water development are no longer valid—new con-
cepts are needed; (2) generalizations are meaningless as regards
water use or priorities—each water resource or each reach of a stream
must be analyzed separately in relation to the needs of the basin
or region through which it flows; (3) water pollution control cannot
be treated separately from the other aspects of water resource develop-
ment, management, and use as we so often try to do; (4) in the
future, the need for water for waste disposal must be fully recognized
and provided for; (5) in the management and further development
of our water resources, optimum economic and social benefit in
relation to cost must be the objective—no single or arbitrary system
of priorities of water use will meet this criterion, rather each situation
must be analyzed on its merits; (6) long-range, comprehensive regional
planning for water quality management and for waste disposal is
necessary if we are to maintain the quality of the Nation's water
resources at adequate levels; and (7) the present uncertainty as to
water quality rights must be resolved. Increasing priority must be
given to those projects and those water uses which contribute to the
gross national product.
Recognition of the expansive potential of a water supply in a
qualitative sense and establishment of valid criteria for quality
priorities might well stimulate new industrial growth in areas which
now face economic stagnation. The exploitation of our water
166
-------
resources to their full extent has but begun and presents a tremen-
dously exciting field for our legislators as well as for economists,
planners, and engineers.
Dr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Banks. You have introduced
us, or at least mentioned for the first time this morning, a subject which
I expect to hear more about in the course of the afternoon and which
I think really is one of the important ones to be dealt with by this
panel, that is, the matter of comprehensive development, a develop-
ment which aims at the maximum benefits for all purposes. You
• have mentioned an interesting standard for judging that, that is,
increase in the gross national product. That is one we might very
well think about. I think you have noted effectively also that the
legal structure is important in achieving comprehensive development,
if indeed we agree that that is the objective, and that legal structure
may or may not be compatible at the present time with the needs
of the future for establishing comprehensive development.
You have also introduced us, I think, to the conception of water
quality rights. Of course, we have long had, as you noted, water
quantity rights, but perhaps water quality rights are at least coequal
with water quantity rights and we should see to their establishment
in the future. I think that is a point which might very well be
discussed later.
DISCUSSION
Hon. FRED G. AANDAHL
Assistant Secretary of the Interior
The subject, "Priorities for Water Use," presented by Mr. Harvey
0. Banks, is most challenging. An historical analysis such as he has
made of the development of priorities as they exist today is essential
to planning for the future. The growth of appropriative and riparian
water rights through the years, influenced by the actions of the courts,
the Congress, the Federal executive agencies, the States, and the lesser
political units, has established a background upon which our new
planning must be based. In other words, we are not at liberty to
proceed freely with the idealistic as we may view it from the vantage
point of 340 years of American experience. Our purpose must be to
remodel what we now have so that it will provide adequately for the
future. This must be done with the least possible harm to the bene-
ficial uses built around the priorities already established. The total
of the past as it makes the composite of the present is the heritage
from which we now must work.
583283—61 12 167
-------
All through the years, the competitive struggle for the use of water
has been the subject of much turmoil and litigation. These words of
caution are not intended to discourage aggressive action but rather
to steer our approach to an essential sound footing. It is my purpose
in brief discussion to suggest Mr. Banks' excellent presentation as a
springboard for action.
Concerted action in an expanded local area, aided by State and
Federal agencies when appropriate, to find an answer to an aggra-"
vating community water problem is perhaps the only way to make
effective adjustments in established priorities. The assembly of ade-
quate basic data is the first step. Again, we cannot ignore what has
been established. We must review the present uses and look for means
of improvement. The elimination of waste, the reduction of pollu-
tion, the redetermination of the basic purpose of the stream or its
bed, and the development of new sources of supply are all subject to
consideration.
The Department of the Interior has been particularly active in the
elimination of wasteful uses of water and in the development of new
sources of supply.
The reduction of nonbeneficial consumptive use of water has taken
the form of lining canals, elimination of phreatophytes, reduction in
reservoir evaporation, and the nonexcessive use of irrigation water in
the production of crops. These factors all affect the supply that is
subject to a priorities evaluation.
In the development of new sources of water supply, the Department
of the Interior is gaging streams, researching ground water, building
dams with sizable storage reservoirs, and making remarkable progress
in developing or aiding in the development of ways and means of
converting sea and brackish water to fresh water at a price low enough
to be within the reach of many users.
This limited, specific reference to the Department of the Interior is
intended to be only illustrative of the activities and interest of the
Federal Government in our water resources. The Departments of
Health, Education, and Welfare, the Army, Agriculture, and Justice
all are deeply concerned about water use and its priorities.
While many communities are short of usable water because of time
or place or quality, it is correct to say we still have a tremendous
potential water resource waiting in its development only for the
ingenuity and aggressiveness of the American people and their rapidly
growing population. For high success there must be involved in such
action a combination as might be relevant of wide community in-
terest, the urgent needs of private enterprises, and appropriate con-
structive action at every governmental level. In plain words this
means community planning stimulated by State and Federal interest
within the framework of acceptable procedures.
168
-------
In its report to President Eisenhower, dated December 22, 1955,
the Presidential Advisory Committee on Water Resources Policy
stated, "The Committee is convinced that no statement of relative
priorities for the use of water can be made which is applicable to the
entire country.
"As pointed out, most of the 17 Western States, under the doctrine
of appropriation, have adopted certain priorities of uses, usually in
the order of (1) domestic uses, (2) stock watering, (3) irrigation, and
(4) manufacturing of hydroelectric power. Such a pattern is obviously
not applicable in many of the Eastern States, where the major prob-
lems are (1) domestic use, (2) industrial use, (3) water pollution, and
(4) navigation." It should be noted that domestic use includes
municipal use.
Prior to the last four or five decades the development of water re-
sources was planned largely on a single purpose, single project, single
agency basis. Around such single-purpose thinking priority uses and
priority rights have been established. To the extent that a changing
economy or a changing population pattern may make it advisable to
consider modifications in such priorities, just compensation will
generally need to be made.
As we proceed with these further studies for establishing priorities,
particular attention needs to be given to the accelerated nationwide
interest in recent years in fish, wildlife, and recreational purposes.
In the most part, up to the present time, our thinking has been
directed year by year to the establishment of priorities for the use of
newly developed sources of water supply. More and more, however,
this process must be associated with adjustments in uses and priorities
of the earlier supplies. In planning, both the new and the old, either
separately or together as the case may be, should be geared for the
new environment of the future. Each new use recognized and each
adjustment made in former uses become a part of the process by which
firm priorities are established.
In conclusion, it is apparent that the establishment of priorities for
newly developed sources of water supply and also any adjustments
that might be made in established priorities will be of a multipurpose
nature. This means that many agencies, Federal, State, and local,
will be vitally involved. While the order of priorities will vary in the
different areas of the country, the approach to the solution can be
substantially the same everywhere. Joint planning based upon
adequate, current, basic data is essential. It is certain that in these
studies the advantages of pollution control as a means of increasing
the consumptive use of the water supplies will be apparent. The
priorities of use that will be given to the supplies of water that are
available will vary from community to community depending on the
169
-------
density of the population and the urgency of the needs for each of the
several purposes.
Dr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, Governor Aandahl. You have
brought out, I think, some additional points which are worth empha-
sizing. One is the importance of beginning or at least considering in
a very significant and outstanding way the needs of the communities
and their place in this planning. We sometimes think of plans as
starting on a much broader or regional basis rather than with the
communities. But I would agree that the communities are an
essential and extremely important part of the process of planning for
water.
You have brought out, also, that no statement on water use can be
applied perhaps not only to the entire country, but it is difficult to
make a general statement on water use even for a region. These are
points again which I think we may well keep in mind in arriving at
our conclusions in our succeeding discussion.
Panel II
General Discussion
Mr. LAWRENCE. This question addressed to Mr. Hubbard was
asked by Mr. W. Wayne Campbell, of the United States Steel Corp.:
"Is it practical to attempt to control pollution by adoption of uni-
form national standards of water quality?"
Mr. HUBBARD. Water quality varies from State to State, from
area to area, and I rather doubt that firm uniform water quality
standards applicable to the country as a whole would be practical.
I think uniform water quality standards as a guide might well be
worth considering, but I don't believe that the standards that we
demand and need in North Carolina would necessarily be those that
would be applicable or desirable for some other sections of the country.
Mr. LAWRENCE. Here is another question for Mr. Hubbard asked
by Mr. John J. Meehan, Chamber of Commerce of the United States:
"I suspect in the large majority of cases the financial capability
or lack of it is not the real reason for municipalities and industries
resisting waste treatment. Yet you state: 'Need for financial
assistance for cities and industries must be recognized.' How
do you arrive at this latter conclusion?"
Mr. HUBBARD. I think my first statement was that I suspected
that in all cases, in many cases particularly, the lack or so-called lack
of financial capability was not the real reason. I think the lack of
awareness of the need of it and the lack of desire to capitalize necessary
170
-------
treatment are still perhaps major factors in our failure to move
forward with waste treatment as rapidly as we need.
I also said that I felt that in some instances municipalities and
industries should have recognition in the form of some type of financial
assistance in the matter of waste treatment. Actually, the feeling
exists that, after all, this matter of waste treatment does not neces-
sarily improve the water supply situation for the particular industry
or municipality expending the funds for waste treatment, but rather
that it improves the situation in terms of water supply for down-
stream users. Also, recognition must be given to the fact that we
cannot confine the effects of pollution in a county, State, or region.
I think that it is well that some sort of government financial recogni-
tion be given to efforts being made by our municipalities and indus-
tries, and I would like to say in this connection that tremendous
efforts are now being made in our State of North Carolina by both
industries and municipalities. I have no fuss with those industries
and municipalities which are moving forward with their program.
We still have industries and municipalities, though, that for one
reason or another are not taking the steps that they should, and I
think we had better quit deluding ourselves and get down to the
business of pollution abatement, utilizing the knowledge of waste
treatment that we have in doing a job that we all admit and know we
must do if we are to survive.
Mr. LAWRENCE. This question for Mr. Hubbard was asked by
Mr. Leon W. Dupuy, United States Bureau of Mines: "You have
emphasized pollutants and substances put into water but did not
mention temperature. Since great quantities of water are used
for cooling, is not temperature a major pollutant?"
Mr, HUBBARD. I simply must agree that increased temperature
to the point that it interferes with necessary downstream water usage
is certainly a form of pollution that is important and should be abated.
I use the word "pollution," probably influenced by the fact that our
State statute specifies that pollution of water is any change of its
nature which tends to interfere with its usability. I should certainly
think that increased temperature would be rightfully classified as a
pollution or as a pollutant.
Mr. LAWRENCE. This question is directed to Mr. Banks by Mr.
Wallace West, of the American Petroleum Institute: "You have
spoken of water as if it were the only way to dispose of wastes. Is
any research of importance being done on more modern disposal
methods, that is, smogless incineration, large-scale dehydration,
and burial, and so forth? Can such things alleviate the pollution
problem substantially?"
Mr. BANKS. If I said that disposal of water is the only way to
dispose of wastes, I am sorry. I did not mean to imply that it is the
171
-------
only way. It is not. What I did intend to say and perhaps did not
make clear is that a major fraction of our waste products do find
their way into watercourses.
Now, with respect to other means of disposal, yes, there is a con-
siderable amount of research being conducted in that regard. There
is disposal through deep wells, reaching into salt water or unusable
water. There is research on radioactive waste disposal, and saline
water disposal from oil wells. New methods are being found, but I
would venture the opinion that even as in the long range picture, a
sizable fraction of our total waste, will and must continue to find its
way into our water resources, either ground or surface or both, as
the case may be.
Mr. LAWRENCE. This question is directed to Mr. Klassen by Mr.
Louis F. Clapper, of the National Wildlife Federation: "Mr. Klassen
infers that industry has a basic responsibility for assuring its
wastes are not detrimentally affecting others. Does he not believe
that this concept, which well could be a part of the goals of this
Conference, should be expanded to say that all users of public
waters have the responsibility of returning them at least as free
of wastes as when they were taken? This philosophy, of course,
recognises that certain technical problems remain to be solved."
Mr. KLASSEN. It sounds like the person that prepared the ques-
tion had an opportunity to read the complete published version of
this paper, because I believe that is what I inferred. As a matter of
fact, I believe I came very close to saying those very words.
My own personal belief is that industry has the responsibility to
assure the water pollution control agency, we will say in this case,
that it is not discharging waste into a stream that would be detri-
mental. I think that it is their responsibility and it is not the respon-
sibility of the control agency to have to prove to that industry that
what they are discharging into there is detrimental. I think that is
a basic industrial responsibility, and I certainly agree with the person
that asked the question that the water should be returned to the stream
by an industry at least of the same desirable quality that it was when
it was removed.
Mr. LAWRENCE. Thank you, Mr. Klassen.
This question is also directed to Mr. Klassen by Mr. Grant A.
Pettit, of the Armco Steel Corp.: "In view of the fundamental con-
cept that a beneficial use of streams is to carry away wastes, should
treatment of these wastes be provided beyond that necessary to
protect these established users?"
Mr. KLASSEN. No, I don't think that we in our economy must
require wastes to be treated beyond the point at which the stream will
absorb those wastes. I know that a little different interpretation of
this concept was enunciated by Mr. Hollis yesterday. My own con-
172
-------
cept of this industrial question is not how much should we make
industry do but how little is necessary for industry to do in the way
of waste treatment and still maintain the water in the outlet stream
for the legitimate uses of that stream below that outlet.
This, of course, brings up the whole question of classification of
streams, which we don't adhere to or believe in in Illinois. I per-
sonally feel that each industrial or municipal problem so far as it
involves degree of treatment is based upon the use of the stream below
that outlet, which, of course, also takes into account the dilution
factor. To have any other concept; namely, treatment merely for
treatment's sake, is contrary to our particular type of economy, free
enterprise, and from a practical standpoint in this country.
Mr. LAWRENCE. This question is from Mr. R. J. Faust, Execu-
tive Secretary of the American Water Works Association. It is in
two parts:
"Part 1: Why permit the unusual contaminants to enter a
stream? For example, an unusual industrial chemical which has
a limited use at a small number of places. Part 2: Why not reuse
of industrial water by the industry producing the waste?"
Mr. KLASSEN. Most of these questions seem to be pointed at
industry. They are not necessarily the big bad boys, and the ones
that are creating all the pollution problems. They do create problems.
However, municipalities likewise are involved in this. Mr. Faust has
raised an important and quite a basic question.
In other words, when we talk about reuse, are we talking about
the reuse of the water out in the stream some place below an outlet,
or are we talking or do we mean to interpret reuse as a reuse within
the industry itself?
Both are involved in its proper interpretation. I personally believe
that it is industry's responsibility to reuse the water within its own
industry efficiently and not just to the point when it becomes un-
economical for it to reuse, and then dump whatever residue that
remains into the outlet stream. The responsibility of reuse also
extends to the reuse of water by downstream users.
I know of an industry at the present time that is taking a very
excellent water and in its use increases the hardness to some 800 or 900
parts per million. It is uneconomical for that industry to remove that
hardness and high saline content for their own reuse. It is cheaper
for them to pump their water out of the ground and to discharge
this high sulfate waste water into the outlet stream. I think that is
probably an example of what Mr. Faust has in mind, and I very
definitely agree and I think that is probably what his question is
pointed toward—that it is an obligation in this particular industry
that I mentioned to you to remove those hardness constituents so
that they will not be detrimental as they are now to a water use
downstream.
173
-------
In other words, an industry has an obligation to the general public
and the downstream users, if necessary, to go beyond their own
water reuse, and that is a form of reuse beyond which it might be
profitable to them to do so.
Also, they definitely have a responsibility for a more efficient
water reuse within their own industry.
So reuse does imply an efficient reuse of industry as well as applying
to an efficient reuse in the outlet stream itself.
Mr. LAWRENCE. The next question for Mr. Klassen is from Mr.
John J. Meehan, of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States:
"By your statements concerning water quality management,
which would involve among other things planning, organization,
establishing and maintaining controls, and so forth, are you sug-
gesting eventually an overall czar on a national level?"
Mr. KLASSEN. Of course, I could use the usual technique of a
discussant by answering the question with a question. I am not too
sure what he means by a czar. If he means—I think probably he
does—a Federal agency or one person, we will say, in Federal Gov-
ernment who is going to dictate water policies all over the country on
water reuse, then, no, I do not advocate that. I believe that, as I
think I stated, within our present framework of government we can
accomplish this water quality management program.
I am a States-righter. However, on the other hand, much of
the criticism of Federal control of water pollution and water use comes
from the States that have been themselves lax in facing up to the issue
and doing something about it. I know from our own experiences
in our own State, that a State can take care of its own water pollution
problems, and if it becomes involved in interstate problems, that the
interstate compact is the next avenue open. I do think that in the
background there should be some ultimate Federal authority that
can step in if all of the other machinery at local levels does not or
cannot function or operate.
I do not have too much sympathy for the States that are crying
"Federal control," and "czar," particularly when they themselves are
not doing the job that they can and should do because of some reasons
of local personalities and pressures.
Mr. LAWRENCE. This question to Mr. Klassen is from Mr. Harold
F. Elkin, National Technical Task Committee on Industrial Wastes:
"By providing modern principles of water quality management
and extending and improving techniques of reuse and conserva-
tion, can we not promote an increased level of industrial and com-
munity productivity per unit volume of ivater in given areas?"
Mr. KLASSEN. Well, it is apparently obvious that the answer to
that question is "yes." However, I believe that not many of the
174
-------
industries themselves realize—and a lot of them still do not—the im-
portance of production costs that are reflected in their own water
problem. As some of you know, it was my privilege a couple of years
ago to be a consultant to the Japanese Government, and I mention
this because it is definitely impinging on this particular question.
The Japanese economy had reached the point where they had to
force their land to produce food. We took away Korea, Formosa, and
'Okinawa. The old methods of using night soil and fertilizer with
human wastes had to be discarded for the most part and replaced by
r chemical nutrients. Therefore, the night soil became a drug on the
market and was and is being dumped into the Japanese streams.
Finally, Japanese industry itself realized that one industry was caus-
ing another industry to have an increased production cost because of
the particular water problem. That is when the Japanese industry
got interested, and this law or new national stream pollution law was
passed. Many Japanese industrialists indicated that they were be-
ginning to realize the increasing production cost that their water
treatment problems were involving, and that, of course, determined
their competition on the world market.
From an over-all industry viewpoint, much of American industry
has not yet realized what part of the "cost" of water is reflected in the
production cost of then- own particular product. I believe that as we
see one part of the country and another part of the country facing up
to these problems, that the answer definitely to this question is "yes."
I know from our own experience in the Ohio River Valley that
industry cannot play one State against another so far as their treat-
ment problems, and from one part of the country to another part of
the country, wherever the water locations are. I feel that, coming
back to the previous question, it could very well be there will have to
be some overall national standards as the basis on which all industry
would have to operate, at least as a goal.
Mr. LAWRENCE. This question to Mr. Klassen is from our chair-
man, Dr. Ackerman: "From the point of view of a State govern-
ment, how should radioactive ivastes be handled in the future if
they reach significant volume?"
Mr. KLASSEN. Well, I do feel a little competent from our own
experiences to answer this question, while this is not a "Chamber of
Commerce" type of statement. Unless Russia has a larger one,
Illinois has the largest nuclear powerplant in the world. We now
have it in operation.
I think the chairman raised this question, so far as the State and
Federal Government are concerned, whether the Federal Government
is preempting any of the State's authority in this field of radioactive
waste control. I want to dispose of that question by saying that that
is a legal question and as an engineer I do not intend to fight the legal
175
-------
battles of the lawyer and answer that particular question, because
even if we did settle the legal question of whether the Federal Govern-
ment or the State government has control over radioactive wastes,
we in the State would still have the problem. Although some of the
lawyers have advocated that the United States Supreme Court settle
this question, I hope that it never does, because if it does, we will both
lose, both the State and the Federal Government. The Federal
Government and the Atomic Energy Commission, to be specific, need *
the help of the State agencies, and we in the States certainly need the
help of the Federal agencies in this particular problem.
I might tell you exactly what is happening in our State with the
power station that is owned by Commonwealth Edison and their
associates.
The decayed radioactive wastes go into the Illinois River, from
which Peoria takes its water supply downstream.
Two years ago the background count of our streams in Illinois, as
in many places in the country, went above the rough base line of
100 micromicrocuries per liter because of fallout. The operator of the
installation said, "What happens if the background count goes above
this when we are in operation? Do we have to stop operation?"
It is a logical question because you just cannot "shut down a nuclear
powerplant today and start it tomorrow."
We have worked out what we both think is a practical arrangement.
I mention this because this is strictly a State operation. We have
been securing background counts in the stream the 2 years prior to
operation. We use the average of the past 12 months for the basis
to figure the next month's discharge by the station and the first of
every month the Illinois Sanitary Water Works files with Common-
wealth Edison a statement of the level of the wastes that it can put in
that stream during the coming month. Now, I detail that because it
is a specific problem. The question of jurisdiction has never been
raised. We feel that we as a State agency have a direct responsibility
to the people of the State of Illinois. The Commonwealth Edison has
certainly recognized that we also can be a factor, a public relations
factor, in knowing what is going on. Our relations have been the
finest right from the beginning of planning, construction, and opera-
tion, and I definitely know from our own experience that a State
agency can face up to this problem of radioactive wastes from a
practical standpoint. To do otherwise would be an abdication of
some of their responsibilities. The sanitary engineer has taken this
in his stride. I might say that we did not have to amend our water
pollution control act in Illinois. We take radioactive wastes merely
as another waste in our long list of wastes, one of which is a little more
complex and one that has been magnified by scope and intelligence.
Nevertheless, it is an industrial waste. It is one that the States can
176
-------
control. This is not a hypothetical statement, because as well as
some other States we are doing it with the cooperation of the industry.
We have four reactors in the State now. To specifically answer
this question in this field of radioactivity, the States have the prime
obligation to the people to protect the streams even though the 1954
Atomic Energy Act might be interpreted in a little different manner.
We are getting the job done, and a State water pollution agency
needs the Federal Government in this for their competence, and the
Federal agency involved in this definitely needs the State.
I think that probably summarizes my reaction on that question.
Mr. LAWRENCE. This question for Mr. Banks is from Mr.
Alden J. Erskine, President of the Izaak Walton League of America:
"Under what circumstances, if any, can you justify the use of a
public stream for the disposal of untreated waste?"
Mr. BANKS. Well, again I am going to have to say that I do not
recall that I said anything about untreated wastes in my formal
presentation. A waste is a waste, whether it is treated or untreated,
and it must be disposed of. What I had reference to in my paper was
the final disposal of the waste after whatever degree of treatment
proves to be economical in the total situation concerned.
I will agree that I can conceive of very few circumstances, if any,
which under the present state of our civilization and our culture,
would justify the disposal of untreated wastes into surface waters.
There may be such cases, but I do not know of them. The fact still
remains that some fraction of the waste even if treated, must be
finally disposed of to these waters, and it must be carried off by the
water. In some cases that necessity may be sufficiently great to
justify degrading the quality of the water in some reaches of the
stream to the point where it will adversely affect aquatic life and fish
and wildlife resources. But I repeat, in answer to the specific ques-
tion, that I conceive of very few if any circumstances which would
justify the discharge of untreated waste.
Mr. LAWRENCE. This question for Mr. Banks is from Mr. John
J. Meehan, of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States. It is
in two parts: "Part 1: In your opinion, who should establish water
priorities? Part 2:1 agree with your statement that comprehen-
sive long-range water quality planning is essential, but is it possi-
ble that on the national level desire for planning might lead to a
national water boss?"
Mr. BANKS, I am speaking now of intrastate waters—at the present
time there are only the State agencies which have the statutory author-
ity and body of law to establish water priorities on intrastate streams.
Now, speaking with particular reference to the West, this generally
revolves upon a joint effort between the State engineer or the water
177
-------
rights board or whatever State agency administers water rights in
the particular State concerned, working in collaboration with the
pollution control authorities. In the East, of course, in certain States
where there is no body of statutory law governing water rights, water
priorities are pretty largely established by custom and by growth of
the economy and environment.
I believe firmly that the matter of establishment of water use
priorities is and should remain a State function. I don't believe that
at the present time, nor do I see it coming in the future, there is an
adequate mechanism at the Federal level to do the job.
Now, with respect to the matter of a national water boss, in my
opinion there is need at the Federal level for some mechanism, call
it a water boss or water czar or board of review or body of water
coordinators or what you will—there have been all sorts of mechanisms
proposed by all those who have studied the question—to coordinate
the activities of the various Federal agencies involved in water de-
velopment—Health, Education, and Welfare, Bureau of Reclamation,
Corps of Engineers, Agriculture, Federal Power Commission, and the
others which have some responsibility in this field. There is need for
an agency to coordinate their activities into a comprehensive optimum
development program. There is now too much competition and con-
flict between the Federal agencies. I believe it can only be cleared
up by establishing some coordinating mechanism, probably in the
Executive Office of the President.
Mr. LAWRENCE. This question for Mr. Banks is from Mr. Shaeffer;:
"Would you expand your idea concerning the use of zoning to
mitigate pollution problems?"
Mr. BANKS. Well, I can illustrate that, I think, by recounting a
little of our own experience in California. Of course, we are fortunate.
We have a thousand miles of coastline on the Pacific Ocean which has a
fairly high assimilation capacity, properly used. Our interior streams,
of course, are necessary for other purposes to a very large extent, and
very shortly we are going to run out of waste-disposal capacity in
these ulterior streams. From then on industrial development will
have to be very carefully planned and carefully located with respect
to the availability of waste-disposal capacity in the various water
resources concerned, both fresh, surface water, and our saline off-shore
waters.
I think there is need for study, and I hope it will go forward in our
State in the not too distant future, of where industry can and should
locate from the standpoint of waste disposal with a minimum of cost
both to themselves and to the other water users of the State, in order
to achieve proper waste disposal without adverse effect upon the other
beneficial uses of water.
178
-------
In the interior valleys, we can accommodate much more industrial
development without either excessive degradation of our streams or
provision of very extensive waste disposal systems to collect the wastes,
and finally dispose of them to a point in the saline waters where they
will do no harm. It is conceivable that economics may dictate that
industry locate where waste disposal is relatively simple and cheap.
Mr. LAWRENCE. This question to Mr. Banks is from Mr. Roland
C. Clement, of the National Audubon Society. "Is not the assign-
ment of pollution quotas, instead of preventing pollution from
the beginning, a form of water expropriation which will make
multiple purpose allocation impossible?"
Mr. BANKS. I think that question rests upon the concept that
waste disposal is a nuisance. I do not happen to be one who regards
waste disposal as necessarily a nuisance under all circumstances. I think
it is a necessary facet of our culture, our economic environment, both
urban and industrial, and agriculture. I do not see how, if you define
pollution in the broad sense of quality deterioration of any kind—how
you can absolutely prevent pollution. You can minimize it, but you
cannot fully prevent it. There will be some quality deterioration,
irrespective of all the treatment possible. The question is not the
absolute prevention of deterioration but how much you can stand in
the total economic and social picture.
Now, I believe that this question refers largely to social values, and
I would not for one moment have you believe that I minimize in any
way the social values of the use of our water resources. They are
extremely important. But still and all, the objective must be eco-
nomic balance in the total picture.
Mr. LAWRENCE. This question for Mr. Banks is from Mr. Harold
F. Elkin, National Technical Task Committee on Industrial Wastes:
"Mr. Banks referred to zoning for urban and industrial develop-
ment. Since the normal pressures of water supply and demand
influence industrial site selection, and thereby affect the growth
of our urban areas, why not encourage community expansion in
locations with adequate water availability and relieve some of the
anticipated pressure on our water deficient areas?"
Mr. BANKS. I can answer that one very simply. I think it is a fine
idea. All we have to do is find the technique to do it. By what means
people can be prevented from coming to some of these areas even in
advance of industrial development, is a problem which we have not
resolved yet. My own opinion is that in the broad field of planning,
we should start at a more basic level than we do. Generally, in plan-
ning we start with the projection that there will be so many people in
a particular location at the same particular point of time in the future
and so we develop our design and provide the utilities, the water sup-
179
-------
ply and the highways, and so forth, to meet that population. Possibly
we ought to start a little farther back and form some opinion whether
that population level is desirable for this particular location, consider-
ing all aspects, not only water supply, but waste disposal, air space, air
drainage, soil, climate, availability of industrial locations, and all that
sort of thing.
So again I would say I think the idea is very fine. All we have to
do yet is to find a way of implementing it.
Mr. LAWRENCE. This question is directed to the panel. I shall ask
for volunteers. It is from Mr. Koyal H. Oarlock of the Izaak Walton
League: "Will the system of purifying brackish and saline waters
remove detergents, insecticides, pesticides, viruses, and other un-
healthful chemicals? If so, why not purify the effluent from our
sanitary treatment plants?"
I believe that Mr. Klassen touched on this in his paper.
Mr. KLASSEN. First of all, I do not know whether the process of
desalting water would remove all of these things. I am under the
impression that certainly multiple evaporation probably would take
out most of them. So as to the first part of the question, I do not
know the answer to that. The second part, if so, let's assume that
it will. Why not use this to remove all of our sanitary wastes?
I think the answer comes back to the discussion that Mr. Banks
just gave to the last question. It is a question of economics. I
have said (and some of my Izaak Walton League and sportsmen
friends have disagreed) that we cannot hope to have an 1860 water
quality condition in a 1960 industrial economy and expansion. I do
not mean this as a defeatist statement, but I say this because I believe
it.
We pay a price for our particular form of government and industrial
energy, and for me it is worth it. One of the prices that we have to
pay for some of the improvements, some of the standard of living,
some of our industrial expansion, is the price of not having the 1860
water quality, water of pristine purity, if you want to take one of the
phrases of some of our sportsmen friends.
Coming back to the question whether it would be possible to
remove all of these things by evaporation of our domestic wastes,
it becomes basically a question of whether first of all it is necessary
and whether it is economically feasible. Maybe we, as I said in the
paper, cannot afford not to do it, and it resolves itself into a question
of what is pollution. I think that was answered in a previous
question. We have a definite definition of pollution in our Illinois
law which our courts have held is a bill of particulars when we say
to an industry or a municipality that they are causing pollution in
accordance with this definition.
180
-------
I am not going to read this definition, but as long as an industry
or a municipality is not affecting the waters according to that defini-
tion, they are not causing stream pollution. That again means that
there obviously are wastes that can be discharged into streams
without causing pollution.
Mr. LAWRENCE. I think the questioner in this case had in mind
the fact that assuming effluent is less complex than some of the saline
waters we are working on.
Governor Aandahl, I wonder if you could comment on this question.
Mr. AANDAHL. There probably is not too much that I can add to
what has already been said. I would like to advise, though, that in
the saline water conversion plants we have also a problem of disposing
of the waste. The conversion plants will take about half of the
volume of water and make pure water out of it and return the other
half with double the load of brackish materials. So we have the
problem of disposing of wastes in the saline water conversion plants.
I think those plants will remove some of the elements of pollution
that are found in industrial wastes—-just which I am not sure—-but
that would be a matter for engineering review. But we still have
not removed the problem of pollution disposal, because in the con-
version plants we also have a waste being disposed.
Mr. LAWRENCE. Thank you, Governor. This is a good ques-
tion. We have a comment now from Mr. Banks.
Mr. BANKS. I will be more bold and volunteer a further answer.
This question seems to refer to the wastes produced by munici-
palities and industries, and I would infer that the individual concerned
is thinking in terms of all industrial plants. I think we fall into an
error in our thinking if, in considering the matter of pollution and
waste disposal, we limit our thinking solely to municipal sewage and
to industrial plant waste.
In the West, and I suspect this may become increasingly true in the
East as time goes on, a very significant pollutional load on our streams
is from irrigation return flows. Irrigation return not infrequently
contains significant amounts of pesticides, agricultural chemicals,
insecticides, and that sort of thing. Obviously, when you have some
7 million acres of land under irrigation, probably with a return flow
in the order of not less than a half-acre foot per acre per year (in some
cases it is far higher), it is impossible to treat that type of waste in
that magnitude before it returns to the stream if only because of its
sheer magnitude, to say nothing about the impossibility of attempting
to collect it, because some of it returns to the ground water and then
moves laterally and feeds into the streams by effluent seepage. So
again this comes back to the point that I tried to make in my paper.
You have to expect and anticipate there must be some deterioration
181
-------
in quality, and there is not much you can do about it. We have to
face that fact, as has been previously stated, because there are
situations where it is an obvious impossibility to prevent it.
Mr. LAWRENCE. This question is also for Mr. Banks or Mr.
Klassen: "Since pristine purity is not obtainable and some pol-
lutants must be received by our waters, who is to determine the
purity standards for the permitted pollutants?"
Mr. KLASSEN. I will volunteer this time, Mr. Banks. The
reason I volunteer is because an answer is easy.
Under our form of government, not necessarily the person by name,
but we will say the agency by name which is to determine pollution,
obviously is the one that is designated by the legislative branch of
government. In our own State, my own personal views do not
necessarily apply to the Illinois program. We have a very definite
responsibility charged to us by the Legislature, and any time that I
do not agree with that, of course, I have the opportunity to quit and
go some other place.
So I would say that when you ask the question who is to determine
this, the people are to determine it through their own representatives.
If it is in a State, it is the State legislature; nationally, through the
Congress. I think that that is the only obvious answer to this.
We have in our Illinois law a statement of policy, a definition of
pollution, and a procedure that we must follow. We have been
designated as the agency to determine whether a stream is polluted
according to the definition of pollution, and I think probably that is
the answer. Any time an organization or the people in an area and
a State or the country are not satisfied with the way the program is
going, they have the obvious alternative to appeal to the legislative
branch of government, so that the executive branch can follow the
dictates of the legislative branch. I think it is just that simple.
Mr. LAWRENCE. This question is from Mr. Balmer of Du Pont
and is directed to the panel: "We talk about meeting the need for
more water, with very little mention of what can be done to re-
duce that need by all users. Now, the greater cost, if cost is the
charge, can do a great deal to reduce us below the commonly
predicted amounts, and very little has been said about that."
Mr. BANKS. In connection with our statewide planning in my
State, we have conducted some studies of the influence of changes of
cost of water on the use of water in urban communities. There is
some degree of correlation between cost of water and the amount of
water used, but within the ranges studied, it does not seem to be too
significant. One of the things we found is that with an increase in
water rates, water consumption goes down for a short while. But
182
-------
then it builds up quite rapidly and comes back to the same trend that
it had before the increase in rates went into effect.
As far as municipal supplies are concerned, I think we must recog-
nize that a very high proportion of the cost of municipal supplies is
in the distribution of the water, not in the source cost. You might
double the source cost or even triple it without making a corresponding
percentage increase in the cost of the water to the consumer. I sus-
pect that as far as municipal use of water is concerned, you would have
to raise the price to the consumer considerably before you would have
a pronounced effect upon the rate of consumption.
Agriculture displays a much greater elasticity of demand; that is,
the use of water by agriculture is much more sensitive to the cost of
water to the irrigator than is the case in municipal supply. This, of
course, has been advocated by some economists as a means of in-
creasing the efficiency of water use.
I would venture the opinion that control of water use through the
pricing mechanism would be extremely difficult from a political stand-
point in a given community or in a given irrigation district. I have
asked some water purveyors what they thought of the idea, and they
shuddered at the thought of raising the cost of water to the consumer
as a means of increasing its efficiency of use. I suspect there would be
all sorts of protests, protest marches on city hall, and as far as farmers
are concerned in some irrigated areas if you raised the price of their
water by 25 cents an acre-foot, you would have open rebellion on your
hands immediately. So, from the standpoint of theoretical economics,
it is a good idea, but I do not think it stands much chance of being put
into effect.
Mr. KLASSEN. I merely want to mention this, because I wasn't
going to volunteer until Mr. Banks mentioned this.
Some of you may be familiar with the whole pattern of the planned
water economy in Israel. It is probably one of the tightest and the
finest controlled water controls any place in the world, and they
recently did this very thing that Mr. Banks mentioned. That is the
reason for my mentioning this. They have determined the needs of
the average family, and beyond that, instead of water getting cheaper
as you use more, that country has put into effect what they call the
"reverse sliding scale." Above the average amount which the average
family needs there is a tremendous and a sharp increase in rates beyond
that amount, rather than a decrease.
Mr. LAWRENCE. Mr. Alden Erskine has requested to make a
statement. Mr. Erskine is president of the Izaak Walton League.
Mr. ERSKINE. If we are to maintain the dignity of our society
and achieve desirable objectives, we must go home from this very im-
portant meeting with sincere obligations and honest intensions to put
583283—61 13 183
-------
into action the findings of this meeting. We are, I am sure, aware of
the common law of averages, but I am sure we will all agree that just
average has not been good enough, in pure foods, in our schools, our
paved highways, and the many other things we have learned to expect
as a part of our American way of life. By the same token, if we are
going to meet the water needs of all segments of our society, we must
demand and cannot accept less than clean water, and I must say
"clean" twice.
184
-------
PANEL II, Afternoon Session
Dr. E. A. Ackerman, Presiding
We start this afternoon's session and the final session of Panel 2,
that is, pollution control as a means of increasing water supplies,
with a somewhat longer session than we had this morning, but I
think you will agree, just as interesting a one as this morning. We
have four speakers and discussants for each of the presentations which
those speakers will make.
Water Quality Intelligence
THOMAS J. POWERS
Consulting Director
Dow Industrial Division, Dow Chemical Co., Cleveland, Ohio
The title of this paper may have a different meaning to every person
who sees it. To me it means knowing our waters. I would propose
to prove that we must know our waters. I would propose to prove
that we can only know our waters through organized, systematic
data gathering.
This data gathering is not easy to sell. I have found the ordinary
citizen to be quite unsympathetic toward data gathering.
Many years ago we made a water quality survey of Saginaw Bay.
During the winter, with the Bay covered by ice: we would sample
from a special car with an ice drill. One day 20 miles out from the
Saginaw River and 5 miles from shore we stopped for a sample. There
was a lonely fishing shanty not 50 feet away. As we started the ice
drill down, the door of the shanty flew open. A fisherman popped
out and wanted to know what we were doing. Our answer, "tracing
pollution." After a moment's thought he remarked, "Hell you won't
find any out here. Why don't you look in the Saginaw River?"
You see, pollution meant an evident thing to him. He had no sym-
pathy with our efforts to locate a point of least pollution for a water
intake.
When I first started working for industry, my boss made it very
plain that my job was to know more about our pollution problem than
anyone else. For instance, if something happened in the river, it was
my job to know about and be able to define the problem before anyone
else. Now, something is always happening in a river. It was my
job to know the what, where, who, and why.
To conform with this mandate, it was necessary to expand an
existing river and sewer surveillance program. It was also necessary
to train people to recognize pollution by test, by sight, and by odor.
185
-------
At one time we had five continuous conductivity recorders on water
intakes above and below our operations. We had a daily sampling
of the rivers above our plant and below it. Sewer sampling was
hourly around the clock. What happened to the data we collected?
They were used to find and eliminate haphazard pollution, they
pointed up the need for further controls and they measured progress.
Our communications with upstream and downstream water users
were excellent. Alerts were sounded for unusual conditions whenever
and wherever they were found, above us or below us. On many
occasions it was necessary to call upstream industries and tell them
they had a loss. We had to communicate to protect our own position.
This type of surveillance has been in practice for over 30 years and
I believe it to be a good example of what we mean by "water quality
intelligence," the need for it, and the uses to which it can be put by
an industry.
There are many water quality intelligence programs in the United
States. Perhaps the oldest is that of the U.S. Geological Survey.
As of now, this agency maintains 290 daily sampling stations with an
additional 320 stations operated on a monthly or weekly sampling
basis. The purpose of this program is to provide industry and the
public with information about the chemical quality of surface waters.
The survey also provides information on minor trace elements as well
as radioactive elements. While the compiled data of this program
may be useful for pollution control, this was not the primary aim.
The Public Health Service saw a need for long term data on the
changes in water quality affected by pollution. In 1957 the National
Water Quality Network was established. There are 74 sampling
locations on our major waterways and international waters. The
data collected will show the trends in quality as measured by bacteria,
by organic content, by oxygen level, by plankton, by radioactivity
determinations, and others.
It is anticipated that this program will be expanded to 300 stations.
The participating agencies are State health departments, municipal
water departments, other Federal agencies and industries.
These agents collect samples and do normal analyses while the
Public Health Service performs the more sophisticated analyses,
compiles the data and publishes the compilation yearly. The Public
Health Service, in conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
is active also in 56 projects in 17 States on comprehensive studies of
pollution and water supply requirements.
The Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission has operated
an interstate monitoring system for 8 years in cooperation with its
signatory States, the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Corps of En-
gineers, municipal and industrial waterplant managers. Stressing the
hazard and alert possibilities, this system is operated to avoid damage
through gross pollution as well as to build water quality information
186
-------
for future decisions. All information is communicated to the
ORSANCO office, which acts as the collecting and communicting
agent. ORSANCO has in operation some 43 monitoring stations.
This systematic data collection and communicating program did not
happen over night. It has taken 9 years to develop under the per-
severing and visionary leadership of Edward J. Cleary, ORSANCO's
Executive Director.
Every State that has an active water pollution control program has
a water quality intelligence program of some sort. I do not believe
we are sufficiently organized in spite of all the necessary programs I
have mentioned.
In support of this belief there are three questions I must try to
answer:
I. Why do we need to organize for better water quality intel-
ligence?
II. Who is to be organized?
III. How do we organize and how do we accomplish the aims?
In answer to the first question "why," it seems apparent to me
that this ever increasing competition for water is going to demand an
ever increasing pressure for water quality control. This means water
pollution control.
Problems arising from the increased use of water might be likened
to problems growing out of the increased use of our highways. More
restrictions are required, more alertness and courtesy are demanded
from the users, more uniform laws, signals and signs are installed, and
more studies are made to minimize danger to life and property.
If we are to control the pollution of our watercourses, it would seem
that sufficient data must be gathered to—
1. Avoid as much damage as possible from instances of gross
pollution.
2. Define the effects of pollution on water uses.
3. Measure the effectiveness of existing controls.
4. Establish the methods to be used for the most economical
control.
5. Maintain control and provide proof of need for further
control.
We are still talking about "why." Under point (1) we must face
up to the fact that inadvertent gross pollution occurs and will con-
tinue to occur. If we are to protect water users, we much organize
to communicate instances of such pollution. Even rain can cause
gross pollution. About 6 years ago a hurricane rain was reported to
kill an oyster crop worth several hundred thousands of dollars. This
was not from too much fresh water. The fresh water wave passed
too quickly to do damage. Organic matter washed from the land
settled in the estuary and slowly depleted the oxygen. Witness also,
187
-------
the bypass from combined sewer systems even on small rains. A
brief hard rain in Pittsburgh may materially affect water quality in
Cincinnati 2 weeks later.
Other cases of inadvertent gross pollution could be similar to one
we experienced. One night a transport company released a whole
tank truck of phenol to the sewers of a large Midwestern city—50,000
pounds in a few hours. We called the manager of the sewage system
the next morning. He in turn alerted the water works and sewage
treatment plant. As I said before—these things happen.
I have heard of a $250,000 loss incurred by an industry because of
a lack of communications. I have also heard of many cases of gross
pollution where every water user was properly notified. Potential
damage to life or property was minimized.
Under point (2), the definition of pollution effects, I do not see
how we can convince a judge or a jury, a city council or industrial
management that controls are necessary unless we can show damaged
usefulness. Very few polluters recognize a pollution problem until
they receive a complaint. How many people pay a bill before it is
rendered?
So far we have initiated controls ahead of radioactive pollution.
Let us insist that research on pollution effects be done before other
new materials are permitted to reach the water environment.
Having attained corrective measures the effectiveness of these can
only be measured in receiving environment. That's point (3).
Treatment plant efficiency data are necessary to establish design
parameters. Our State health departments demand performance
reports. I would submit that data on the receiving water is the data
which can truly measure performance and the adequacy of that per-
formance. I am impatient with curves depicting industrial growth
rates. Too often these are used to imply equal pollution rates. I am
also impatient with graphs showing money spent on waste control.
Too often these imply an equal reduction of pollution. The only data
for these answers is water quantity data.
Point (4). Water quality intelligence can definitely establish meth-
ods to be used for the most economical control. The record of the
chloride changes in the Ohio River pointed out the feasibility of storage
and controlled discharge for brine wastes. The knowledge that
certain organic materials rapidly disappear and others persist point
the way towards effective control.
Under point (5), how can we maintain control and point up further
needs unless we know existing and past conditions?
Back to our highways. I believe you may agree that there is only
one good control for speeding. It is not the law. It is not the signs.
It is the well equipped and conscientious traffic officer. Constant
surveillance is the only way we can insure the gains and point up
deficiencies.
188
-------
Now, let us explore question II, "who" is to be organized. Natu-
rally enough, the water control agencies must have facts in order to
administer the pollution control laws. Not only must the control
agencies be a part of organized water quality intelligence, they owe
it to the public to initiate it. This may be largely an educational job.
None of our water control agencies has been given enough budgetary
support to actually carry out a day to day program without a tremen-
dous amount of cooperative efforts from others. Very few of the
agencies are presently staffed to even serve as a clearinghouse for
information. It would seem that these agencies, Federal, State, and
interstate, have a selling job to do if we are to arrive at any semblance
of an organized effort.
My definition of a water user is any organization which uses the
watercourse for water supply, effluent dilution or any individual using
it for recreation.
Every water user has a responsibility under common and statute
law. How can the water user assure himself that his use is within the
law unless he knows the effects of that use? Further we would ask,
"How can a water user intelligently use a water unless he knows its
quality?"
The water user is the one most concerned about immediate quality
changes. He is the one in the best position to observe water quality
Let's take a look at question III, "How do we organize, and how
do we accomplish the aims." Some years ago we had an eager
intake screen operator who had a habit of calling the conservation
officer every time he saw a dead fish in the river. As soon as the
word reached the officer, he would call me. We would meet at the
plant gate to start an investigation although the fish might be 12
hours gone.
After several of these instances we encouraged the screen operator's
boss to ask him to at least give us equal notification so that we could
start an investigation before the fish was too ripe.
I make this point to emphasize that the justification for stream
surveillance and monitoring depends on the proper organization of
communications. This, I believe, is the most important element of a
good program.
If we know who needs information about water quality, I would
propose that the system of communications be worked out first.
How would we achieve this first element? If it cannot be achieved
there is evidently no need for a program.
Let us start with a watershed containing a number of diverse water
users. The control agency must take the initiative to educate these
users to the need for organization and to call a meeting for this pur-
pose. The size of the watershed is not important. The number and
types of users are. The user with the largest stake in water quality
would be the most natural to select as the intelligence collecting and
189
-------
communicating agent. This requires a 24-hour telephone number,
a mailing address and a person with a mind capable of assessing the
importance of information received about water quality. This
agent then transmits all information to other water users and the con-
trol agencies. Each user should gladly pay his proportionate share
for such service. If not, the program needs more education, more
selling.
We must assume that the most important element, communications,
has been established. There is a need for the program. Now,
again, "how,"—how do we establish what kind of information is
needed and how do we get it.
Information about the discharge of each watercourse under sur-
veillance is absolutely necessary. The growing competition for water
demands that we assess the available supply during all periods of
the year and over many years. We must also know the time of flow
between water users under all flow conditions. On regulated streams,
we should not only know the time of flow but the time of gradient
change. Without these data, it is almost impossible to evaluate
water quality changes. The U.S. Geological Survey Surface Water
Branch can aid in establishing a stream gaging program if one is not
already in existence. There are 6,825 active stream gaging stations.
What other measurements could be considered essential?
I believe water temperature is important enough to be recorded
continuously.
Water conductivity can be recorded continuously and is an indi-
cation of the variations in dissolved salts.
Chlorine demand or oxidation—reduction potential can be recorded
continuously and relates to organic matter present.
In certain basins pH or hydrogen-ion concentration may be im-
portant.
Dissolved oxygen can be recorded, so can turbidity.
Soon we will have oxygen demand recorders which will accurately
define the organic changes.
It would seem that OKSANCO is proving, through its robot moni-
tor, that we could instrument a monitoring station to give us a con-
tinuous record of quality and quantity. Such a complete station
could transmit information to any central location. Such a station
might also cost many thousands of dollars to build and much more to
operate. Considering what we spend on the conduct of sporadic
streams investigations, the cost of such a station would not be con-
sidered prohibitive.
I do not believe that we must start with such a sophisticated pro-
gram. The most important phase, initially, is the education of
water users to responsible action. No amount of instrumentation
can replace a conscientious effort on the part of each water user to be
responsible for communicating.
190
-------
As a starter I would suggest:
1. Form a water-user organization in each watershed of more
than two users.
2. Designate one water user as the intelligence collecting and
communicacing agent.
3. Establish the operating procedures, data required and fre-
quency of observation.
4. Commence operations and adjust procedures as found
necessary to accomplish the aims.
The proposal then is to expand our water intelligence programs on
all fronts, Federal, interstate, State and especially on the local water-
shed level. The water user must be taught the importance of communi-
cating. His intelligence must be received by someone who can act.
The ordinary citizen in a boat or on the beach is a water user too.
His support of surveillance programs is needed. In essence: I believe
that we cannot afford to wait for someone else to tell us what our
waters contain. We, the water users, must know and must com-
municate this knowledge—this water quality intelligence.
Dr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Powers, I like the point you made, and
which I certainly think deserves requoting here. Industries are
water users in other ways than waste disposal, and they have a stake
no less than the rest of the public in the cleanliness, or the quality, of
water, and that there is a balance to be achieved even among industries
in the use of a stream. Industries have a large stake, as Mr. Powers
noted so effectively, in water quality intelligence; and so do we all.
DISCUSSION
MORRISON B. CUNNINGHAM
Superintendent and Engineer, City Water Department,
Oklahoma City, Okla.
I like the definition given by Mr. Powers for the meaning of the
term water quality intelligence: "it means knowing our waters."
And I agree that we can know them "only through organized, system-
atic data gathering." But I like best of all his statement which
contains specific suggestions as to what we must do to "know our
waters" and I want to quote this sentence from his statement:
To conform with this mandate of knowing our waters, it is necessary to expand
an existing river and sewer surveillance program; train people to recognize
pollution by taste, by sight, and by odor; and to conduct daily sampling of the
rivers above our plant and below it.
191
-------
In making that statement, Mr. Powers refers to a plant in an
industry he so ably represents. But in the broad purposes of these
deliberations there are principles deducible from his remarks which
are of general and vital application.
He speaks of "river and sewer surveillance" programs. For what
purpose? Obviously the purpose, among others, is to determine the
conditions affecting river flow; changes of conditions affecting runoff
in the watershed drained by the river; conditions affecting or contrib-
uting to the contamination of the water.
Mr. Powers states that his plant analyzes samples taken from the
river daily, both above and below the plant. Why below it? Obvi-
ously there is need to make sure that water returned to the river
after use by his plant has acceptable quality tor reuse.
Thus the statement used by Mr. Powers encompasses a vast field
of subject matter relating to quality of water: condition of existing
water, its degree of utility, the prospects of future contamination of
supply, the prospects of continuing purity, or utility of supply,
coordination of effort, and finally a complete recognition of the
principle that the right to use water confers no right to contaminate
it, or to pollute it.
Mentally, substitute for this industrial plant all our cities and
their growing populations of individuals and industries; the constantly
expanding needs to provide for disposal of increased concentrations
of waste; the continuous flow of discoveries for new uses of water in
vast quantities—and it seems to me that the approach made on the
basis described by Mr. Powers is one of the best possible arguments
supporting Public Law 660 passed by the 84th Congress.
No law is self-executing. It must be administered by somebody.
The Public Health Service has accepted the challenge, and the Surgeon
General is ready with his public health personnel to preserve and
protect the water we have, working in close cooperation with industry,
state and local government forces.
Outside of rationing or some other arbitrary limitations of use,
preservation and protection mean the maintenance of water in safe
and usable condition as long as it remains water, and thus multiply
the number of times it can be reused.
In my opinion, every phase of the work on pollution control implies
water quality intelligence. Making investigations on river basins to
obtain data on sources of pollution is of extreme importance. The
Arkansas-Red River Basins investigation is an example. One ol the
principal sources of pollution is the high chloride content of the water.
The investigation of these streams requires highly scientific skill to
approach a solution to this manifold problem, to determine the source
of the pollution, both natural and man made. The survey is making
very good progress. Pollution points are being located, and it appears
192
-------
that a good portion of the natural pollution can be minimized, and the
man-made pollution, such as the brine, can be greatly reduced by
disposal wells. There is a good prospect that effective pollution
control, will improve the quality of the water to the extent that it
can be used for municipal supplies.
Field investigations and the gathering of such data are excellent
examples of the meaning of water quality intelligence discussed by
Mr. Powers.
The time has come when we must take a more complete look upon
water in all its phases of quality, from water supply to sewage. Usable
water is our natural resource, and it must be conserved for use. The
right to use water does not give us the right to destroy its reuse.
Another phase of the work being done is the conduct of effective
public hearings, especially in the areas where the pollution originates.
A good example is the public hearing on oil field pollution in Louisiana.
Before the public hearing, the waters of the stream had been ruined by
the introduction of salt water. Shortly after the hearing, the pollution
was minimized to the extent that the waters of the stream have now
returned to near normal conditions—fish and wildlife are beginning to
return—and the water made usable. Another example of water
quality intelligence being practiced, of course, is illustrated by Mr.
Powers' account of his meeting with the fishermen in Saginaw Bay.
We commend the Water Pollution Control Advisory Board for the
hearings they have conducted in several cities in the United States.
When they held one of their meetings in Oklahoma City, they were
greeted by industry who was proud to show the progress which had
been made in eliminating most of the brine previously introduced into
the streams. The salt water is now being introduced into disposal
wells. This illustrates the willingness of industry to cooperate,
especially when they see that a uniform policy is being followed.
The elimination of the pollution going into the streams in the
Oklahoma City area had been a problem for 20 years or more, and was
solved in less than a year's time. This was done by the wholehearted
support of industry, and Federal, State, and city governments working
together. This cooperation is becoming more and more evident in
today's conservation of water resources, and related environmental
health problems.
Time does not permit me to go into detailed discussion, but I should
like to mention a few additional phases of what we could call water
quality intelligence—for example, wet and dry cycles occur. There is
every reason to predict that a dry cycle, such as we had in the 1950's,
will recur in Southwestern United States in 1970. Past experience
shows we can expect a year or so of drought during wet cycles. When
the next drought comes, it will be those areas that were wise enough to
insure enough available usable water that will continue to prosper.
193
-------
Numerous reservoirs are being constructed in Oklahoma to assure
adequate water supply. Weather modification to increase precipita-
tion, saline water conversion, and evaporation control are other meas-
ures being taken. Continued research of this kind is of great impor-
tance. In some areas water for dilution should be included as con-
servation in reservoir storage.
The American Water Works Association is very much interested in
all phases of water pollution control, especially research to improve
water quality.
Municipal, industrial, agricultural, and recreational users of water
must continue working together and take every possible action to make
certain that our own houses are in order with reference to the problem
of control, and prevent pollution. Senator Kerr, in his book Land,
Wood and Water, says "we must protect and improve what water we
have, and we must find more water. That is the price of survival."
The American Water Works Association members serve 125 million
people through 20,000 water systems. We join with you in the belief
that we must continue and accelerate the practice of water quality con-
trol. We are heartily in favor of continued research to keep abreast
of our complex problems.
During the drought, Horace Thompson, a newspaper reporter
friend of mine, frequently used the expression which I think is appro-
priate when we talk about water—for we know that "Water Is Cheap,
When Plentiful—Priceless When Scarce."
Dr. ACKERMAN. We return to a subject that we started on this
morning, that is, comprehensive development of watershed or river
basins. One of the things that has come out in this session, at least
to me, is a new note in comprehensive development, namely, important
State voices speaking up for it in no uncertain terms.
Dr. WOODRUFF. Before I proceed with my paper, I would like
it to be noted on the record that we have present with us from our
study commission five of the members, in addition to myself: Ealph
Hammond, from Alabama, John Short, from the Department of Agri-
culture, Howard Chapman, from the Public Health Service, Walter
Gresh, from Interior, and William Hiatt, from Commerce. Others
would have been present but for unavoidable conflict.
Let me mention also that we do have on this staff which Dr. Acker-
man referred to, Mr. George Tomlinson, Executive Director, who is
present, and Mr. Eichard Poston, of the Public Health Service,
Planning Engineer.
So we are vitally interested in this entire subject for which the
President directed that this Conference be held.
194
-------
River Basin and Multipurpose Planning
JAMES W. WOODRUFF, Jr.
Chairman, U.S. Study Commission
Southeast River Basins, Atlanta, Ga.
River basin and multipurpose planning is one of the activities that
can help meet the growing competition for water. The United States
Study Commission—Southeast River Basins is a new approach to
river basin planning. In the comments that follow, I would like to
answer the questions of what the Study Commission is; how the
Southeast Commission differs from other planning organizations and
how the planning job is being accomplished in the Southeast. Finally
I would like to commend the Study Commission approach to you who
are interested in water resources, especially water pollution aspects.
The United States Study Commission for the Southeast River
Basins was authorized by the Congress in late 1958 under Public Law
85-850, which specifies how the Commission is to be organized, what
its purposes are, and how it is to function. The Commission has 11
members and is made up of a Chairman, and a member from and
selected by each of the States of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South
Carolina and a member from each of the principal land and water
Federal agencies: Army, Commerce, Health, Education, and Wel-
fare, Agriculture, Interior, and the Federal Power Commission. All
of the Commissioners are appointed by the President of the United
States. In order to serve as chairman it is necessary, according to
the act, that I be a resident of the area.
The area to be studied covers about 88,000 square miles in the
States of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Calolina (plus a small
area of about 200 square miles in North Carolina).
The act requires the Commission to prepare a comprehensive and
coordinated plan specifically including eleven functions which are
listed as:
1. Flood control and prevention;
2. Domestic and municipal water supplies;
195
-------
3. The improvement and safeguarding of navigation;
4. The reclamation and irrigation of land, including drainage;
5. Possibilities of hydroelectric power and industrial develop-
ment and utilization;
6. Soil conservation and utilization;
7. Forest conservation and utilization;
8. Preservation, protection, and enhancement of fish and wild-
life resources;
9. The development of recreation;
10. Salinity and sediment control;
11. Pollution abatement and the protection of public health.
There is also a twelfth item which reads:
And such other beneficial and useful purposes not herein enumerated.
Thus, the charter is very broad.
The Commission is directly responsible for all policy aspects, and
the chairman of the Commission is charged with the administrative
job of getting the work done. The authorizing Act details the re-
sponsibility to the chairman for: the appointment and supervision of
personnel; the distribution of business among such personnel; and
the use and expenditure of funds; all, of course within the general
policies established by the Commission.
It is stated in the Act that it shall be the policy of the Congress to
recognize the primary responsibilities of the States and local interests
in developing water supplies for domestic, municipal, industrial, and
other purposes and that the Federal Government should participate
and cooperate with the States and local interests in developing such
water supplies.
Throughout the Act, there is the reference to both land and water
resources. There have been many authorizations to study specific
water resources of an area and a number of them to study water and
related land resources; but in our studies we are placing equal em-
phasis on the land and water functions. Also, we have considered
each of the enumerated functions coequal. None of the purposes
listed in the act is considered supplemental or subordinate to the
others.
The Act gives certain guidelines to be followed in the formulation of
the comprehensive and coordinated plan or plans. They require us to
make use of available data from existing Government agencies; to
encourage and, in fact, to stimulate an accelerated program of such
agencies; to take into consideration existing projects; to provide
certain economic evaluations and cost analyses and, quoting directly
from the act:
196
-------
The Commission shall seek to secure maximum public benefits for the region
and the Nation * * *
I gather that the intent of Congress in authorizing this study was for
the Commission to take both a regional and national viewpoint in
making the studies.
The United States Study Commission has some characteristics
built into it by the authorizing legislation that make it unique and
different from other planning groups. I mentioned earlier that both
land and water resources are included, and all functions have a coequal
status.
The U.S. Study Commission is clearly established in the law as a
planning group with no future responsibilities for construction or
operation. I believe this was deliberate and is one of the aspects
that makes the Study Commission organization unique for planning
resources development. The Commission and the staff are auto-
matically dissolved three months after the report is submitted to
the President.
Every effort will be made to have as much as possible of the actual
work of the Commission done under cooperative agreements with
Federal agencies, State organizations, and private entities. The Act
authorizes us to work on this basis, and we are using, as much as
possible, existing know-how from these sources.
To get the job done, the U.S. Study Commission staff contemplates
four over-all steps. The first is that of taking basic inventory of the
resources; second, analyzing and projecting the future economy of the
area as a basis for establishing needs, as of certain future dates;
third, preparation of single-purpose alternatives from each functional
viewpoint; and fourth, formulating a single comprehensive plan.
Although I enumerated these four as steps, I hasten to make clear
that they are not distinct steps in the sense that we can say on a given
day that we have completed step No. 2 and then start step No. 3.
Actually, the steps will be proceeding concurrently.
As a part of the basic studies, we are making projections of major
segments of the economy of our area for the year 1975 and the year
2000. These two years have been selected as the bench mark dates
for the Southeastern Study.
Using projections of the basic economy, such as population, income
and employment at those time levels and using several assumptions
as to rates of development, we will estimate the various needs and
requirements for resource development as related to the 11 or 12
functions specified earlier. Many of our needs will be shown by
curves which may cover considerably more years than just those
two bench mark dates. In each case, determining requirements are
197
-------
going to take a great amount of joint study to be sure that our assump-
tions and criteria are sound.
After we estimate the requirements, we will develop single-purpose
solutions for meeting the requirements in each of the 11 or 12 enu-
merated functions. In many cases, the computed needs or require-
ments will not be determined by considering only the Southeast
basins area. We have set up this intermediate step of seeking solu-
tions for each of the several functions even though they may serve
only as temporary answers which will fade out of the picture in terms
of the final report, other than as passing references as to what we
would like to have done had we not had to make adjustments in
developing the best over-all plan to serve all purposes.
When we do get to the point of developing an optimum overall
plan and coordinating some of these competitive single-purpose solu-
tions which may be mutually contradictory, we may have some real
problems. The merging of the individual plans will take careful
treatment. As we finally develop the best plan, we will have to apply
the acid test of analyzing each separable segment: first, to see whether
it is justified; and second, whether there is any more economical way
of providing a satisfactory solution.
After we work out an ultimate plan, we will program it by item.
It may be that some of the items will be included in the ultimate
plan even if they are found to be not economical and justified until
industrial and other development reaches a certain point. Thus,
we may have to keep in mind that any conclusion as to whether
something is or is not economically justified has a relationship to the
time at which it is to be developed.
In addition to the so-called functional approach, we are concur-
rently establishing an economic framework for use in planning. The
more or less conventional methods of economic analysis and projec-
tion are being used. Also, we are checking portions of this economic
framework by the use of econometric relations. This economic frame-
work will provide the over-all target at which the functional studies
are being aimed. We believe that this will result in a reasonable,
comprehensive, multipurpose plan for our area.
The Commission coordinates its studies at the local level with all
interested agencies engaged in land and water development work.
This is done by means of public hearings, advisory groups, and
committees.
The authorizing Act makes provision for a formal review of the
finished report by the Governors of the concerned States and by Fed-
eral agencies at departmental level. Their formal review comments
will be considered by the Commission and will accompany the final
report of the Commission when it is transmitted to the President and
to the Congress.
198
-------
Throughout our study to date we have been diligent in carrying
out that portion of the Act which charges the Commission to recognize
the primary responsibility of States and local interests. We have
interpreted this to mean that various subdivisions of government, as
well as private enterprise and individual local groups, not only must
be sought out for cooperation and, in fact, assured of our cooperation,
but they also must be alerted to and reminded of their responsibilities
to study, prepare and implement this or other well-conceived plans
which will lead to maximum development of those vital resources
for the general welfare of the people and the inevitable growth this
Nation is destined tp achieve.
I think it is rather apparent in the planning field that local interest
groups are usually the motivating force. They may be interested
in irrigation or navigation or hydroelectric power or recreation or in
any one of the several special fields in which they are concerned.
Special interests are not particularly interested in or concerned with
what the other fellow wants or needs. In this competition for avail-
able funds, direct conflicts develop. Ideally, the objectives of plan-
ning should be to develop the maximum net public benefits. In the
case of Federal programs this means developing maximum net benefits
from a national viewpoint. However, since our comprehensive plan
will undoubtedly include many non-Federal programs and projects,
those projects to be attractive to their developers must be designed
to create maximum net benefits from local or regional points of view.
To carry out the intent of the Study Commission act, it was neces-
sary to establish certain policy and guidelines which are briefed as
follows:
1. A comprehensive and coordinated plan for the development of
land and water resources will be based on requirements of the economy
projected for the year A.D. 2000. This plan will establish an initial
action phase to include programs and projects which are found to be
needed, feasible and desirable for accomplishment by the year 1975.
2. The final plan, including the initial action phase for 1975 and the
long-range development phase for the year 2000, will be recommended
for approval by the President and the Congress. Specifically, the
initial action phase of the comprehensive plan will be recommended
for such additional studies as required to support the request for
needed authorization and appropriations by respective Federal, State,
local government, or private interests.
3. Each of the functions enumerated in the authorizing Act, such as
the previously mentioned pollution abatement and public health
aspects, will be treated as a primary function and will be integrated
into the final comprehensive plan. In the treatment of the function
on industrial development, we do not propose to designate a specific
583283—61 14 199
-------
type of industry at a specific location, but will present the inventory
of resources in the specific basin and sub-basin areas. Public health
studies will be oriented toward determining the effect upon public
health associated with the development of land and water resources.
Because of the limited areas involving salinity, our studies for this
function will be limited to an evaluation of the salinity problem.
4. The final or recommended plan with the initial action phase for
the year 1975 will include estimated costs and benefits, cost sharing
and reimbursement formulas where appropriate, and net public
benefits. (I should like to point out here that we are not talking in
terms of benefit-cost ratios. Where possible, we* intend to list mone-
tary benefits and costs to the fullest extent possible. Where intangible
or institutional factors play a major part in the consideration of an
element of the over-all final plan, we will cite benefits and costs in
narrative form as a stimulus to local interests—an ingredient which
all future planning must have if it is to be acted upon and not placed
on a shelf merely as a dust-catcher.)
5. The final plan will both recognize and protect the rights and
interests of the States in determining the development of land and
water resources and the preservation and protection of existing,
authorized and formally proposed works and programs of either
Federal or non-Federal authorizations. (We have found from those
within our area of study who are most concerned that the Commission
will not affect projects or programs either underway or scheduled for
a beginning before the final report of the Commission is published.
However, we may well suggest proposed modifications for existing,
authorized, and formally proposed projects and programs. But, such
modifications would be limited to those found desirable, feasible, and
consistent with the study objectives.)
6. Kecommendations, in accordance with the Act, will be made
specifying the manner by which a continuing or periodic review of
the final comprehensive plan may be made to keep it not only current,
but to prepare a basis for subsequent action phases. (Actions in the
way of implementation certainly will speak louder than the words
contained in the final plan.)
Practically every successful water or land use project, single or
multipurpose, has considered water quality, to some extent, in the
planning stage. This is so because of the effect of pollution on water
quality. I speak of water pollution in its broadest sense—the intro-
duction of deleterious substances resulting from man's activity into
surface and ground waters. These substances come from our homes,
farms, factories, mines, and industries. The true significance of these
deleterious substances cannot be ascertained until their concentration
200
-------
and water uses are known. Pollution control is not an end unto itself
but is a service-type activity brought into being by the needs of users
for water of a specified quality. Because of the complex nature and
the broad implications of pollution control, water quality should be
considered throughout project formulation.
There are two fundamentals to be kept in mind in applying pollution
control to resource planning: (1) both surface and underground waters
ultimately receive and carry away our liquid wastes, and (2) all
receiving waters have some ability to assimilate wastes. These funda-
mentals provide a rational approach to pollution control and will
minimize costs of abatement.
How great a factor of safety should be allowed in using the streams'
assimilative capacity? I do not have the temerity to give a finite
answer, but I suggest that it only be used to a point where, if the
pollution load is increased, additional pollution abatement measures
could be operative before damages to existing water use would occur.
What I have been saying in essence is that pollution control should
be planned and operated to meet all practical water quality needs.
Many think that is what we have been doing for the past 50 years.
They are partly correct, but note I said all water needs. I think you
will find a great many instances where certain water needs have been
ignored. If you will include, as I do, esthetic enjoyment as a need,
you will not have to go very far to see an example of esthetic violation
of one of the nation's most beautiful streams. The needs for esthetic
satisfaction from our surface waters suggest that we need a minimum
floor under our pollution control efforts. As a minimum, no waste
should be allowed to make a surface water unsightly, malodorous or
unhealthy, unless in the planning process economic and reasoned
judgment based on a knowledge of all pertinent facts dictates to the
contrary. In passing, some of the other contributions to multi-
purpose planning by the pollution control technologists are the
recovery of valuable by-products from liquid wastes, the relative
location of water diversions to waste discharges, the recycling and
reuse of waste waters, and the establishment of needs for dilution
water.
Recognizing that planning is an essential element, I submit that
river basin and multi-purpose planning should include the following
criteria:
1. A master plan for the conservation, utilization, and development
of land and water resources to be cooperatively developed by private,
State, interstate, and Federal groups.
2. The master plan should be up-dated periodically or kept current
on a continuing basis.
3. The governing bodies of all political subdivisions should recognize
their interest and responsibility for planning.
201
-------
4. Legislative bodies must establish necessary legal authority for
cooperative resource planning work.
5. Details of planning for resource development should be done by
the lowest practical political subdivision.
6. Costs of resource development should be equitably shared by
the beneficiaries.
I have outlined the criteria that I believe are essential to compre-
hensive river basin and multi-purpose planning. These criteria take
cognizance of the growing competition for water and if properly
applied bring the pollution control problem into focus. I commend
the Study Commission approach and organization to all of you who
are interested both in comprehensive development and also in the
often-neglected water pollution aspects.
In the Southeastern area, generally and taken as a whole, we have
been blessed by a plentiful supply of water. Concentrations of urban
population, however, already are forewarning us that the talents of
man must be directed towards the proper planning and protection of
this natural resource for the future.
Without such planning and timely implementation, today's com-
placency will become a stampede of hasty action. The result inev-
itably will be costly, far more so than the investment today, in an
energetic, diligent, and thorough creation of a comprehensive plan
based on the preservation and most efficient use of that which the
Almighty has provided.
Dr. ACKERMAN. I would just like to note in connection with Mr.
Woodruff's fine paper that we are slowly moving ahead in this country
on this matter of comprehensive development and comprehensive
planning. We have moved fairly far on the Columbia, the Central
Valley, and now, of course, the large California State Water Plan.
We have plans on the Missouri which are being implemented. We
have plans on the Colorado River Basin which are being implemented.
Studies, such as the one Mr. Woodruff has been describing as now in
process in the Southeast, have been undertaken in the New England-
New York area and completed, and also in the Arkansas area. A
similar study is in progress in Texas, and I think a study somewhat
farther along is going on in the Delaware Basin.
Now, this is a substantial part of our country, represented by the
several basins, several of which are quite large.
This, I think, has some meaning, in fact, a good deal of meaning,
as Mr. Woodruff suggested, in the matter of control, because it means
that we are getting now for the first time for these basins some clear
idea of what total needs of these basins will be in the future as we can
foresee them at this time. And, more than that, we are setting up
something of a structure by which we can continue to adjust and
revise our impressions of those needs. And, further, we are getting
202
-------
an idea as to the alternative sources of water which exist in those
basins to meet the needs, and therefore a framework on which we will
judge the question before this panel, that is, the central question.
DISCUSSION
EUGENE W. WEBER
Special Assistant to the Director of Civil Works
Office of the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army,
Washington, D.C.
Mr. Woodruff has presented an excellent summary of the approach
to river basin planning being used by the U.S. Study Commission—
Southeast River Basins and has indicated the inter-relation of pollution
control and planning to meet all water needs. His presentation is
most useful and timely. It highlights the need for coordinated, com-
prehensive planning for optimum conservation, development and use
of our resources especially now that we are passing from an era of
generous supply of water and other resources in relation to needs, and
are entering a phase where the demands are such as to require the
utmost in efficiency and ingenuity to insure that there will be enough
usable water to go around.
Mr. Woodruff points out that in accordance with the intent of the
authorizing legislation, the Southeast River Basin studies will include
consideration of both land and water resources, with equal emphasis
on the land and water functions, and with all functions having a
co-equal status. This presents a real challenge. To consider the
needs for all uses of land and water resources and plan for optimum
solutions in meeting those needs requires consistency in the procedures
used for analyzing each land and water function. We have made
progress in achieving such consistency among some of the land and
water functions but we desperately need improved analytical and
evaluation methods for all land and water uses to realize the goals
in coordinated land and water planning.
Giving equal consideration to all land and water functions in formu-
lating plans also involves equal obligations for those functions. This
approach is not a one-way street. For example, when we consider
using reservoir storage space for flood control purposes, we must
consider the relative value of that space for other possible needs, such
as water supply. This in turn requires evaluation of functions on a
comparable basis and consideration of available alternative solutions.
Another "obligation" that stems from co-equal status is that of
sharing the responsibility for planning and financing various functions
203
-------
by the Federal, State, and local governmental and private interests
involved. The responsibility of each of these groups is different for
the various functions under consideration. It is not essential that
there be equal responsibility for all functions but the sharing of effort
and cost should be consistent with the interest and responsibility.
Unfortunately our laws and customs do not define these responsibilities
completely or consistently. We need such definition for properly
coordinated river basin planning and for effective implementation of
those plans.
The combination of regional and national viewpoints in the South-
east Kiver Basin planning program also presents a challenge. Ideally,
we should produce plans under which net benefits would be maximized
from a national viewpoint. However, this would require adjustments
between regions and communities that would involve considerations
difficult to reflect in the formulation and evaluation of alternative
plans. As a practical matter, therefore, regional and local viewpoints
must be taken into account. Perhaps this can be done with the least
compromise of the ideal by favoring those developments which have
outstanding advantages from regional and local standpoints and, at
the same time, have little or no disadvantage from the national
viewpoint.
This same point has significance with respect to the flexibility we
try to build into our plans. Long-range river basin plans involve so
many projects and so many functions that they tend to present flexi-
bility to the point of aimlessness. Here, again, the ideal solution,
nationwide, would be to undertake the most efficient projects first in
order to maximize net benefits in use of resources. However, this
would probably not result in consistent or equitable development of
resources to meet needs from a regional or local viewpoint. Again
from a practical standpoint, plans can take these regional or local
considerations into account by providing for early scheduling of de-
velopment in each region of those projects that are most desirable and
most efficient from the regional or local point of view and which, at the
same time, involve little or no conflict with alternatives in other areas.
By means of these practical considerations we can provide our long-
range plans with a hard core of priority developments and reduce the
number of alternative plans for later development to a workable range
which still has flexibility but which is not purposeless.
Comprehensive river basin planning such as that now under way in
the Southeast River Basins brings out clearly the increasing inter-
dependence of the various purposes of land and water resource de-
velopment. For example, the demand for recreational use of water
bodies is related to population growth and economic conditions which,
in a given situation, might depend largely on availability of water for
industrial purposes. The feasibility of both the recreational and water
204
-------
supply uses in turn is affected by the quality and condition of the water
and may be heavily dependent on the status of pollution control in
the area.
The growing importance of pollution control in relation to the
problem of meeting both existing and future demands for water is
illustrated clearly in several of the reports recently prepared for the
Senate's Select Committee on National Water Resources. Two points
f are particularly significant: First, even with very complete treatment
of wastes at the source, which must certainly remain a prime objective,
in fact, our first line of defense, the prospective load on our streams will
' seriously impair our ability to provide enough water of suitable quality
for many purposes; second, there does not appear to be, at this time,
any practical way to avoid using many of our streams for waste
residuals after treatment.
These prospects highlight the need for coordinated planning of
pollution abatement and the conservation and use of water for the
many purposes for which it is needed. Sufficient dilution water to
keep streams usable for various purposes is now a definite requirement.
In the past, storage regulation to improve low water flows has been
recognized as a desirable supplementary pollution abatement measure
in a few instances where practicability of direct waste treatment has
been limited by technological, economic, or other considerations.
In the future, a combination of direct treatment and low flow regula-
tion may prove to be the optimum solution in an increasing number of
situations.
This has several significant implications in future river basin
planning. In the broadest sense, it means that we must seek a proper
balance in all, rather than some, of the inter-related aspects of our
plans for use of land and water resources. Maximizing net benefits
from the standpoint of one or only a few of the prospective uses for
these resources will not be sufficient. A high degree of utilization of
certain lands or of available stream flow for specific purposes which
may appear to be highly justified can lead to adverse effects on uses
of resourses for other purposes. The optimum solution requires maxi-
mizing net benefits across the board rather than on a spot basis.
Comprehensive river basin planning such as that under way in the
Southeast Basins affords an opportunity to approach the problem in
this broadest sense but there are many difficulties to be overcome.
One of the greatest needs is for classification of streams or establish-
ment of water quality objectives, preferably in conjunction with
zoning or regulation of land use, all designed to provide for the most
effective use of land and water resources to meet anticipated needs.
Also, we must find ways to evaluate alternative and competing uses
of resourses on a comparable basis. If low flow regulation is to be
taken into account adequately in planning for a properly balanced use
205
-------
of resources, not only are evaluation procedures necessary but Federal
legislative and administrative policies must be established and the
role of non-Federal interests defined.
We hope that real progress can be made on these problems in coming
months in order that river basin planning and pollution abatement
measures can contribute in the best possible way towards meeting
needs for water of suitable quality in sufficient amounts at the right
time and place. The valuable information recently assembled for
the Senate's Select Committee on National Water Resourses and the
enlightenment resulting from such deliberations as this National Con-
ference on Water Pollution should be utilized by all concerned to that
end.
Dr. ACKERMAN. We have, unfortunately, our first casualty to the
weather. Senator Glair Bngle was to have been the second discussant
of Mr. Woodruff's paper. I regret personally his absence a good deal,
because Senator Engle has been very much interested, I think almost
from the beginning of his career, in water development, and has been
an able spokesman for causes of conservation, and particularly for
Western water development.
However, we do have an able substitute in Mr. Philip Dickinson, who
is technical assistant to Senator Engle. Mr. Dickinson is a rather
rare individual, in that he is both a professional engineer and a pro-
fessional journalist, and he has practiced both professions. So he
really has been a bona fide journalist and a bona fide engineer, having
served in the Bureau of Reclamation and abroad.
Mr. Dickinson will present Senator Engle's comments.
Mr. DICKINSON. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen: I wish to
express Senator Engle's regret that he didn't make it back here from
California due to difficulty in getting a plane last night. He may get
here tonight, but that will be too late.
I want to emphasize that although Dr. Ackerman has introduced
me as a water resource engineer, which I am, nevertheless I am speak-
ing today for Senator Engle.
DISCUSSION
HON. CLAIR ENGLE
United States Senator
I want to compliment Mr. Woodruff on his clear exposition of how
the growing competition for water is being anticipated in the Southeast
River Basins by careful multipurpose planning. And I want to
206
-------
endorse his basic conclusion that planning is cheap—in fact, profit-
able—when we consider the costly investments that are required for
the conservation and devlopment of our water resources.
The thing I wish to emphasize here is the prime importance today
of the river basin approach. Multipurpose planning by itself is not
enough. The 11 functions listed by Mr. Woodruff in the Southeast
Commission's study all require consideration; but I submit that they
must be considered collectively in relation to over-all conditions of
water supply, water requirements and the impact of project develop-
ment in every part of the river basin, including the main stream and
all its tributaries. In other words, functional coordination must be
accompanied by geographical coordination.
The reason for this is quite simple: water runs downhill. Rivers
follow geographic boundaries rather than political boundaries. They
flow unimpeded across State or provincial lines. For that reason
water resource development is properly planned along natural river
basin lines rather than along man-made political lines. The geo-
graphic river basin, including every tributary from the mountains to
the sea, is the proper unit for planning water resource development.
Of course this approach does not end with planning. It is followed
naturally, I think, by an orderly long-range schedule of project
construction and, in turn, by fully integrated operation of all projects
within a major river basin in order to achieve maximum multi-purpose
benefits at minimum cost.
In this connection it should be observed that the monetary benefit-
cost ratio of individual projects may not always be the best test of
feasibility. For one thing, as Mr. Woodruff has pointed out, intangi-
ble factors such as social stimulus and esthetic enjoyment merit
evaluation. For another, certain small units that cannot stand by
themselves, often can be well justified as parts of a basin-wide whole.
This is a principle that has been successfully established in the Central
Valley Project in California.
Parenthetically, I would like to observe that, although I greatly
admire the operation of the Tennessee Valley Authority, the inde-
pendent basin authority is not the only organizational concept by
which basin-wide planning and development can be managed. Inter-
state compacts constitute one device of merit. The basin commission
system of Federal, State, and local coordination described by Mr.
Woodruff is another.
Finally, I suggest that the function of water pollution control in
which the delegates to this Conference are particularly concerned, is
one that especially calls for consideration on a river basin basis.
The urgency of this approach was demonstrated during the last
Congress at the field hearings conducted by the Senate Select Com-
mittee on National Water Resources, of which I am a member. In
207
-------
all of the populous eastern States, witness after witness told about
local water supply difficulties and river problems created by the
increasing general use of rivers and their tributaries as municipal and
industrial sewers. Prominent examples of this situation are the
Connecticut Kiver, the Delaware, the Susquehanna, and the
Potomac—all flowing through or between several States. The water
pollution problem is basin-wide, not just State or local. Cleaning up
our rivers, from their source to the sea, will be one of the most
important resource jobs facing this Nation in the next decade.
208
-------
Effects of Land Use
and Treatment on Pollution
CARL B. BROWN
Watershed Program Specialist
Office of the Assistant Administrator for Watersheds
Soil Conservation Service, Department of Agriculture
It is a real privilege to have this opportunity to participate in the
National Conference on Water Pollution. The topic assigned to me
concerns the effects of land use and treatment, primarily for agricul-
tural purposes, on the pollution of our rivers and streams. Hoak (8)
has defined pollution as "the discharge of material that unreasonably
impairs the quality of water for maximum beneficial use in the over-all
public interest." Within this definition I shall try to cover briefly the
types of pollution that are caused by inorganic suspended and dis-
solved solids in our rivers and streams which result from improper land
use and treatment.
Silt pollution is the most common form of such pollution. We are
using silt here as a layman's term to mean the inorganic solids trans-
ported by a stream either in suspension in the current or moving along
the stream bed. Technically, of course, silt is composed of solid parti-
cles larger than clay and smaller than sand and gravel. Actually,
particles of this size do comprise most of the solids moving in those
streams where silt pollution is generally the most serious problem.
Our consideration will include the adverse effects of silt pollution,
the quantities and distribution of such pollution, and the extent to
which it results from improper land use and destructive agricultural or
other practices such as those common in urban construction. As a
part of this discussion we shall consider briefly pollution by dissolved
salts or salinity, a problem which, insofar as it relates to agriculture, is
largely confined at this time to streams in the Western States affected
by seepage and drainage from irrigated lands. Finally, we will discuss
209
-------
the control of silt pollution and salinity by soil conservation, forest
management, and watershed protection measures.
The Adverse Effects of SUt Pollution
Silt pollution is nearly always detrimental to the beneficial use of
water. Moreover, it often causes extremely critical problems where
the silt deposits as the velocity of streamflow is reduced. Silt pollution
causes seriously adverse effects on nine segments of our national
economy. These arc (1) public health, (2) public water supply, (3) fish
and wildlife and recreation, (4) valley agriculture, (5) drainage,
(6) irrigation, (7) flood control, (8) waterway commerce, and (9) hydro-
power production. Estimates made 35 years ago (1) showed an
average annual loss of some $175 million from silt pollution and
sedimentation. Considering the rapid expansion in all forms of water
use since that time the annual losses may now be as much as double
this figure.
The nature of these various damages has been fully documented.
(1, 2). Time available here will not allow even brief reference to most
of them. It is now widely recognized, however, that silt pollution is a
major deterrent to the most effective development of the water re-
sources of most drainage basins in the United States.
We living here in the Washington Metropolitan Area are acutely
aware of this. In a comprehensive study made for the Interstate
Commission on the Potomac River Basin in 1957, Wohnan, Geyer,
and Pyatt (14) flatly state:
For people living in the Washington Area, silt is the worst pollutant of the
Potomac River. Practically all of the silt brought down from the 12,000 square
mile drainage area settles in the tidal estuary of the Potomac River in Washington.
This silt blankets the bottom, smothering life and filling the basin at a rate which
should cause deep concern. * * * The silt problem is of such magnitude that
its solution should take precedence over all other pollution control activities in
Metropolitan Washington. If this problem is not solved; if the River is left to
fill with sediment, efforts to develop the recreational uses of the Potomac River
in Washington will be almost fruitless.
Of the many different aspects of silt pollution which might be
described, its effect on public water supply may be of greatest inter-
est to this group. In round figures some 2,000 billion gallons of
water are filtered annually in the United States to remove suspended
silt.
Some 20 years ago the Soil Conservation Service made a study (3)
of the effects of silt pollution on water filtration in 22 cities in the
Piedmont area of North Carolina. This study showed that the aver-
age cost of water treatment, including overhead and amortization of
plant and equipment, was $70 per million gallons, of which cost $27
was for treatment purposes and $5 for chemicals (mainly alum used
210
-------
to cause the finer silt particles to settle out). This study showed
that a 30-percent reduction in the silt load of streams in this region—
a very modest expectation from an adequate soil conservation pro-
gram—would result in an average immediate saving of $1.50 per
million gallons. Considering the future savings from smaller capital
outlay for new settling basins and plant equipment, reduced flushing
costs and other plant operations, the total savings eventually was
estimated to be $7 per million gallons. Increasing costs of water
treatment since 1940 have probably at least doubled these values.
Over and above this treatment cost is the damage from silting to
the Nation's water-supply reservoirs. About 25 percent of our popu-
lation now depends on surface water storage in more than 3,000
major reservoirs. We estimate that the siltation of these reservoirs
resulting mainly from soil erosion on watershed lands is destroying
enough storage capacity every year to meet the water-supply needs
of a city of a quarter million people.
Quantity and Regional Distribution of Silt Pollution
Sedimentation surveys have been made of more than 700 storage
reservoirs and farm ponds (Iff) and sediment load measurement sta-
tions have been maintained on about 1,200 streams in the United
States (6). Although much of the voluminous data is unpublished, a
few rough approximations can be made from it.
The Mississippi River, which drains about half of continental
United States, carries an estimated average annual silt load of 500
million tons into the Gulf of Mexico (9). All of the rest of the rivers of
the United States combined carry about an equal amount (7). The
estimated one billion tons of annual silt load entering the oceans
every year, if compacted to a weight of 100 pounds per cubic foot,
are enough to cover the 69 square mile District of Columbia more
than 10 feet deep in mud every year.
Silt entering the oceans is not, however, a measure of the silt pollu-
tion problem. Rather it is the silt carried in the water flowing down
our streams that must be considered in the use of the streamflow.
It is estimated, in fact, that only about one ton in four of the silt
produced by erosion on our watersheds ever reaches the ocean. The
other three tons are deposited in our storage reservoirs, on our fertile
flood plains, and in our harbors and estuaries. Millions of tons of it
have to be filtered from our domestic and industrial water supplies
every year.
The silt load carried by rivers varies widely from stream to stream
and from region to region.
Two types of regional differences are significant. One is the average
silt concentration in the flow, usually expressed in parts per million.
211
-------
The other is the total silt load of the streams which can be compared
regionally in tons transported annually per square mile of drainage
area. The former is a more appropriate index in considering the
cost of filtration, while the latter is of more significance in evaluating
reservoir or harbor silting.
Maximum daily concentrations of more than 130,000 p.p.m. have
been recorded on the Colorado River at Grand Canyon, more than
210,000 p.p.m. on the Rio Grande, and more than 270,000 p.p.m. on •
small streams in Iowa. However, most of the large streams of the
country seldom have concentrations exceeding 10,000 to 30,000 p.p.m.
and most streams east of the Mississippi never approach these values.
But the silt load of Southwest streams as a whole measured in tons
per square mile per year falls far below that of many other major
regions, simply because this generally arid area produces so much
less water yield per square mile.
Geiger (4) has shown that on the basis of average annual silt load
in tons per square mile, the highest producing areas of the Nation are
the South Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Streams, the short tributaries of
the Mississippi below the Ohio, the lowest Missouri tributaries below
Sioux City, and the Mississippi River tributaries below St. Paul.
Values for smaller streams in these areas range from 260 to 9,000,
with an occasional maximum up to 30,000 and averages from 3,000
to 5,500 T/sq. mi./yr. Areas of medium sediment production include
the Ohio Basin, the eastern Great Plains, and the California drainage
basins, with averages of 1,000 to 2,200 T/sq. m./yr. The lower
producing areas are the North Atlantic, Great Lakes, High Plains,
Rocky Mountains, and Pacific Northwest drainage basins, with
averages of 165 to 1,000 T/sq. mi./yr.
Sources of Silt Pollution
The sources of silt pollution are of considerable consequence in
considering the feasibility of its abatement. The principal sources
fall into seven groups, namely, (1) sheet erosion from the land surface,
(2) gully erosion, (3) stream channel erosion, (4) mass movements,
(5) flood erosion, (6) construction erosion, and (7) mining and in-
dustrial wastes. This classification makes no distinction between
normal geological erosion and man-induced erosion. Sheet erosion
and gullying have always occurred on sparsely vegetated land in arid
or semi-arid regions and along meandering stream channels, even in
humid regions. The concept of "accelerated" erosion, however,
implies a man-induced change resulting primarily from depletion of
the vegetative cover and use of the land for cultivation or other
purposes that leaves it periodically or continuously exposed to erosion
from water runoff.
212
-------
Glymph (5) has summarized the results of studies of silt sources on
113 watersheds ranging in size from 23 acres to 437 square miles in
15 States from New York to California. He shows that sheet erosion
accounts for 90 percent or more of the silt production in half of these
watersheds and 50 percent or more in 79 percent of the watersheds.
Sheet erosion generally produces a major part of the silt load of
our rivers over broad areas that are used mainly for agriculture and
have more than 20 inches of precipitation. In most forest and range
country and areas of less than 20 inches of precipitation, on the other
hand, gullying and stream channel erosion generally furnish the
greater part of the total silt load. In small watersheds, of course,
any of the seven principal classes of erosion may be the predominant
cause of silt pollution.
A vast amount of research on erosion rates by the Department of
Agriculture over the past 25 years has enabled the development of
comparative scales of the relative amount of sheet erosion under
different agricultural use and treatment of land. These data show
that the clearing of forests and continuous use of land for row crops
increase erosion from 100- to 10,000-fold. Plowing up grassland for
continuous row crop cultivation increases erosion 20- to 100-fold.
Although agricultural use of land is by all odds the dominant source
of silt pollution in those parts of the country where population is
concentrated, other sources are locally of considerable significance.
One of these is erosion from construction operations which has been
greatly increased in the past 15 years in our exploding metropolitan
areas. Because this source of pollution is often so close to points of
water use, its relative importance is significantly increased.
In Rock Creek here in the District and adjacent Maryland, flash
floods and silt pollution have been increasing for years as a result of
suburban expansion. Its valley, which is mostly in public ownership,
forms the largest recreational area and park in the Washington
Metropolitan Area.
By 1957 this once predominantly rural drainage area had become
56 percent urban. Urbanization is still on the increase. Our studies
indicate that if urbanization of the whole watershed is accomplished,
27 percent of the area would be in impermeable cover such as houses
and streets and 73 percent in permeable cover. At present about
750 acres are under construction each year. The average period of
abnormal erosion resulting from construction is about three years.
The rate of erosion for an area under construction is some three to
six times the average rate for a rural agricultural area. Once grading,
seeding, and paving is completed, however, erosion will decline to a
stable rate comparable with that from pasture areas.
213
-------
Salinity Pollution
Another important aspect of water pollution is the content of
soluble salts. The effects of the variety of kinds and amounts of
salts in stream water differ materially. Some salts such as calcium
make water hard and impair its use for domestic purposes, yet these
same salts can be helpful in irrigation water. Other salts, particularly
sodium, cause trouble in water used for irrigation.
Water quality criteria from the viewpoint of soil and plant relation-
ships differ in many respects from the criteria for domestic or industrial
use. The total concentration of soluble salts, the concentration of%
sodium, and the proportion of sodium to calcium plus magnesium,
as well as the occurrence of minor elements such as boron, are im-
portant in determining the quality of irrigation water. When water
high in salts is used for irrigation purposes, the soil may deteriorate
to the extent that it can no longer be used to produce satisfactory
crops.
The salt content of most irrigation waters ranges approximately
70 to 3,500 parts per million. The common use of 2 to 4 acre-feet of
water per acre to produce crops under irrigation in our Western States
can mean that up to 10 to 20 tons of salt are placed on each acre of
irrigated land during each growing season.
Most of the rivers emerging from the Western mountains contain
very little salt originally but pick up large quantities of soluble salts as
the wasted water passes through the soil profile and returns to the
stream. It has been estimated that from 50 to 75 percent of the water
diverted on many irrigation projects is lost by seepage in canals and
on the farms. This wasted water returns to the streams and is often
used over and over again, but with each reuse the quality is gener-
ally impaired.
The Control of Silt Pollution and Salinity
This brings us to the crux of the problem, what can be done to
diminish or control silt pollution and man-induced salinity in water?
Effective methods for achieving these objectives have been developed
and are already being widely adopted in agricultural areas of the
United States.
Abundant research data give a basis for estimating the potential
reductions that might be achieved by practical application of existing
knowledge. For example, analysis of rainfall intensity and frequency
by months in any area gives a basis for planning maximum protection
of the soil surface by cover crops, mulches, etc., in those months when
the erosion potential from rainfall is greatest. The effects of length
and degree of slope on some soils indicate the relative need for meas-
ures such as terraces, diversion ditches, strip crops, and benching to
reduce the effective slope and break it into shorter lengths. Measure-
214
-------
ment of inherent differences in soil erodibility shows adjustments of
land use needed to afford greater vegetal protection of more erodible
soils and more use of less erodible soils for row crops. It indicates
also possibilities for reducing the erodibility by changing the soil
structure through tillage practices and by plowing under cover crops,
mulches, and manure.
Experiment station data have shown, for example, that a good 3- or
4-year rotation will reduce sheet-erosion loss to 14 to 45 percent of
that occurring under a one-crop system of clean cultivation. Contour
farming, strip cropping, and terracing practices applied to various
soils, slopes, and with different amounts of rainfall effect reductions
ranging from 10 to more than 90 percent.
Other conservation practices such as (1) the use of stubble mulch,
(2) grassed waterways, (3) planting steep slopes to grasses and trees,
(4) proper pasture and range management, and (5) improved wildlife
areas, especially pond areas where fish are raised, keep silt in place
and help prevent erosion.
Other types of erosion may require special forms of treatment.
Stabilization of major gullies, valley trenches, or streambanks, for
example, may be accomplished in some places by planting of trees and
vines; or they may require small dams, revetments, jetties, or other
control structures. It is physically possible in areas of more than 20
inches of rainfall to stabilize completely most gullies and virtually
eliminate them as a source of sediment. In areas of less than 20 inches
of rainfall, more reliance must be placed on structural measures such
as revetments, check dams, and debris basins. Floodwater-retarding
structures are effective in holding back as much as 90 percent or more
of the silt originating on watershed lands above them. Economic
rather than physical considerations primarily govern the amount of
reduction in silt pollution that can be achieved in most watersheds.
In the Western States it has been found that conservation irrigation
practices such as canal lining and more efficient application of water
on the farm materially reduce the soluble salts getting into streams.
The over-all effect of soil and water conservation programs on
sizable watersheds has been evaluated in many parts of the country.
For example, a study was made by the Soil Conservation Service in
1954 of daily turbidity records at five municipal waterworks plants in
Georgia. At Atlanta, Columbus, Macon, Milledgeville, and Augusta,
the turbidity records all told the same story—a steady downward
trend in turbidity between 1934 and 1954. Atlanta, which obtains its
raw water from the Chattahoochee River, showed a reduction from an
average 400 p.p.m. in 1934 to an average 76 p.p.m. in 1953.
Without exception, the local waterworks men agreed that the
reduction in turbidity was due to the cumulative effect of soil conser-
vation work in the respective watersheds during the 20-year period.
583283—61—15 215
-------
A similar conclusion has been reached from repeated reservoir surveys
in many parts of the country.
In a recent report (12) to the Senate Select Committee on National
Water Resources, the Department of Agriculture estimated that
application of present conservation programs at the current level of
intensity to 80 percent of the upstream watersheds now feasible of
treatment would reduce sediment concentration in streams from 30 to
75 percent in those major river basins classified as having high to very
high relative rates.
The means of achieving greater control of silt pollution and salinity
are available and need only greater implementation. With the
know-how at hand the control of soil erosion on public lands, Federal,
State, and local, is simply a matter of making the necessary financial
resources available.
On privately owned lands the problem is somewhat more complex
because its solution depends on millions of decisions by private land-
owners and operators as to their use, treatment, and management of
then- lands. Most of the needed administrative machinery has been
created, however, to give every encouragement and help to these
private landowners and operators as well as to local communities to
aggressively attack this problem. This machinery includes:
1. Soil conservation districts which areiocal units of government,
formed by landowners and operators under provisions of State enabling
legislation in every State and Puerto Rico. Their specific objective
is soil and water conservation, application of the very practices re-
quired to control silt pollution. Their formation began in 1937.
They now number 2867, contain about 1.7 billion acres or 91 percent
of the agrucultural area of the United States. More than 1,800,000
farmers and ranchers operating over 1 billion acres now cooperate
with these districts. The districts are provided with technical assist-
ance by the Soil Conservation Service to help farmers and ranchers
plan and apply needed conservation practices. Many States also
appropriate funds to assist these districts.
2. The Agricultural Conservation Program of the Department of
Agriculture provides cost-sharing payments to farmers and ranchers
for conservation practices installed by them.
3. Loans for conservation work are available from the Farmers
Home Administration in the Department.
4. The Forest Service and cooperating State forestry agencies
assist farmers on woodland management practices.
5. The Federal-State Extension Service provides educational as-
sistance in encouraging farmers to adopt conservation practices.
216
-------
6. A comprehensive planned attack on silt pollution on a watershed
basis is possible through cooperation of local, State, and Federal
agencies and groups under the provisions of the Watershed Protection
and Flood Prevention Act, Public Law 566 (11). This program adds
to the assistance of all other programs the further help needed to accel-
erate the application of land treatment measures and to install struc-
tural works of improvement which are too large for individual land-
owners to install.
Under Public Law 566, passed by the Congress in 1954, local or-
ganizations can initiate a project on watersheds up to 250,000 acres
in size. Federal help is not given until the project is approved by the
responsible agency of State government. The Federal government's
contribution includes (1) technical assistance in planning, designing,
and installing land treatment and structural works of improvement,
(2) sharing certain costs, and (3) extending long-term credit to help
local interests bear then- share of the costs.
Watershed projects under this act provide for (1) soil and water-
conservation treatment of all the land in the watershed, (2) flood-
water-retarding structures and other measures needed for flood
prevention, (3) improvements for agricultural water management,
such as irrigation and drainage, and for non-agricultural water man-
agement such as municipal and industrial water supplies and fish and
wildlife development. This program can provide one of the most
effective means of achieving silt pollution control.
Recommendations
Four recommendations merit consideration by this Conference.
These are:
1. Silt pollution should be recognized as a major impairment of
the "quality of water for maximum beneficial use in the over-all public
interest." As such, it should be accorded equal consideration with
inorganic pollution by sewage and industrial wastes in programs for
pollution abatement and control.
2. Existing Federal, State, and local programs for soil and water
conservation and watershed protection which are highly effective in
the control of silt pollution should be further strengthened to achieve
such control at a rate commensurate with the rapidly increasing
demands on our national water resources.
3. Legislative action should be taken to provide for more adequate
coordination and integration as well as implementation of all forms
of pollution control in all types of river basin development, including
the small watershed program authorized by Public Law 566.
4. Research needed on some aspects of silt and salinity pollution
control should be accelerated. This includes acceleration along the
217
-------
lines proposed by the Secretary of Agriculture in his recent research
needs report to the United States Senate. (IS) Research is also
urgently needed on the control of construction erosion in expanding
urban areas.
1. BROWN, CARL B., 1948. Perspective on sedimentation. Proc., Federal Inter-
Agency Sedimentation Conference, pp. 3-7, U.S. Govt.
2. BROWN, GAEL B., 1950. Effects of soil conservation. Chapter in Trask's
applied sedimentation. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
3. GABIN, ALEX, 1940. Effect of soil erosion on the cost of public water supply
in the North Carolina Piedmont. U.S. Soil Conservation Service, SCS-EC-1
[processed].
4. GEIGEB, A. F., 1958. Sediment yields from small watersheds in the United
States. Extrait des comptes rendus et rapports—Assemble Generate de
Toronto 1957 Tome I, pp. 269-276, Gentbrugge.
5. GLTMPH, L. M., Jr., 1957. Importance of sheet erosion as a source of sediment.
Symposium on watershed erosion and sediment yields. Trans., Amer.
Geophy. Union, vol. 36, no. 6.
6. GOTTSCHALK, L. C., 1958. Predicting erosion and sediment yields. Extrait
des comptes rendus et rapports—Assemble Generate de Toronto 1957
Tome I, pp. 146-153, Gentbrugge.
7. GOTTSCHALK, L. C. and JONES, V. H., 1955. Valleys and hills, erosion and
sedimentation. Water, the yearbook of Agriculture, pp. 135-143, U.S.
Govt. Ptg. Off., Washington, D.C.
8. HOAK, RICHARD D,, 1953. Water supply and pollution control. Sewage and
industrial wastes, vol. 25, pp. 1438-1449.
9. HOLLE, C. G., 1952. Sedimentation at the mouth of the Mississippi River.
Proc., 2nd Congress on coastal engineering, Univ. Calif., pp. 111-129.
10. INTER-AGENCY COMMITTEE ON WATEB RESOURCES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON
SEDIMENTATION. Summary of reservoir sedimentation surveys made in the
United States through 1953. Sed. Bull. No. 6, 1957. U.S. Govt. Ptg. Off.
11. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AoBiCTiLTirBB, SOIL CONSEBVATION SEBVICE, 1959.
Small watershed projects under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention
Act, PA-392.
12. U.S. SENATE, SELECT COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL WATEB RESOURCES, 1959.
Estimated water requirements for agricultural purposes and their effects on
water supplies. Com. Print No. 13. U.S. Govt. Ptg. Off.
13. A REPORT OF FINDINGS BY THE WORKING GROUP APPOINTED BY THE SECRE-
TARY OF AGRICULTURE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, JANUARY 1959.
Facility Needs—Soil and Water Conservation Research. Sen. Doc. No. 59,
U.S. Govt. Ptg. Off.
14. WOLMAN, ABEL, GEYER, JOHN C., and PYATT, EDWIN E., 1957. A clean
Potomac River in the Washington Metropolitan Area. Interstate Com. on
Potomac River Basin, Washington, D.C.
218
-------
DISCUSSION
GORDON K. ZIMMERMAN
Executive Secretary
National Association of Soil Conservation Districts,
Washington, D.C.
In his paper, Mr. Brown has ably reviewed the least spectacular
and least controversial aspect of the water pollution problem. The
polluting effects of inorganic silt moving into the rivers and streams
of the country from both rural and metropolitan watersheds are not
well known to the general public. There is a preoccupation, generally,
with the damaging effects of municipal sewage and industrial wastes.
Silt is the stepchild of the Nation's pollution problem. Although
it is the most important pollutant of all, from the standpoint of volume
of material, it receives relatively little popular attention. The
probable reason is that silt represents, in relation to other major
forms of pollution, a smaller hazard to the public health.
Nevertheless, silt pollution and sedimentation merit far greater
consideration than they have had to date in the Nation's over-all
programs for pollution abatement and control. Economically,
aesthetically, and in other ways, they represent a major water waste
and a major impairment of water quality for maximum beneficial use.
Mr. Brown suggests the average annual loss from silt pollution and
sedimentation may now be in the neighborhood of $350 million—
double the estimate of 15 years ago. Even in these days of sky-
rocketing costs, this is a sizeable figure. Much of this loss is assigned
to the heavier costs of water treatment, increased investment in
water works, and reduced storage capacity in water-supply reservoirs.
The economically-damaging effects of silt pollution, however, are
widespread. In addition to the losses inflicted on public water supply,
both the wash load and bed load of silt are costly—•
1. In terms of public health, by adding to water treatment
charges and by reducing the velocity of streamflow;
2. In terms of recreation, fish, and wildlife by shoaling streams
and other bodies of water, impairing the clear water environment
required by many desirable species of fish and wildlife; and by
cutting the opportunities for swimming and boating;
3. In terms of waterway commerce, by shoaling of waterways
and adding to costs of river and harbor dredging;
4. In terms of flood control and hydro-electric power produc-
tion, by shoaling streams, displacing reservoir capacity, and
adding to construction costs;
219
-------
5. In terms of valley agriculture, by increasing the hazards of
flooding and deposition;
6. In terms of irrigation, by reducing the quality of water;
and
7. In terms of drainage, by cutting the capacity of drainage
systems and the speed of water movement from the land.
It is worth noting that forces are present which will most likely
accentuate the silt pollution problem in the years ahead.
In his paper, Mr. Brown listed seven of the principal sources or
causes of silt. To over-simplify, however, I would like to emphasize
two groups—(1) the accelerated or man-induced erosion in various
forms taking place as a consequence of improper or overly-intensive
use of agricultural lands, and (2) the construction erosion which occurs
when substantial areas of raw earth are exposed to rain during high-
way, housing, airport, and other developments associated with
urban expansion.
Both of these sources could enlarge in importance. To provide the
food and fiber required by our expanding population, it is now
estimated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture that our present
area of cropland will be increased from the present 460 million acres
to about 523 million acres within the next 40 years. Furthermore,
the intensity of land use must be doubled. We must get twice as
much production per acre. USDA estimates we will need today's
production equivalent of 1,010,000,000 acres of cropland in the
year 2000—and we will have only 523 million acres on which to
produce it.
Unless the intensified use of cropland is accompanied by intensified
conservation, the prospect of an increased silt burden is apparent.
So far our record has been marked by steady but not spectacular
progress. The combined efforts for soil and water conservation in
the United States during the past 27 years have provided adequate
protection against erosion and other forms of land damage for prob-
ably less than 30 percent of the Nation's farm and ranch lands.
Mr. Brown referred to "our exploding metroplitan areas" and
pointed out that erosion from construction operations has been
greatly increased during the past 15 years. Somewhat more than a
million acres are now being exposed to rapid erosion as a result of
construction processes during at least a part of every year. This
silt source is likely to increase as construction work spreads and our
metropolitan areas expand to accommodate the predicted population
of 350 million at the turn of the century.
Construction erosion is a specialized problem for which we now
have inadequate answers. There is a pressing need to find practical
methods for dealing with it because, as Mr. Brown points out, it
220
-------
frequently occurs close to points of water storage and water use and
its relative importance is thereby significantly increased.
For most agricultural areas of the country, however, methods of
control are generally known and available—even though much
remains to be done in terms of application. During the past 20 years,
the existing local, State, and Federal programs for soil and water
conservation and for watershed protection, have demonstrated that
significant results can be obtained in diminishing the silt burden.
Additional and important help will be forthcoming in the years
ahead from the new U.S. Sedimentation Laboratory at Oxford, Miss.
Just beginning investigations on a 117 square-mile watershed, the
laboratory will augment our basic knowledge about the sources and
control of the silting process.
To refine and enlarge our present knowledge still further, it would
be most useful if field studies could be set up in about 10 or 12 of the
country's major soil problem areas. We need more precise data
correlating the silt, yield from selected watersheds with the rainfall,
land use, conservation treatment, soils, and physiographic aspects
of such watersheds. With this kind of information, greater efficiency
would become possible through regional and local variations in control
measures.
In an over-all assessment of the silt pollution problem, however,
the pressing need is for dollars rather than data. Certainly this is
true on the nation's public lands, both State and Federal. Dollars
are the prime consideration, also, in the speed with which govern-
ment programs can provide assistance to private landowners.
221
-------
Pesticides and Water Pollution
DR. CLARENCE COTTAM
Welder Wildlife Foundation
Water, soil, air, and sunlight are the four basic ingredients that
make life on mother earth possible. Accordingly, life is curtailed or
handicapped to the extent that any of these basic requirements or
substances are made unuseable or unavailable. Pollution abatement
and clean water, therefore, have more than academic significance to
an enlightened citizenry.
In the past, water conservation and development have been mainly
concerned with water volume. Dams and related structures have
been built, soil conservation practices have been undertaken, irriga-
tion and flood control projects have been carried out and aqueducts
and diversion structures have been installed to transport precious
water from areas of abundance to areas of need. Water now is in
short supply in many places and too often it is of poor quality; yet,
the demands for good water are increasing sharply with no letup in
sight. With our exploding population increases and constantly
expanding industry, it becomes abundantly clear that more con-
sideration must be given to water quality. Water needs can be met
only by using the available supply over and over again. We must
practice use without abuse. Pollution must be stopped.
Chemical Pollutants
More than half a million organic chemicals have been made and
described (11). A few dozen of them are accepted by the Food and
Drug Administration as being safe for addition to food and beverages
and many are listed with a zero or near-zero tolerance level for human
consumption. New materials or compounds are being made much
faster than the toxicity of known materials is being studied.
Most surface waters receive a large, variable, and anonymous load
of organic chemicals. Only a minute fraction of the materials dumped
222
-------
or washed into surface waters could hope to qualify with the Food
and Drug Administration as acceptable for addition to food and
beverages. These pollutants of soil, water, and air are altering and
adversely effecting the environment in which our people must live.
Pesticides form, an ever increasing part of this complex chemical
picture. These materials are being widely used to accomplish a
specific aim with an ever increasing degree of efficiency and wholesale
effectiveness. Too frequently these controls are used with little
regard for other values and the over-all effect on the environment with
its complex biota.
Since World War II, the pesticide chemical industry has undergone
a revolution. The principal insecticides used before the war were
either inorganic compounds such as the arsenicals or the naturally
occurring poisons like pyrethrum, rotenone, and nicotine. Copper
sulfate, arsenic compounds, and related poisons were the principal
herbicides used. The introduction of DDT and 2,4-D, in about 1943
to 1945, marked the beginning of a tremendous upsurge in the devel-
opment of what is now a bewildering array of chemical pesticides.
More than 90,000 pesticide products and formulations are now regis-
tered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
(38).
What is the Size of the Pesticide Industry?
The pesticide industry is growing by leaps and bounds and ento-
mologists predict, and chemical manufacturers hope for, a fourfold
expansion in use of pesticides during the next ten to fifteen years.
Today, well over 12,500 brandname formulations and more than 200
basic control compounds are on the market. Most of the currently
used pesticides were unknown even ten years ago. Furthermore,
and contrary to the public interest, most new pesticides are decidedly
more toxic, generally more stable, and less specific in effect than those
of but a few years back.
We do not know the total production or consumption of all pesticides.
The Stabilization Service (28) of U.S.D.A. shows that 574,213,000
pounds of technical material of just 15 major chemical pesticides
were produced in the United States in 1958. In addition, some
2,801,572 pounds of synthetic pesticides, 2,545,565 pounds of organic
phosphorus insecticides, along with 4,706,246 pounds of pyrethrum
flowers, 355,732 pounds of extract pyrethrum, 1,816,300 pounds of
ryonia and $729,189 worth of rotenone root were imported in 1958
for pesticide use. In addition, some 93,160,000 pounds of zinc were
used in the production of fungicides. Another 28,346,000 pounds of
pentachlorophenol were also used last year as a wood preservative.
More than 150 million pounds of herbicides and many other millions
of pounds of rodenticides and other control materials are manufactured
and used annually throughout America.
223
-------
Most chemical solvents for pesticide formulations are poisonous and,
therefore, they, too, should be considered in the total picture of poisons
used. In 1958, some 25 to 30 million gallons or more than 200,000,000
pounds of these chemicals were used in pesticide formulations.
The Honorable Lee Metcalf, as reported in the Congressional
Record for September 2, 1959, stated that, "at least three billion
pounds of these chemicals were sprayed over more than 70 million
acres of our crops and timberland to kill insects, weeds and plant
diseases last year". In total, it is clear that well over 100,000,000
acres in the United States are sprayed, dusted, or otherwise treajbed
with highly poisonous pesticides annually and at a consumer cost of
well over $2 billion per year (8, 28). Currently, nearly % of our
croplands and millions of acres of forest and rangelands are treated
from one to seven or eight times each year with the same or
different pesticides in quantities of a few ounces to more than 20
pounds at each application.
One State plant board inspector from Mississippi has reported (26)
that the major cotton producing section of his State during the past
10 years has had from 70 to 100 pounds of technical grade insecticide
applied to it per acre. In the cotton belt, it is apparent that the
amount of technical grade * insecticide applied annually to cotton
averages from 3 to 7 pounds per acre. In terms of formulated
insecticide, the average is from 21 to 77 pounds per acre exclusive of
that applied as liquid (25). Occasionally, excessive quantities are
used. In the Tennessee Valley one farmer reported that he had
made 16 applications at 35 to 40 pounds of formulation insecticide
per acre, or a total of 560 to 640 pounds per acre per season (40).
Several were reported to have applied 200 pounds per acre per season.
It is essential to remember that pesticides usually are applied year
after year to essentially the same farm land. It seems logical to
assume, as Rudd and Genelly (27) have pointed out, that the potential
hazard to wildlife, as well as to people, increases with the pesticide
volume applied and the toxicity of the poisons used.
Do These Chemicals Become Pollutants?
There is abundant proof that there often are immediate ill effects
upon wildlife resulting from many of the eradication and control
programs and that the soil is polluted with some of these toxicants
for many years (S, 8, 12, 17). There also is considerable evidence of
serious side effects (7, 9, 39) that are generally overlooked because of
the delayed action when highly toxic, stable and broad spectrum
poisons are used in quantity. It should be obvious that the only
1 Technical grade pesticide refers to the toxic chemical and it usually represents
10 to 15 percent of the total bulk after the dust or liquid carrier is added.
224
-------
reason for using any pesticide is that it is toxic to something. Some
of these poisons are not very toxic to man while others are among the
most toxic materials known. There is much evidence that some of
these chemical poisons are getting into our water systems. In some
areas, where the chemical concentration of poisonous pollutants has
been high, there has been considerable loss of wildlife resources.
The more subtle, indirect, and long range effects of these toxicants
upon man and his wildlife resources are not known. They could be
profoundly important. The effects, if any, of the ingestion of small
doses of these chemical pollutants are not understood. It is well
known that trace elements in infinitesimal amounts can and often do
exercise extraordinary influence on life, which seem out of all propor-
tion to their size. Minute quantities of drugs in the system may
ultimately have favorable or unfavorable results. It has been re-
peatedly asserted by our axithorities that "No one at this time can
tell how much or how little of a carcinogen would be required to
produce cancer in any human being, or how long it would take the
cancer to develop." Likewise, it is well to realize that an incredibly
small amount of virus, bacteria, mold, or sperm cells placed in a
favorable environment can initiate profound changes in the organisms
they enter. It may be dangerous to ignore the effects of small quan-
tities of pesticides in our water system. Dr. Woodward (38) of the
U.S. Public Health Service has warned that, "In general these chem-
icals are undesirable additions to water and every effort should be
made to keep their concentration not only below the threshold of
any toxic effects but also as low as is reasonably possible".
Pesticides and Water Problems
Pesticide compounds may enter our water supply through direct
application to the water surface, by drifting on to the water surface
from adjoining treated areas, or by being washed in from the water-
shed. Detergents, and domestic and industrial pollutants have
entered water courses and ground water aquifers by being washed
into our streams from seepage, cesspools, absorption fields, oxidation
ponds used in treating municipal sewage, ponds holding industrial or
commercial wastes, or by natural and induced infiltration from streams
or channels receiving sewage and other waste products.
When large amounts of stable chemical poisons are broadcast over
extensive acreages, it is virtually certain that some will get into our
public water supplies. It is well known that they are not readily
detected in water (81). Detergents, known commonly as ABS (alkyl
benzene sulfonate), have been found in streams at concentrations
sufficient to kill fish. Further, they have been found in ground water
in concentrations even exceeding those found in surface waters.
Studies are needed to determine the presence of pesticides in ground
225
-------
and surface water, especially in areas of heavy use. More practical,
economical, and effective means of removing them are needed (38).
Pesticides already have been found in the major rivers of the Nation.
DDT has been found in concentrations in the range of 1 to 20 p.p.b, in
the Mississippi at Quincy, Illinois, and at New Orleans, in the Mis-
souri at Kansas City, in the Columbia River at Bonneville Dam,
Lake St. Clair, and the Detroit River. Aldrin was found in the
Snake River at Pullman, Washington, at 1 p.p.b. Other, and even
more toxic, pollutants have been found in many smaller streams in
nearly all parts of the country, which have resulted in extensive fish
kills. Fish and their food organisms have been killed over consider-
able stretches of streams, and fish flesh has been tainted and made
unuseable by different pesticides.
Fish Kills
As a means of detecting pollution problems in streams throughout
the country, the U.S. Public Health Service, under the leadership of
James Harlan, and with the cooperation of State conservation
departments, State health departments and water pollution control
agencies, initiated a national survey of fish kills. In the returns from
28 States, covering the four months from June through September,
more than 200 reports of individual kills were recorded. The number
of fish lost varied tremendously in the different instances of poisoning
from"a few" to "five million". In the majority of the cases the extent
of loss was not recorded specifically.
The three highest cases of losses were caused by industrial poisoning,
although "agricultural" poisons (pesticides) accounted for 38 percent
of the cases. Many of these were serious and represented complete
kills. This was followed by industrial pollution with 27.7 percent,
domestic sewage with 7.7 percent, mining wastes with 3 percent,
miscellaneous or other causes 9.7 percent, and unknown or undeter-
mined pollution with 13.9 percent of the cases. Because of the
difficulty in identifying kills by pesticide poisoning and the relative
ease of tracing losses caused by industrial and mine wastes and domes-
tic sewage, it seems possible that a goodly portion of the unknown
causes may have resulted from the use of pesticides.
The severity or extent of die off was high in most cases of industrial
and pesticide losses. In the agricultural or pesticide kills, 8 percent
of the cases were not appraised as to severity. The kills of fish in local
areas up to 19 miles of stream were listed as complete in 34.7 percent
of the cases. Heavy loss was recorded in 33.3 percent, moderate kills
in 13.3 percent and light kills in the remaining 10.7 percent of the
cases.
226
-------
Pesticide Toxicity
While many chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides were listed as being
the cause of the fish kills, Endrin seemed to have been the one most
commonly listed. This is not surprising in view of the fact it is the
most lethal pesticide to fish yet developed. Because of its high
toxicity, it also is commonly used as a rodenticide and surprisingly
too as an insecticide on vegetables! Like most chlorinated hydro-
carbons, it is a broad spectrum, stable, highly toxic poison. The
infinitesimal amount of 0.6 p.p.b. will kill 50 percent of test bluegills
in a period of 96 hours. This high toxicity may be visualized more
clearly by stating that the same concentration would require only
0.005 of a pound of Endrin in three acres of water one foot deep (or
one acre, three feet deep) to kill 50 percent of the bluegills in a 96-hour
period. By continuous exposure for 20 days, much less than this
amount would be lethal. Tarzwell (29), Henderson et al (16), and
DeWitt (7) have shown the high toxicity of the newer pesticides.
Toxicity of the ten most commonly used chlorinated hydrocarbons to
fish tested to date, in descending order of potency, is as follows:
Endrin, Toxaphene, Dieldrin, Aldrin, DDT, Heptachlor, Chlordane,
Methoxychlor, Lindane, and B.H.C. There is some variation in the
order of the effects these chemicals have upon birds and rodents,
but B.H.C. and Methoxychlor are generally the least toxic to terrestrial
warm-blooded vertebrates. Shrimp and other related invertebrates
are highly susceptible to pesticides (2).
Of the organic phosphorus compounds, Guthion is by far the most
toxic to fish and it ranks close in toxicity to toxaphene. This group
of poisons varies greatly in toxicity with the various species of fish.
Malathion is about 250 times more toxic to bluegills and about 500
times more toxic to chinook salmon than to fathead minnows (SI).
Some of this group of toxicants hydrolize quickly and generally are
not as highly toxic after 24 to 96 hours as are the chlorinated hydro-
carbons. Furthermore, they do not have the long term residual
effects as do the chlorinated hydrocarbons.
That the runoff from treated areas can be toxic to fish has been
demonstrated many times. Tarzwell (31) obtained runoff from a
small area treated with Dieldrin at the rate of 4.6 pounds per acre as
a part of a white-fringed beetle eradication program and found that
it was toxic to fish in a dilution of 1 to 3 (SO). A sample of a domestic
water from an orchard area in Pennsylvania was found to be lethal to
fish in four hours. One pound of Dieldrin per acre on a 20,000 acre
tract in St. Lucia County, Florida, used to control sand flies, killed
some 20 to 30 tons of fish. Burdick, Dean and Harris (1), in New
York State, used Sevin at 1% pounds per acre as an insecticide in an
aquatic environment. It was found to be devastating to all insect
life, but it produced no noticeable direct ill effects upon fish or wildlife.
227
-------
Young and Nicholson (40) found that there was a serious valley-
wide (TVA) fish kill in 15 streams in eight counties of northern
Alabama in 1950, caused by heavy use of Toxaphene, DDT, B.H.C.,
and Aldrin to control the cotton boll weevil. Some 26-million pounds
of these pesticides were used during that summer. Heavy rains
washed the toxicants into the streams and excessive fish loss resulted
in all streams studied.
Forest Sprays and Fish
Spraying an extensive forest area against spruce budworm (19, 20,
21, 22, 23, 86, 37) in the watershed of the Miramichi River in New
Brunswick in 1956, at the rate of one-half pound of DDT per acre,
produced a 91 percent kill of young salmon. Aquatic insects also
were largely wiped out and some of these were not re-established six-
teen months later. As expected, an alarmingly reduced adult Atlan-
tic salmon run was noted in 1960 when the 1956 hatch returned to
spawn in the Miramichi River system.
In June 1958, some 302,000 acres of northern Maine forest (85)
were sprayed with DDT at the rate of 1 pound per acre to control
spruce budworms. Studies were conducted on the effects of this
toxicant on fish. Loss of trout was moderately heavy. Young of the
year comprised 30 percent of the loss. Suckers, minnows, sculpins,
and sticklebacks were most readily affected. Populations of young-
of-the-year trout were very low a month and three months after
spraying. A strong 1959 class run helped materially to restore popu-
lations. Trout collected 3 months after spraying contained from 2.9
to 198 p.p.m. DDT. A significant growth decrease was noted in
trout in sprayed areas a year following spraying. The population of
brook trout was reduced considerably. The most serious effect was
on the young of the year.
During mid-June 1957, some 155,000 acres of forest in Vancouver
Island, British Columbia were sprayed (6) with 1 pound of DDT in
1 gallon of solvent per acre to control the blackheaded budworm.
Fish mortality was serious to coho fry, trout, steelhead yearlings, and
possibly alevins of both trout and steelhead. In the four major
streams affected by spraying the progeny of the 1956 escapement of
about 43,000 coho adults and the juvenile stages of several thousand
steelhead and trout were almost eliminated. The aquatic insect loss
was extreme. Based on this study, it is evident that the safe con-
centration of this formulation is below 0.05 p.p.m.
Spraying an extensive forest area in Montana in the summer of
1956 with 1 pound of DDT per acre against the spruce budworm
showed variable results (14)- The watersheds of seven mountain
streams were treated. By the end of the summer populations ex-
pressed in volume of fish and insect foods exceeded those preceding the
spraying in one of the streams. On five streams, quantitative re-
228
-------
covery had progressed considerably but did not equal prespray
populations. On the seventh stream, recovery was practically
absent. Game fish reductions of 70 to 80 percent on two of the seven
streams were noted.
In the early winter, 4 months after the area had been sprayed, fish
in large numbers were found dying in Yellowstone River 90 miles
downstream below the area treated. On this watershed 300,000 acres
had been treated in 1955, and another 800,000 acres in 1957. Some
600 dead and dying whitefish, brown trout, and suckers were noted in
300 yards of stream. DDT was found in these fish. Bottom organ-
isms in one tributary had reached prespray quantities by the end of
the second summer after spraying, but were still below this in five
other streams. Still another stream showed only slight recovery by
that time. Some early 1957 spraying showed no appreciable loss,
except with suckers, until November and December. It is interesting
that this delayed mortality was most severe with the fall spawners—•
brown and brook trout and whitefish. The sucker mortality occurred
just after spawning. It is apparent that the major loss occurred when
the fish were in poor condition and under physiological stress.
The Clear Lake Problem
That various organisms can store chlorinated hydrocarbons has been
demonstrated at Clear Lake, northern California, where DDD was
used to control pest midges (13,18,81). Large scale treatment started
in the summer of 1949 and was repeated in 1954. In December 1954,
about 100 western grebes were found dead and still more succumbed
in March of 1955. In 1957, another DDD treatment was made to
control the gnats. More grebes died in 1957. Chemical analysis
revealed these contained 1,600 p.p.m. of DDD. Various fish were
collected and chemically analyzed and their stored fat showed DDD
ranging from 40 to 2,500 p.p.m.
In 1958, a further loss of birds occurred. In the summer of 1960,
a composite fat sample of 12 California gulls and five western grebes
contained 2,134 and 1,465 p.p.m. respectively of DDD. These sam-
ples were collected 23 months after the last pesticide treatment of
Clear Lake, again indicating the high levels of accumulation and the
long residual life of this poison in birds. These birds were shot and
appeared normal. An interesting, and I believe profoundly important
sidelight, is that although there were at least 30 pairs of summer
breeding western grebes at Clear Lake in 1960, no young were produced
and none are known to have been produced there since 1957. It is to
be remembered that this lake, since the beginning of its recorded
history, has been a favored nesting and production area for western
grebes.
Another note of interest is that plankton collected showed DDD at
the rate of 5.3 p.p.m. This is perhaps the more interesting in view
229
-------
of the fact there had been several plankton blooms in the 23 months
since the last application of pesticide. No trace of DDD has been
found in water samples analyzed except those taken shortly after the
pesticide application.
That the pesticide poison tended to accumulate and concentrate
over a considerable period of time, was shown by the fact that almost
invariably the older fish contained more DDD than did the younger
individuals. Four to five times as much DDD was found in 7-year
bass as in yearlings. It is apparent that the fish had concentrated
this poison in their bodies many times higher than in the surrounding
water. All fish, bird, and frog samples analyzed from all sections of
this 19-mile long lake contained DDD and all flesh examined showed
concentrations far exceeding the active insecticide rates in the water.
There was a noticeable differential in tolerance and susceptibility to
DDD by different species of fish. Carnivorous fish accumulated
more DDD in their bodies than did the plankton-eating fish.
The Clear Lake pollution and the more complex and difficult
situation at the Tule and Klamath Lake sumps show that the indirect
and delayed nature of the effects of pesticide pollution often are far
more serious than are the immediate effects. Birds and fish of many
species in Tule and Klamath Lakes apparently have been poisoned
by accumulations of several chlorinated hydrocarbons, including
Toxaphene, DDT, DDD and its analogue DDE. Some of these
pesticides have not been used in or adjacent to these lakes.
Hanson (15) concluded from a study of waterfowl nesting in marshes
of North Dakota that Toxaphene and oil proved harmful to animal
life in the marsh. Only six young birds were known to have been
reared from 21 nests or broods in an area treated with this poison.
Likewise, he found that Chlordane also interfered with reproduction
as only 34 birds were produced from 25 nests in an area treated with
this toxicant.
Ground Water Contamination
With the amount of chemicals being used, including pesticides and
detergents, it seems inevitable that some of these materials ultimately
would enter our watercourses and even penetrate into the under-
ground aquifers. A number of startling examples already are on
record.
Montebello, Calif. (10, S3): In June 1945, a small plant in Alhambra,
California began manufacturing 2,4-D. A batch of the raw material
failed to react properly and the chemicals were dumped inadvertently
into a sewer. Thence, this waste entered the Alhambra pumping
station, passed through the Tri-Cities activated sludge sewage treat-
ment plant, and was discharged into a mile-long ditch. From here
the contaminant traveled some 3 to 5 miles above ground, then
230
-------
seeped into the underground strata from which Montebello, a city
of about 25,000 population, obtained its water supply. Within 17
days after the manufacture of the weed killer started, taste and odor
of a chemical used in the manufacture, 2,4-D dichlorophenol, was
noticed in the eleven wells supplying the City. The operation of
the plant was stopped within 30 days, yet the taste and odor of
dichlorophenol persisted for 4 to 5 years. This case is interesting
and important because it shows the possible long-time effects from
wastes even though they were unwisely discharged over a relatively
short period.
South Platte River Basin Near Henderson, Colo. (32}: This represents
another significant and historic case in the serious pollution of under-
ground water. As a war measure in 1943, the Rocky Mt. Arsenal of
the Chemical Corps, located immediately north of Stapleton Municipal
Airport, Denver, started to manufacture warfare agents. In 1955,
the arsenal was leased to the Shell Oil Company which has used the
plant to manufacture insecticides. Five different oil refineries and
two manufacturing concerns have operated in close proximity.
It seems probable that sludge from the pond used at the arsenal by
the Chemical Corps between 1943 and 1955, to hold chemical waste
effluents, is the source of the contamination. Phytotoxic substances
in this waste included chlorates and phosphonates. It appears that
other waste substances in the discharge in the presence of air, water
and sunlight caused these waste materials to combine and form
2,4-D. There is no evidence to indicate that the herbicide 2,4-D
had been purposefully manufactured at the arsenal. We must
assume, therefore, that the 2,4-D was synthesized in the waste
mixture from precursors introduced from the plant operation. There
may also be other contaminants.
The first farm crops to be affected were in 1951. It apparently
took 7 to 8 years for the contaminated water to travel approximately
3 miles. By 1958, contaminated water extended in an area of several
square miles and seriously affected crop production, industry, and the
people who had relied on the water for their own culinary purposes
and for livestock. At least one case of illness has been shown to have
been caused by drinking this polluted water. The area within this
acquifer basin, much of which is not yet affected, is said to cover some
60 square miles. How long this pollution of poisons will last and what
total damage yet will result is unknown, but obviously it will be many
years before the damage is corrected. Many shallow and some deep
wells occur within this basin, and approximately 150 residences are
within the known or suspected area of contaminated shallow ground
water. No information now is available on the course and rate of flow
of the contaminated water arriving in the vicinity of South Platte
River.
583283—61 16 231
-------
Wells
The common frothing household detergents, consisting of alkyl
benzene sulfonate and referred to as ABS, give convincing evidence
that pollution in shallow ground water is common. Because ABS is
not found in any natural substance, its presence in water is evidence
of contamination. Frothing is said to occur in concentrations as low
as 0.6 mg/1. Pollution containing ABS in ground water may come
from seepage from cesspools and absorption fields, oxidation ponds,
natural and induced infiltration from streams or channels receiving
sewage, holding ponds for industrial and commerical wastes, and
facilities for waste disposal from commercial laundries.
Housing developments, wherein each dwelling is serviced by its
individual well and sewage disposal system, often invite pollution.
Walton (34) points out that 35 percent of 600 well waters analyzed
from Suffolk County, Long Island, New York, contained ABS, and
it is estimated that there are, or soon will be, some 17,000 ABS-
contaminated wells in that county! A survey of 54,000 private well
waters in the vicinity of Minneapolis and St. Paul showed about 50
percent pollution. Studies from 976 well waters in 13 States showed
that 36.6 percent of these contained ABS.
As evidence of the persistence of this detergent, at Kearny, Nebr.,
ABS was known to travel underground some 4,000 feet in 14 months,
where it was found to contaminate a private well. The concentration
of detergents found in many wells has been much higher than w&s
normally found in surface waters (38). There is reason to believe that
similar pollution situations are developing in localized areas where
stable and highly toxic pesticides have had heavy and extended use
and where the soil is comparatively porous and the ground water table
is shallow.
Conclusion
The enormous and ever growing quantity and kinds of extremely
toxic, broad spectrum, stable chemicals used as pesticides throughout
America give warning that an objective forward look is necessary. If
our people are to receive protection as well as benefit from the mature
and safe use of these needed pesticides, there must be more advanced
planning and better coordination in the management and use of chem-
ical controls. I believe that dangerous and costly pollution of both
surface and ground water with these poisons is inevitable unless effec-
tive steps are promptly taken. Recent case histories of pollution
confirm this view and show that such contamination may be serious
and its correction slow and costly. Because of the nature of the prob-
lem, more effective controls must be placed on the distribution and use
of dangerous toxicants at the source. This, I believe, should include
more effective testing, registration, labeling, and distribution of poi-
sons. I am convinced that we need a clearer declaration of national
232
-------
policy by Congress and by many States regulating the use of pesticides
in the broad public interest. More effective coordination must be
obtained between agencies and interests directing control and those
groups and agencies of State and Federal Government, as well as na-
tional and local interests, that are vitally affected by operational
programs.
There is critical need for more adequate support of basic research
(5, 24)- Many costly mistakes and controversies of the past have
been kindled through a painful lack of facts on which to act. Sound
research should precede an operational program of control and eradica-
tion.
It is apparent that the establishment of safe limits of toxicants in
water is an involved and long-term undertaking. Yet safe and clearly
denned standards for water quality are needed. It is essential that
public and private forces unite to support a coordinated program of
research.
A few additional "needs" are submitted for consideration—
1. To the extent possible, use toxicants that are selective that will
give reasonable control of a particular pest and do the least damage to
desirable forms of life.
2. Give more emphasis to biological and cultural controls.
3. When chemical controls are necessary, use formulations, methods
of application (i.e., mode of treatment and carrier), time of treatment,
and dosage that will be the least damaging to the biota.
4. Use toxicants that hydrolize promptly and those that can be
utilized or broken down by organisms in the soil.
5. Use spot and not broadcast treatment wherever possible.
6. Determine toxicity of runoff and seepage water for different
materials, dosages, and modes of pesticide application.
7. Determine the toxicity of the toxicant to the various organisms
in the environment.
8. Direct research toward side or indirect effects of various pesti-
cides.
9. Develop more specific controls.
10. Study the total environment and its management so that control
can be carried on more wisely.
References
1. BUBDICK, G. E. and H. P. DEAN and E. P. HAKKIS. 1960. Effect of sevin
upon the aquatic environment. N.Y. Fish & Game Journal. 7(1): 14-25.
2. CHIN, EDWARD. 1960. Insecticide studies. Fishery Research, Circular
No. 92, Galveston Bio). Lab., U.S. Fish & Wildl. Serv., Galveston, Tex.
233
-------
3. COMMITTEE REPORT. 1959. Pesticides and wildlife. Proc., Int. Assn.
Game, Fish. & Cons. Comm., 49: 82-96. Hopkins, Minn.
4. COPE, OLIVER B. and PAUL F. SPRINGER. 1958. Mass control of insects:
the effects on fish and wildlife. Bull, of the Ent. Soc. of Am. 4(2): 52-56.
5. COTTAM, CLARENCE and C. M. TARZWELL. 1959. Research for the estab-
lishment of water quality criteria for aquatic life. Trans., Seminar on
Water Poll.,, Tech. Report W-60-3, USPHS, Taft Sanitary Eng. Center
Cincinnati, Ohio.
6. CROUTER, R. A. and E. H. VERNON. 1959. Effects of Black-headed bud-
worm control on salmon and trout in British Columbia. The Canadian
Fish Culturist. Issue 24, Feb.
7. DEWITT, J. B. 1956. Chronic toxicity to quail and pheasants of some
chlorinated insecticides. Jour, of Agr. & Food Chem. 4(10): 863-866.
8. DEWITT, James B. and John L. George. 1960. Pesticide review, 1959.
Circular No. 84, U.S. Bur. Sport Fisheries & Wildl. 36 pp. Processed.
Wash. D.C.
9. DEWITT, J. B., C. M. MENZIE, V. A. ADOMOITES and WM. L. REICHEL. 1960.
Pesticide residue in animal tissue. Processed. Bur. Sport Fisheries &
Wildl. Wash., D.C.
10. DOLL, BYRON E. 1947. Formulating legislation to protect ground water
from pollution. Jour. AWWA 39(1003): 1006.
11. ETTINGER, M. B. 1960. A proposed toxicity screening procedure for use in
the water works. Processed, Taft Eng. Center. U.S. Publ. Health Serv.
Cincinnati, Ohio.
12. GEORGE, JOHN L. 1959. Effects on fish and wildlife of chemical treatment
of large areas. Jour, of Forestry 57(4): 250-254.
13. GLADING, BEN. 1960. Personal communication.
14. GRAHAM, RICHARD J. 1960. Effects of forest insect spraying on trout and
aquatic insects in some Montana streams. Trans, of the 1959 Seminar,
Tech. Report W60-3, U.S.P.H.S. pp. 62-65. Taft Sanitary Eng. Center,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
15. HANSON, WM. R. 1952. Effects of some herbicides and insecticides on
biota of North Dakota marshes. Jour. Wildl. Mgt. 16(3): 299-308.
16. HENDERSON, C., Q. H. PECKERING and C. M. TARZWELL. 1959. Relative
toxicity of ten chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides to four species of fish.
Trans. Am. Fishery Soc. 88: 23-32.
17. HICKEY, Jos. J. and L. B. HUNT. 1960. Initial songbird mortality following
a dutch elm disease control program. Jour. Wildl. Mgt. 24(3): 259-265.
18. HUNT, E. G. and A. I. BISCHOFF. 1960. Inimical effects on wildlife of
periodic DDD applications to Clear Lake. Calif. Fish & Game 46(1):
91-106.
19. IDE, E. P. 1956. Effect of forest spraying with DDT on aquatic insects of
salmon streams. Trans. Am. Fisheries Soc. 86: 208-219.
20. KEENLEYSIDE, MILES H. A. 1959. Effects of spruce budworm control on
salmon and other fishes in New Brunswick. The Canadian Fish Culturist.
Issue 24, Feb.
21. KERSWILL, C. J. 1958. Effects of DDT spraying in New Brunswick on
future runs of adult salmon. The Atlantic Advocate 48(8): 65-68.
22. KERSWILL, C. J. and P. F. ELSON. 1955. Preliminary observations on
effects of 1954 DDT spraying on Miramichi salmon stocks. Progress
Report of the Atlantic Coast Station of the Fisheries Research Board of
Canada. Issue No. 62, pp. 17-24, July.
234
-------
23. KERSWILL, C. J., P. F. ELSON, M. H. A. KEENLEYSIDB and J. B. SPBAOIUE.
1960. Effects on young salmon of forest spraying with DDT. Trans.
1959 Seminar, page 71, U.S.P.H.S. No. W60-3. Taft Sanitary Eng.
Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
24. MIDDLETON, P. M. and JAMES L. LICHTENBEBO. 1960. Measurements of
organic contaminants in the nation's rivers. Industrial & Eng. Chem.
52: 99A-102A.
25. NICHOLSON, H. PAGE. 1959. Insecticides—agricultural usage in the
Southeastern States. Processed and personal communication,
26. . 1959. Insecticide pollution of water resources. Jour. Am. Water
Works Assn. 51(8): 981-986.
27. RUDD, R. L. and R. E. GENELLY. 1956. Pesticides: their use and toxicity
in relation to wildlife. Calif. Div. of Fish & Game, Game Bulletin 7, 209 pp.
28. SHEPABD, HAKOLD H., JOHN N. MAHAN and CHABLOTTE A. GBAHAM. 1959.
The pesticide situation for 1958-59. U.S.D.A. Commodity Stabilization
Serv., Washington, D.C.
29. TARZWELL, CLAEENCE M. 1958. The toxicity of some organic insecticides
to fishes. Proceedings of the Twelfth Conference of the Southeastern
Assn. of Game & Fish Comm., Columbia, S.C. Contrib. No. 116, pp.
223-239.
30. TAKZWBLL, C. M. 1960. Pollution effects of organic insecticides. Trans.,
24 the No. Am. Wildlife Conference, pp. 132-142. Washington, D.C.
31. TABZWELL, C. M. and B. B. BEBGER. 1960. Pesticides in our public
waters. (Manuscript yet unpublished.)
32. WALTON, GBAHAM. 1959. Public health aspects of the contamination of
ground water in South Platte River Basin in vicinity of Henderson,
Colorado. August. Processed. 27pp. U.S.P.H.S. Taft Sanitary Eng.
Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
33. WALTON, GBAHAM. 1960. Unpublished notes, personal communication.
34. . 1960. Chemical indicators of sewage contamination of ground
water. Processed. 24 pp. U.S.P.H.S., Taft Sanitary Eng. Center,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
35. WARNEB, KENDALL and OWEN C. FENDERSON. 1960. Effects of forest
insect spraying on Northern Maine Trout Streams. Processed, 29 pp.
Maine Dept. of Inland Fisheries & Game. Augusta, Maine.
36. WEBB, F. E. 1959. Aerial chemical control of forest insects with reference
to the Canadian situation. The Canadian Fish Culturist No. 24, February,
14pp.
37. . 1960. Aerial forest spraying in Canada in relation to effects on
aquatic life. Trans, of the 1959 Seminar in water pollution, pp. 66-70.
Tech. Report W60-3, U.S.P.H.S. Taft Sanitary Eng. Center, Cincinnati,
Ohio.
38. WOODWARD, RICHABD L. 1960. Pesticides and water supplies. Processed
address. U.S. Publ. Health Serv., Taft Sanitary Eng. Center, Cincinnati,
Ohio.
39. WRIGHT, BBUCE S. 1960. Woodcock reproduction in DDT sprayed areas
of New Brunswick. Jour. Wildl. Mgt. 24(4): 419-420.
40. YOUNG, L. A. and H. P. NICHOLSON. 1951. Stream pollution resulting
from the use of organic insecticides. The Progressive Fish Culturist
13 (4): 193-198.
Dr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, Dr. Cottam, for a most interesting
array of facts, and for your conclusions.
I would just like to add one word of my own to that, and that is we
should not only be concerned about the effects of these new chemicals
235
-------
that have been so useful to us economically and will continue to be
so—we should not only be concerned about them for then* effect on
fish and wildlife and their continued existence in the streams and land
associated with streams—but I think we should commence to be just
a little more concerned, possibly a bit worried, about what this means
for other forms of life, including ourselves.
There are beginning now some interesting studies among those who
are interested in pure research, in biochemistry, in what they call
comparative biochemistry. And they are finding that there are some
surprising similarities in the biochemical processes among all forms of
life, at least those that have been studied thus far. This to me would
indicate that there are reasons, at least biochemically, why we should
think about the things that Dr. Cottam has discussed.
DISCUSSION
DR. L. A. DEAN
Research Investigations Leader
Soil and Water Conservation Research Division
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
At the outset, I wish to emphasize the importance of the role of
chemicals in our modern agriculture. Perhaps, it is hard for one not
closely associated with agriculture today to realize how utterly de-
pendent we are on chemicals. These chemicals are essential for the
efficient production and quality of the very foods we consume. Our
consumers today demand a high quality of wholesome farm products.
In fact, you and I have only two choices. To accept the use of
chemicals or eat wormy apples.
The purpose of chemicals in agriculture can be divided into three
classes:
(1) Chemicals are used to control insects, diseases, weeds, and other
pests. (2) Chemicals are applied to soils, to plants, and added to
livestock feed to control growth. (3) Chemicals are used in the proc-
essing and marketing of agriculture produce to retard spoilage and
maintain food of fresh quality and attractiveness.
The public, in accepting the use of chemicals in agriculture on one
hand, does not, on the other hand tolerate food which is not safe and
has every right to demand assurances that their food is free from the
harmful effects of any chemical which is used in agriculture. This
restriction applies equally well to water supplies. As of today, our
record of safety is excellent.
236
-------
Dr. Cottam's paper has emphasized insecticides. The size of the
total production of these chemicals has been cited as a criterion of
probable water pollution hazard. These same statistics also serve to
emphasize the importance of insecticides. Insects are man's greatest
competitor for the food he eats. Our very survival involves the
successful control of insects. Nevertheless, there is no reason to
minimize the potential hazard of any chemical. There is always a
calculated risk that must be evaluated. Agriculture has a definite
responsibility in the safe use of chemicals.
In order to orient our perspective regarding the risk of chemicals in
agriculture, let us consider an acre of farm land in the lower Mississippi
Valley where the use of insecticides is important. The first acre-foot
of this soil will weigh 4 million pounds and when moist it will also
contain 30,000 gallons of water. This mass is available for dilution
and entrapment of the insecticides, the average dilution ratio being
in excess of a millionfold. Chemical, physical, and biological reactions
in the soil oxidize, fix or, otherwise destroy most insecticides. The
time required varies from a few hours to days. The soil is not an
inactive mass. In fact, only a few organic chemicals are stable in this
environment.
Most insecticides are highly insoluble in water, and the amounts
that will become associated with the rainfall are exceedingly small.
The second requirement for pollution to be affected by this vector is
that the rainfall on crop lands recharges surface or ground water.
Average estimates of the water runoff from the surface of cropland
in the lower Mississippi Valley approximate 100,000 gallons per acre
per year. Good soil and water conservation practices will reduce this
figure even lower. During the summer and fall the amounts of water
percolating through the soils is negligible. During these months all
of the rainfall which is absorbed by the soil returns to the atmosphere
by the process of evapo-transpiration. The average rate of loss is
6,000 gallons per acre per day or 0.2 of an inch. Thus, ample time
is provided for the inactivation of insecticides by the soil. Leaching
experiments have shown that a wide variety of modern organic insec-
ticides do not leach through soils. There does not seem to be any
analogy between the pollution of shallow well water with water
soluble detergents from household or other use and the case where
insecticides are applied to crops and soils.
Regrettably, there have been isolated instances where chemicals
used in the control of insects have temporarily contaminated the
habitats resulting in the destruction of limited quantities of wildlife
such as fish. The significance of such instances has been a matter
of controversy in the past. However, a review of the information
at hand strongly radicates that there has been no lasting damage.
237
-------
In this regard, a specific example might be cited. In 1957, 14
plaintiffs from Long Island sought to restrain the Secretary of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture and the State Commissioner of
Agriculture and Markets from committing trespasses upon their
lands by means of low-flying planes and spraying their lands to erad-
icate the gypsy moth with DDT. At this trial about 50 witnesses
testified over a period of almost a month. In the over-all, the decision
was in the favor of the defendants. Judge Bruchhausen stated the
following: "The plaintiffs have not sustained their claim that spraying
causes any considerable loss of birds, fish, bees, and insects. Only a
few fish and birds were killed in the subject area. Furthermore,
evidence of spraying programs throughout the country demonstrates
that the fish, bird, and bee loss has been inconsequential. While
there is no evidence of damage to bees and aquatic insects in the
subject area, experts and others from various sections of the country
established that the defections are made up by repopulation in a
short space of time."
The continued efficient and safe use of chemicals in agriculture is in
the national interest. Important future developments through re-
search are proposed. New research can help in two ways. First, we
can develop new chemicals and methods of use which will be beyond
suspicion on the grounds of safety. Second, we can develop nonchem-
ical methods for doing the same job that we are now doing with
chemicals. This necessary progress through research has been
recognized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In April 1960, a
symposium on The Nature and Fate of Chemicals Applied to Soils,
Plants and Animals was held by the Agricultural Research Services.
At this 3-day meeting, symposium speakers discussed new develop-
ment in research dealing with agricultural chemicals and the responsi-
bilities of Federal agencies and industry in assuring the safety of
chemicals used in agriculture. A report of this symposium was
published in September I960.1 This report emphasized the role of
research.
PANEL II
General Discussion
Mr. LAWRENCE. I am going to ask Dr. Cottam if he would care
to comment on Dr. Dean's paper.
1 "The Nature and Fate of Chemicals Applied to Soils, Plants, and Animals".
ARS 20-9, September 1960, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington 25, D.C.
238
-------
Dr. COTTAM. I did not expect this, and therefore I made no notes,
but I have a few impressions.
I would say by and large I would agree with his conclusions. There
may be a slight difference in degree of our conception of the place and
role of pesticides. I think we are both in full agreement on a good
many points, and one is the necessity for research. I think we both
equally recognize the need for that, and both equally recognize that
pesticides are here to stay and that chemicals are here to stay.
That does not mean, however, that we should always retain all of
the same chemicals and present formulations now in use. Some, I hope,
will be replaced after a period of time. In the last 5 years, there has
been a growing trend, and it has been a definite trend, from the more
specific to the more broad spectrum type of poison, and, still more,
from one of relatively low toxicity to one of greater toxicity. Un-
fortunately, many of these are very stable and very toxic compounds.
That is the type of thing I think is dangerous and undesirable.
When he says, for example, that there are no startling cases that
have developed, I would say he may be correct. We have not died
yet, but I think the intelligent approach is to take a look at the future.
For example, go to your records and see what the incidence of cancer
is today compared to what it was in 1914. The rate of lung cancer, I
believe, has increased over 4,000 percent in that period of time, and I
doubt that all of this increase is due to the use of tobacco. Some of
you birds were smoking tobacco before then. All I want to say is
that some of these other things may be factors, and I suggest the
safe approach is to take the conservative side when there are two
possible approaches to take, because if you die once, that is the end
of it as far as I have been able to find out.
And I think we are running an unnecessary risk when we just
blithely go ahead and use these things because we have not died yet.
It is true that we don't have all the proof of these things yet. There
are proofs that are needed without any question. We need to stress
the research aspects of this, I think, much more than we have in the
past. We have been proceeding with scant knowledge as to the side-
effects or the long-term effects.
For example, may I point out just a few things in agriculture (I was
born and raised on the farm, yet I am not a professional agriculturist).
The chemical that may have been used in infinitesimal amounts may
result in very profound effects years and years later. Your car-
cinogens—some of you may remember that a year ago last Thanks-
giving there was a little scare concerning the cranberry episode—•
but let me give you the story of Aramite as an illustration.
Aramite was an important and very effective pesticide that has been
used on vegetables and on various crops, fruit and vegetable crops
primarily. As I remember the record when it first came out, about
four years ago the Food and Drug Administration did not have very
239
-------
good reason for excluding it, so they permitted it on a three-parts-per-
million tolerance level. As I recall, the next year after some testing
they reduced the tolerance to two parts per million. After they
had done a little more testing the next year they further reduced the
tolerance level to one part per million. And last April, or somewhere
about the beginning of the year, the Food and Drug Administration
insisted on a zero tolerance of Aramite. This was done for the very
simple reason that nearly all the test rats and dogs, and possibly
maybe monkeys, developed cancer. They found that Aramite was a
serious carcinogen. The word "carcinogen" in common Irish means
it stimulates the growth of cancer.
I think the facts are crystal clear that there has been a rapid rise
of cancer in the United States in the last 15 years. It is not at all
impossible that the excessive use of pesticides may be a factor in this
increase. Some thoroughly reliable medical research men feel that
it is.
Some of you people may have a son or daughter or wife succumb,
or you yourself may some day. Because of these risks why shouldn't
we take a conservative view of this, rather than jump in head first?
All I am urging is caution and sanity and maturity of judgment,
recognizing the various possibilities of this thing.
We don't need to get scared about it, but we do need to use ma-
turity of judgment in the use of these things. And that suggests one
thing we haven't done too well yet, and that is to precede our big
eradication programs with adequate and sound research programs
so that we know what we are doing. We haven't done that yet
in some cases. I can name you one or two if someone wants to
challenge me.
Mr. LAWRENCE. This a question directed to Dr. Cottam and the
questioner would like to make a statement. It is Dr. Abe Eldib of
the Esso Research and Engineering Co. I should like to read the
question and then ask Dr. Eldib to step to the microphone and make
a statement, and ask Dr. Cottam to comment: "Scientists can think
of ways to prove pesticides, but in order to do effective research we
must first determine the manifestation of pollutants on life and
health."
Will you comment, Dr. Eldib. You have 3 minutes.
Dr. ELDIB. I won't take that long.
It seems that in the last hour the mam word we heard has been
"research." I would like to bring up two points in connection with
this matter. First, in connection with Dr. Cottam's suggestion about
ways by which we can handle the problem of pesticides. He said that
we might be able to alter them while they are being manufactured, so
that they would not be harmful.
There is a great deal of effort already being made by the industry in
trying to alter the composition of the chemicals so that they would
240
-------
have no possible harmful effects after they are discharged into the
water.
A second point, however, which is to my mind equally important, or
perhaps more important, is the following: We, as scientists, can think
of many ways to remove these pesticides from the water. But each
group of pesticides may have to be removed by a specific method.
In other words, there may not be a universal method to remove all of
them.
There is a limited amount of brains, or quality of brains that can
solve these problems. Where should we start? We really don't
know. Should we remove the detergents? Should we remove the
pesticides? Should we remove the DDT? Should we remove this or
that?
Therefore, it seems to me that the first step is to pin down what are
the toxic effects of these pollutants one at a time, or perhaps a class at
a time. And I think once this is established, the chemists and engi-
neers from their knowledge of different phases of science can pinpoint
methods that are suited for the removal of each particular type of
impurity. If research is going to be done, I think the health manifesta-
tions of these pollutants should be established as quickly as possible.
I brought this point up this morning, and they told me that research
on pollutants' manifestations on health and life should be done con-
currently with research on removal of pollutants. That is, both
avenues should be investigated at the same time.
I want the opinion of Dr. Cottam about the following: Isn't re-
search on manifestations of pollutants the most important thing
to start with, so that we can spend our time and money effectively
solving the problem?
Dr. COTTAM. I want to commend the gentleman for his splendid
point of view. I heard him in the other room on a similar discussion,
and I very much appreciate his general point of view on this thing.
I think his stand is well taken that we should pinpoint these things
that are in greatest need.
Now, it seems to me there are a number of things that are needed.
One is I think that ultimately industry itself that manufactures these
chemical pesticides, and particularly these major ones or more toxic
and broad spectrum ones with which we are most concerned, such as
Endrin, must resolve the problem pertaining to their own toxicants.
I feel the company itself should find means of removing that pollutant
or preventing it from getting back into our water supplies and espe-
cially the underground water. Suppose that instead of a small area of
60 square miles, as I referred to in my paper, you had an aquifer of
600 square miles. If you once pollute that, Lord help you, you're
polluted from then on out.
It seems to me we have a number of places to start. These poisons
we know are being dumped into streams inadvertently, of course, but
241
-------
Hell is paved with good intentions. Nobody wants to kill anybody
else, but these poisons are going into the streams and into the water
supplies and it seems to me these chlorinated hydrocarbons that are
relatively stable compounds are dangerous to use indiscriminately.
And we ought to have means of removing them.
Dr. ELDIB. Do we have documentary evidence that these things
are really toxic?
Dr. COTTAM. Yes. There is a lot of it. The evidence is as clear
as the sunshine. Yes, there's a lot of evidence to that effect.
Now, the interpretation of all that evidence—you'd find some of us
differing slightly in the interpretation, but there is evidence. And I
think even the extremist on the opposite side from me would admit
that there is a lot of evidence.
Mr. LAWRENCE. This question is for Dr. Dean and was asked by
Mr. Roland C. Clement of the National Audubon Society: "In view
of the fact that the late Dr. Carr of the University of Chicago said
many years ago that it would be better to eat the worm in the
apple than the pesticides being put on apples, would you tell us
who made the review showing negligible damage to living forms,
and when and where this will be published?"
Dr. DEAN. Regarding the view on negligible damage, there are
several reviews already published in the literature suggesting this con-
clusion. I do not have them with me now.
Now regarding the worm in the apple, I think the average apple
consumer has made his choice. He does not want worms in his apples.
Mr. LAWRENCE. This question is for Dr. Dean and was asked by
Mr. Charles P. Beazley of State College of Pennsylvania: "Is there any
joint committee, including Agriculture, to test pesticides and ap-
prove the use of the nontoxic types offish, oysters, and wildlife?
Twenty years ago we had no pesticides and we managed to live.
Why so many pesticides now?"
Dr. DEAN. I will only comment on the part dealing with "Why so
many pesticides now?" With the present economic and social back-
ground farming industry, crop protection through the use of chemicals
is essential to our farming industry. This has been one of the means
developed to aid the economic survival of the farmer.
Mr. LAWRENCE. This question was asked by Mr. Louis S. Clap-
per of the National Wildlife Federation and is addressed to Dr. Dean:
"If adequate testing is accomplished prior to field use, why is the
U.S. Department of Agriculture lowering its application rate of
Heptachlor from the former 2 pounds per acre to ^/zpoundper acre
in the fire-ant program?"
Dr. DEAN. I will acknowledge that I have heard of the fire-ant
program and of the fact that it has been subjected to criticism.
242
-------
Also, it is true that several years ago the rates of application were
higher than those current.
Dr. COTTAM. I didn't get the full import of that question. Did
the gentleman ask: "Is there any joint committee, including Agri-
culture and wildlife, to study the problem"?
Yes, on paper there is. And I say it is on paper and it doesn't
go much further than that. That is mainly the problem that I think
is the weak link in this thing.
In this criticism of Agriculture I do not mean to disparage my
friends in that great Department; I used to be in Agriculture. For
25 years I was a bureaucrat and know something of their problems.
My point is that I do not believe that the control arm of Agriculture
should have the right to decree that wildlife is so unimportant that
it can be sacrificed or how much can be and when. Agriculture has
been doing just that. It has proceeded with little regard to State,
Federal, or independent wildlife people. It seems to me the wildlife
people should not tell the agriculturist when he is not going to spray,
either.
I think there is need of a declaration of national policy on that
thing. That question strikes right at the heart of the problem and
that has caused the major conflict in the past between agriculture
and wildlife interests. Having been in the Fish and Wildlife Service
for 25 years, I know something of this problem. Despite comments
to the contrary there has been friction between this self-appointed
"right" of Agriculture's control division (ARS) and Interior's Bureau
of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.
Do not forget that there is much economic value in wildlife; it is
tremendous. I am unalterably opposed to Agriculture's A.K.S. con-
trol group or any other group of special interest having the authority
to decree when and how much of the wildlife resource shall be sacri-
ficed. Even on particular projects where I agree that control is
necessary, I am still opposed to that principle of approach. There
is need of a declaration of policy by the Congress.
Mr. LAWRENCE. Francis Silver, who is an environmental con-
sultant, would like to read three unpublished case histories regarding
health effects on humans, and make a statement.
Mr. SILVER. These case histories were sent to me in a letter from
Dr. Francis M. Pottenger, Jr., of Monrovia, Calif. I wrote to him
of my own experiences with pesticides used inside buildings. It has
reached a point where I feel it is almost a form of low-grade chemical
warfare against our population.
I quote from Dr. Pottenger's letter:
DEAB MB. SILVEB:
I have been very much interested in the problem of insecticides, particularly
the use of of chlordane in buildings, and have treated several patients who have
243
-------
had serious complications resulting from such poisoning. In fact, the highest
titer that I have found in bodily fat came from a woman exposed to chlordane
following termite proofing of her house. She had about 700 p.p.m chlordane
following acute exposure. Her chief symptomatology was headache, vertigo,
nausea, followed by a pneumonitis and a prolonged period of extreme exhaustion
and mild disturbance in equilibrium lasting for a period of 3 to 4 years. She has
gradually recovered.
I have not published these reports as I should. Other cases that I have dealt
with included a woman who ran an antique shop who continuously sprayed hej
premises with all of the recommended pesticides including DDT, chlordane, and
others. She had a very strange type of asthma but did not respond to any of the
normal treatment. Atropine was the mainstay in her treatment. She decided to.
pass on her good fortune to others and got out of the antique business. Her
recovery, likewise, was slow, but not as slow as the previous patient, nor was her
titer so high.
A woman working in a florist shop had been exposed to all kinds of cut flowers
which, as you all know, are sprayed with many pesticides including the organic
phosphates as well. She had not only a peculiar pulmonary problem but was
extremely nervous and exhausted. She has not had time to recover. Nearly
all of the patients I have treated and proved by fat biopsy have been more nervous
and irritable (unreasonable) than the average individual. Most have been diag-
nosed as malingerers, psychopaths, neurotics, and considered to be mentally ill.
I want to comment that chronic poisoning resembles aging, that it is
not easy to distinguish these things. So it must be looked for and will
not come up and strike one in the face. It mimics other forms of
illness.
Mr. LAWRENCE. This question was aked by H. Wayne Pritchard
of the Soil Conservation Society of America: "What do munici-
palities need to know about Public Law 566, this being the Small
Watershed Law, in their efforts to reduce silt pollution from reach-
ing their water supplies? Is there opportunity for municipalities
to make use of this law?"
Mr. ZIMMERMAN. The law to which he refers is the Watershed
Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, which provides cost
sharing by the Federal Government with local communities and local
sponsors in behalf of watershed protection, which includes the
conservation of soil and water and flood prevention work on limited
size watersheds.
If I understand the question correctly, it bears upon the use to which
this type of legislation and cost sharing may be put by municipalities.
I would say that any municipality interested in a watershed within
the restrictions imposed by the legislation could take advantage of the
program, participate in it, and reap certain benefits, particularly in the
area in which we have been talking here.
In other words, to the extent that work on the land or the con-
tributing watershed—to the extent that that land may be tied down,
the silt and the damaging type of run-off may be halted. A munici-
pality would certainly benefit, and benefit in a very appreciable way.
244
-------
Increasingly, municipalities are taking advantage of this legislation,
this type of program, which originally seemed to have been a strictly
agricultural program. It increasingly becomes a combination farm-
and city-type program. I believe the prospects are that as time goes
on, cities and municipalities will make as much or more use of the
watershed act as agricultural interests.
Mr. LAWRENCE. This question is directed to Mr. Zimmerman
and was asked by Mr. G. O. Fortney of the West Virginia State Health
Department: "Does the Soil Conservation Service enter into prob-
lems where streams are polluted by dissolved chemicals such as
acid mine drainage from natural conditions"?
Mr. ZIMMERMAN. Soil Conservation Service of the Department
of Agriculture would normally not get into that kind of an operation.
The Service is made up of a corps of conservation technicians encom-
passing agronomy, engineering, and a few other fields. The services
of these technicians would be available to the mine operators and the
like, but it would be a specialized operation on their part, rather an
extraordinary one, probably.
Mr. LAWRENCE. This is a question from William Spalding of the
National Steel Corporation addressed to Mr. Powers which Mr. Cun-
ningham may wish to comment on: "To obtain the fullest beneficial
usage of our streams effective regulatory bodies have adopted the
practice that the discharge into a stream shall be governed by the
assimilative capacity as measured at the point of use. What is
your thinking on this"?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I believe the discharge of waste up to the
assimilative capacity of a stream is probably the last resort. I firmly
believe that the control should be at the point of discharge.
Mr. LAWRENCE. This is another question which I will now ad-
dress to Mr. Cunningham. This is from John Meehan of the Chamber
of Commerce of the United States: "What are your thoughts on
implementing your suggestions about water user organizations
in each watershed, and so forth"?
Part two of this question is: "What agency or agencies should
take the lead in this effort"?
This obviously is directed specifically to Mr. Powers' comment, and
you may or may not care to answer this one.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would assume that the first question refers
to the suggestion Mr. Powers made, such as water-use organizations
in each watershed, and so forth. Basically, that is one of the best con-
trols we have; water-use organizations on the alert, working with the
enforcement organizations, the research organizations, and those who
245
-------
are collecting data to bring about effective treatment which we have
been talking about here today.
The second question is: "What agency or agencies should take the
lead in this effort"?
In my opinion, the joint effort of Federal, State, and local agencies
make a most effective team. We need the continued leadership of
the Public Health Service.
Mr. LAWRENCE. This question is addressed to Mr. Cunningham,
although I think he may have answered it a moment ago. It is from
Grant A. Pettit of the Armco Steel Corp.: "Since the value of water
is governed by its quality at the point of actual use, is there any
reason why this principle should not be adopted as the basis for
effective pollution control? Is it not a proper function for those
affected, together with local or regional authorities, to determine
the beneficial uses in the overall public interest"?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, I believe that the basic approach is
that the control should be at the point of use and discharge.
Mr. LAWRENCE. This question is directed to Dr. Cottam and
was asked by Ann C. Free, North American Newspaper Alliance:
"If you have evidence of toxicity of certain hydrocarbons, do we
need more research? Should research then be on removal from
water of organic chemicals and greater development of biological
controls"?
Dr. COTTAM. It seems to me our first approach should be to use
controls. All of us are in favor of controls. We should use those
controls that would carry out the objective without doing damage to
other organisms. Just bear this in mind, that no controls would be
used if they were not toxic to something—otherwise, why use them?
Therefore, you will have to go on the assumption that these hydro-
carbons are toxic to something or they would not be used.
So the first bit of research that is needed, in my opinion, is to learn
the degree of their toxicity, not only to that particular organism, and
the chemical manufacturer has to be assured of that or he doesn't sell
his product.
Then the next step is: What effect does that have on other or-
ganisms affected by that application, if I follow your question cor-
rectly. I think we need to know that, because for some of these
poisons there may be no substitute in some cases, and if there isn't
a substitute we had better get along with the absolute necessity of
control where we have to have control. So I think we just can't
write them off when we find they are poisonous. They are poisonous
or they wouldn't be used. It seems to me we must find out how to
eliminate that poison—let it do its job and then eliminate it.
246
-------
PANEL III
Tuesday, December 13
Keeping Water Clean
Responsibilities of Government,
Industry, and the Public
Chairman
DR. ABEL WOLMAN
Professor of Sanitary Engineering, Johns
Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.
Co-Chairman
MILTON P. ADAMS
Executive Secretary, Michigan State
Water Resources Commission,
Lansing, Mich.
Public Health Service
Resource Personnel
J. T. BARNHILL
J. J. PLANNER Y
D. H. HOWELLS
MURRAY STEIN
Morning Session
Dr. Abel Wolman, Presiding
The purpose of a national conference on any subject presumably
would be to disclose in some detail the nature of the problem, to
define responsibility for past failure, to propose future solutions, to
allocate fiscal resources, and to orient society toward sound objectives
within the framework of law. These five purposes are to be partly
crystalized through the efforts of those participating today in Panel III.
They may be approached by massive breast beating and exhortation
by various professional cultists, by perfectionists, and by opportunists.
They may be exhaustively concealed by the magic of complex technical
and scientific phraseology. Or the panel participants may soberly
try to answer complex questions at least in simple terminology, so
that a President, Congress, and the public may leave the session
reasonably aware of problem and potentially at least of proposed
answers.
583283—61-
-17
247
-------
To accomplish this sober purpose, it would appear that speakers
would try to steer a middle ground between damning the public,
industry, the government, and searching for simple devices to lead us
rapidly to the millennium. Panel III is confronted with a series of
questions—all making up a basis for the overriding question as to
why our society is slow in correcting the disabilities created by its
own wastes.
Some of these questions are here posed, solely for the purpose of
crystallizing views directed toward strengthening the results and
accomplishments of the conference. Too often, professionals do
better in diagnosing the ills of society than in offering cures. Perhaps
a few questions may focus attention as much upon therapy as upon
diagnosis.
Question 1: The central theme of our Panel is "Keeping Water
Clean." A thoughtful observer may^very well ask, How clean, and for
what purpose? Some consideration must be given to the fact that
"clean" is a relative and not an absolute term. In our highly urban-
ized and industrialized country, the purpose for which we manage our
wastes should at least be defined.
The natural waters, underground and surface, show little variations
in their constituents due to nature alone. The Panel might, if it
saw fit, confine itself to man-made contamination.
Question 2: Who is to do what? Any answer to this question at
once places us in the exciting arena of public versus private effort,
and of local, State, and Federal responsibility. The easy route of
relieving the man on the street of any worry by transferring all re-
sponsibility to Washington is one being sedulously explored by the
advocates of all of the other "unmet needs" of our world.
The transfer of our problem to the ever-growing competitive area
of national responsibility may turn out to be a will-of-the-wisp solu-
tion. At any rate, the easy road to cure needs realistic assessment.
Question 3: How does one create a militant, public conscience,
without which no cure is likely to work. Abraham Lincoln once
pertinently said: "public sentiment is everything. With public sen-
timent nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed. Conse-
quently he who molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who
enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and
decisions possible or impossible of execution."
We must indeed face the fact that the public often, but not always,
is just not interested. Can we determine here today why he is less
than inspired?
Question 4: How do we pay for what we think needs to be done?
The search for painless methods of extracting money from recalcitrant
people for beneficent public purposes is as old as man himself. This
248
-------
has always been the domain of competition between private and
public spending and between our needs as we spell them out this
week and the other needs as dramatically presented in the confer-
ences fo follow.
The answer to this question then is a challenge to our imagination
and ingenuity. It is not probable that it will be well answered if it
rests upon the recurring assumption that our people cannot afford
ihe cost. The continuing emphasis on the bankruptcy of local
government is not quite consistent with the continuing expenditure
by our people of billions of dollars annually on the auto, the cosmetic,
*and the other excitements of daily living so characteristic of our
country. These latter are hardly the marks of a poverty-stricken
population.
Will Panel III in fact disclose realistically the data as to the ability
to pay of local, regional, and State governments? Or will it again
take the escapist view that local sources have been exhausted. After
all, it is these same sources and only these that nourish the coffers of
the National Government.
In essence, the Panel could suggest ways of strengthening the fiscal
capacity of local public bodies. It would be valuable indeed if the
Public Health Service experience over the last few years would in
itself shed light on the number and size of communities delinquent
because of fiscal inadequacy or because of public apathy.
Question 5: Are the inadequacies of law, in themselves, reflections
of public opinion, responsible for laggard action? History shows
that sometimes leaders have led people into sound civic action with-
out the force of law. Does uniformity of statute assure greater
progress, more cooperative effort, and more rapid correction?
249
-------
The Needs and Obligations
of Federal Agencies
ROBERT A. FORSYTHE
Assistant Secretary for Legislation
Department of Health) Education, and Welfare
I. Introduction
My purpose in this paper is to consider our national policy and
programs for water pollution control and to analyze future needs from
the standpoint of those policies and programs as we seek the common
goal of clean water. I shall to some extent, though not entirely,
borrow from our present national policy and programs as enunciated
in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. In doing so, I shall
touch in some measure on the areas of concern of each of the other
speakers on this and the other panels. One cannot formulate and
discuss the Federal role in keeping water clean in isolation from the
roles of interstate, State, and municipal agencies; private industries
and the general public; and without reference to scientific, engineering,
sociological, economic, legal, and political considerations.
So that we may establish a basis for our discussion, it is important
to set forth the limits of what is encompassed by the term "water
pollution."
Water in its natural state is never 100 percent pure. Rain and
other forms of precipitation fall on the earth, bearing impurities
absorbed from the atmosphere. Water on and under the earth's
surface is subject to further adulteration from contact with its environ-
ment including contact with the activities of man. Water pollution
as considered in this paper refers only to the impurities in water on
and under the earth which result from man's activities. Among
these are man-caused pollution of the atmosphere, mining and proc-
250
-------
essing of minerals including radioactive ores, disposal of domestic
(sanitary sewage) and industrial wastes, livestock watering, agricul-
tural irrigation and drainage, and drainage of surface waters in
municipalities. It also includes significant temperature change in
water as discharged following use. Water impurities resulting from
conditions occurring in nature without human intervention are
outside the scope of the term "water pollution" as used in this paper,
II. Basis for a National Policy on Water Pollution Control
A vital and broad national interest in water pollution control has
been recognized and a national policy has been formulated through
action by the Congress and the executive branch of the Federal
Government.
It may be useful, however, to consider for a few moments the
reasons which underlie the national policy and interest.
The most obvious reasons lie in the following facts: (1) the Nation's
fresh water supply, determined by precipitation, evaporation and
transpiration, runoff, and regulation through impoundments and
other practices, is relatively fixed in amount; (2) our water supply is
distributed unevenly both geographically and seasonally; (3) the
overwhelming proportion of our surface and ground water sources are
multistate in character; that is, they are located in more than one
State; (4) the overwhelming majority of water use in the United
States consists of reusing water which has theretofore been used in
another State; (5) water pollution has a number of seriously adverse
effects including the following: it decreases the usable supply of water
for many purposes to the point of actually making impossible some
uses; it increases the cost of using water for many purposes; it creates
a bias in favor of present, versus potential future, uses of water; it
creates hazards to public health; it tends to lower riparian property
values; it tends to decrease the development potential, for agricul-
tural, industrial, residential, recreational, and other uses, of large
areas of land; it changes the physical characteristics of lakes, rivers,
and other water bodies to the point of interfering with navigation.
The origin of Federal policy on water pollution control reflected
concern for the fostering and protection of navigation. The first
specific Federal water pollution control legislation was enacted in
1899 solely for preventing impediments to navigation. Sanction for
such exercise of Federal power resides in the so-called "commerce
clause," Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, of the U.S. Constitution, which
provides that "The Congress shall have Power * * * To regulate
Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and
with the Indian Tribes." This clause has been interpreted to give
Federal jurisdiction over all navigable waters of the United States,
including coastal waters.
251
-------
The next chapters of Federal policy development on water pollution
reflect concern for the prevention of disease and certain economic
values. The Public Health Service Act of 1912 contained provisions
authorizing investigations of water pollution related to disease. The
Oil Pollution Act of 1924 was directed to control oil discharges in
coastal waters causing damage to aquatic life, harbors and docks, and
recreational facilities. Sanction for the earlier of these enactments
exists in the so-called "general welfare" clause, Article I, Section 8,
Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that "The Congress
shall have power to lay and collect Taxes * * * to * * * provide
for the * * * general Welfare of the United States * * *. " The
concept of the general welfare has been construed broadly enough to
encompass, within this limitation on the taxing power, authority to
tax and spend to provide protection for all the uses of water with
which pollution can interfere.
In addition to the foregoing direct considerations which have con-
ditioned a Federal responsibility for water pollution control, there is
an indirect reason on which to found such responsibility. This lies
in the close association between water pollution control and other
major areas of well-established Federal responsibility which argues
imperatively against leaving water pollution control solely to the
States. These other areas include management of the public domain,
water resource development, public water supply, mineral resource
development, agriculture policy, transportation policy, general in-
dustrial development, navigation (including river and harbor develop-
ment) , electric power development, irrigation, flood control, drainage,
fisheries and migratory waterfowl conservation, outdoor recreation
development, soil and moisture conservation, etc.
III. Some Considerations Affecting the Formulation of National
Water Pollution Control Policy
Having identified the factual basis and constitutional sanctions
for a Federal responsibility in keeping our waters clean, let us turn
to the consideration of a national policy for water pollution control
and the programs and activities to be engaged in to make such a
policy effective. To do so we must consider in somewhat sharper
focus the nature and origin of the problem of water pollution which
is, of course, only a part of the broader problem of water resources.
A detailed review of the water resources problem of the United
States from now on is beyond the scope of this paper. There are
available in many sources ample factual information, forecasts, and
analyses which serve well to show that water has become one of our
chief natural resource problems. In summary, we may say that our
problem as a Nation is that of making the relatively fixed supply of
water meet a rapidly increasing demand by providing the right
252
-------
quantity of water of the right quality when and where it is needed.
As time goes on, the element of quality control is going to be
crucial in achieving this objective. It has already become so in many
particular areas.
Today it is commonplace to observe that the pollution of the
Nation's water resources constitutes an economic and social loss.
The actual extent of these losses, however, are unknown. The social
and economic costs of pollution derive from its adverse effects on the
usefulness of water. All the uses of water are impaired to some
extent by pollution, and some impairments positively prevent certain
• activities. Gross pollution prevents most recreational activity.
The signs posted by health officials warning bathers of the hazards at
particular polluted sites are manifestations of this situation.
Limitations on industrial development because the quality of the
water is too poor for use in certain industrial operations is an example
of unpaired activity due to water pollution. Another example is the
change in aquatic life caused by pollution and its implications for
fishermen. Oftentimes game fish will be displaced by rough scavenger
types under this condition.
Use for water supply for municipal purposes is also frequently
impaired, forcing some communities to use a more distant and there-
fore more costly—and perhaps contested—supply than the one at
their front door.
Agricultural uses, such as stock watering and irrigation, may
also be hampered by pollution. Some navigational handicaps are
incurred through pollution, such as corrosive action of mine drainage
and some industrial chemicals on ships' hulls and navigational
structures.
The adverse effects are not confined to these direct uses of water.
Land uses associated with water are also involved. A conspicuous
instance of this form of impairment is the decline in land values of
residential sites along polluted waterways. The attractiveness of
camping and other outdoor recreational activities is diminished in
proximity to water-polluted areas.
It is evident from the instances cited that the value of water
derives from its many uses and the absence of any reasonable substitute
for most of these uses. The condition or quality of water, moreover,
is an essential feature of its usability. Thus, it is quality as well
as quantity that is necessary for an adequate supply of water. Pol-
lution affects the great versatility of water by lowering its quality,
thus reducing its usability and therefore its value. In this sense,
pollution reduces the supply of water.
The foregoing discussion is intended to give us greater insight
into the social and economic aspects of the problem of water pollution.
Around each water use there are groups of water users ranging from
individuals and corporations in the private realm to municipalities,
253
-------
the community, and the Nation in the public realm. Together, the
groups compose the broad general public, but each component is
affected in a peculiar way, according to the kind of use and the extent
of its impairment by pollution. The total social and economic loss
is composed of the several losses of these varied groups. The groups
are actually innumerable, for they involve the multitude of water
sources of the Nation and vary even according to particular points in
such sources. Therefore, the losses or damages from pollution are
diffused throughout the entire society. Some of the effects are
reflected directly in the payments for the construction, operation, and
maintenance of water treatment facilities. By far the larger share of
the total is not directly accounted for at all, however. The impairment
to health, the loss or diminution of fishing and recreational uses, and
the curtailment of property development are in this category. These
consequences of pollution are not readily expressed in dollar terms.
Nevertheless, such consequences are real and constitute a handicap
to the fulfillment of economic and social goals.
Pollution control measures are designed to alleviate or eliminate
such handicapping consequences. They result, in a very real sense,
in the expansion of the supply of water, for the improvement of
quality permits and facilitates the reuse of water. The reuse
characteristic of water is perhaps its most prominent economic
feature, and the enhancement of this feature is the objective of
pollution control. Quite aside from the positive considerations of
health protection, it is imperative to achieve this enhancement of
usability because it is impossible to provide virginal water for all uses
everywhere. There is just not enough water, without reuse, to meet
the present and future demand situation. The forces creating this
condition are already hard at work and will continue so: (1) a growing
population with its increasing demands on our water resources, and
(2) a growing and ever-maturing industrial technology with its in-
creasing demands on and threats to our water resources.
The economic and social benefits obtained by pollution control
are often not apparent to the public. Some of the benefits are
indirect or intangible; others constitute insurance for future con-
siderations. Generally, the communities which bear the tax burdens
for waste treatment plants do not reap the gains from unproved water
quality. The lack of a demonstrable and direct economic or social
gain to the community making the payments for treatment works
has been a handicap in achieving pollution abatement. Yet, there
are many instances where communities were passed over as locations
for new industrial enterprises because the community did not provide
sewage treatment. This omission therefore has proved to be an
economic and social handicap. Apparently, among the marks of an
acceptable community is the cleanliness of the physical environment
254
-------
and the attitude of the community toward its neighborhood responsi-
bilities. In this context, a polluted water source is a liability.
Though many of the benefits from pollution control are as self-
evident as the one just described, and many of these benefits accrue
also to industry in the form of good quality industrial water, the mone-
tary calculation of these benefits faces similar difficulties as the com-
putation of losses. That is, the dollar measurement problem has not
been solved and a yardstick for actions or events not recorded by
market transactions is lacking. Many of the benefits from pollution
control are in this nonmarket realm; e.g., enhancement of fishing and
Recreational opportunities, protection to health, scenic improvement,
and assurance of the future utility of water resources for various other
purposes. The market system therefore cannot be relied upon
solely or chiefly to identify or measure the benefits obtained by pol-
lution control. New devices for taking into account the social and
economic values will need to be invented. These devices will be
applied to answering such important questions as—
What does water pollution cost a community, a region, or
other areas in losses for all consequences?
What are the specific benefits from alleviation of these losses
and what is their economic worth?
Who will benefit from the abatement of pollution and to what
extent?
How much can be justifiably spent in abating a pollution
situation?
How should the cost of control be apportioned among the mem-
bers of the community, the region, and the Nation?
Answers to such questions are essential for sound formulation of
water pollution control policies and planning of water pollution con-
trol programs. However, answers to such questions based on em-
pirically derived formulations in the fields of public health, resource
conservation, recreational development, or economic development
are likely to elude us for many years to come. Even when measure-
ment obstacles are overcome, we will only have taken a step toward
gaging the dimensions of the problem of water pollution and ac-
quired a perspective for comparing it with other governmental
responsibilities and developed a rationale for allocating the costs of
pollution and pollution control.
While we search for such answers, we must work vigorously for
cleaner water, keeping clearly in mind how closely the water pollu-
tion situation can be judged in the conventional concept of supply and
demand for water. The demand is increasing for a multiplicity of
competing uses with a variety of quality requirements. The supply is
relatively fixed and must be considered in terms of quality as much,
if not more than quantity. Pollution reduces the supply; pollution
control adds to it in terms of usability. Accordingly, the importance
of pollution control is of the first magnitude, for it is the key to ade-
quate water supplies for the future.
255
-------
Most of our present water pollution problems are the result of too
little attention in the past. Many States have not been provided
with the programs and program resources commensurate with their
pollution problems or their historic role of primary responsibility in
dealing with pollution. The Federal Government has dealt with the
problem only in recent years. Some municipalities and industries
have resisted constructing needed waste treatment works, regarding
them as a benefit only to the fellow downstream and as an unnecessary
or unbearable financial burden. The public has been indifferent to
the problem or has been allowed to retain too much of the "water
purifies itself every 7 miles" philosophy. It has been oversold on
the cheapness and plentifulness of water and undersold on the neces-
sity for and value of pollution control. Society has relied on the
stream to do much of the waste treatment job rather than having
tailored treatment to keep the stream as clean as possible.
That we have not taken seriously enough the task of keeping our
waters clean is reflected in the current level of our expenditures to
prevent and control water pollution. We are as a Nation currently
spending approximately $775 million annually from all sources for
this purpose. Approximately $550 million of the total is going into
the construction of waste treatment facilities; another $200 million
is spent for the operation and maintenance of these facilities; about
$20 million is going into other water quality program operations and
regulatory activities; and the balance of less than $5 million goes for
research into water pollution and its control.
The fundamental premise of our national water pollution control
policy must be that as a Nation there is ample justification for very
substantial enlargement of our investment in keeping our waters
clean. Accordingly, it is imperative that we frame the responsibilities
of government at all levels, of industry and of the public, for keeping
water clean within a broad national policy which most efficiently
and thoroughly encompasses the needs, desires, and expectations of
all our citizens regarding the use and enjoyment of our natural water
resources.
IV. Scope of National Water Pollution Control Policy
National policy on water pollution control should be comprehensive
in its scope of coverage of water uses.
Section 2 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act lists five broad
purposes for which natural waters may be used, adverse effects on
which by polluting discharges is sought to be avoided through the
operative provisions of the act. These water use purposes to be
conserved are—
(i) public water supply;
(ii) propagation of fish and aquatic life and wildlife;
(iii) recreation uses;
256
-------
(iv) agricultural uses;
(v) industrial uses.
To these five the draftsmen added a sixth, "other legitimate uses,"
presumably to correct any oversight which might have resulted from
the itemization.
The Act is therefore satisfactory in authorizing the Federal Govern-
ment to act with regard for interference with any and all legitimate
water uses, whatever purpose they may serve.
The same cannot be said for the authority of other levels of govern-
mental responsibility. Not all our States or local communities have
authority for a comprehensive concern for clean water. This situation
should be remedied. All public agencies having responsibility for pre-
vention, abatement, or control of water pollution should be authorized
to exercise their responsibility with reference to all legitimate water
uses.
The foregoing prescription of the scope of governmental concern
about water quality comprehends the proposition that any degradation
of water which can interfere with its legitimate use is contrary to
national policy. Although I believe this policy is implicit in the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act, I regard it as so fundamental that
I recommend the Act be appropriately amended to make this expli-
citly clear. The laws of some of our States are similarly in need
of clarifying amendments to this effect. In many other States the
laws need to be amended to establish rather than just to clarify
this 'important policy principle. No water pollution control law
should by its terms or by interpretation be held to require, permit, or
condone any type of water pollution.
The use of our watercourses for waste disposal cannot be ignored.
This use dates from antiquity. Our practice in water quality manage-
ment has been to regard the use of rivers, lakes, and other waters as
appropriate means of waste disposal. Such use has derived from the
necessity of disposing of water after many of its uses. Indeed, it is not
possible to utilize water for domestic, municipal, and most industrial
purposes without providing some method of disposing of it afterwards.
The only place available for disposal is the watercourses, for, except
for consumptive uses, the volumes to be disposed of are roughly equal
to the volumes originally diverted.
To a considerable extent we have in the past been able to use our
watercourses for waste disposal, in the process of returning to them
water we have used, without serious interference with other water
uses. Because of this circumstance, however, I fear there are some
who believe that disposal of polluting waste through used water dis-
charge is a legitimate use of water, consistent with water pollution
control policy. Indeed, the very term "pollution control" invites such
an attitude since the word "control" implies limitation rather than
elimination of pollution.
257
-------
Whatever may have been acceptable or unavoidable in years past,
it is quite clear that our goal now and in the years ahead must be to
prevent any sort of water pollution, and our water pollution control
laws should explicitly so provide.
V. Governmental Programs and Activities To Carry Out
National Water Pollution Control Policy
The next element to be considered in delineating a national water
pollution control policy is the determination of the type of programs
and activities which should be undertaken by government at all
levels as part of its responsibility for keeping water clean. These,
it seems to me, fall into two broad categories which, while separable
as a matter of analysis, must in practice be regarded as having a high
degree of interaction. Broadly speaking, I will designate these as
promotional and regulatory.
Under the caption "promotional" much can be done by government
by way of acquisition of information, research, training of people,
development of methodology, provision of facilities and equipment
and public education all of which will promote the maintenance of
our waters sufficiently free from impurities so as to permit their legiti-
mate use for all the purposes already mentioned.
Under the caption "regulatory" would be grouped governmental
action designed to limit, by complete or conditional prohibition, the
practice by individuals, municipalities, industries, or government in-
stallations of causing or contributing to water pollution.
Because of constitutional limitations, the scope of regulatory activ-
ities which can be a part of the Federal Government's responsibility
probably cannot in all respects be as broad as the scope of Federal
promotional programs. Authority for the latter stems constitution-
ally from the "taxation-general welfare" clause, which imposes rela-
tively little limitation on the scope of Federal authority compared to
the scope of authority for Federal regulatory activities. The latter
authority stems from the "commerce" clause which, although it has
been construed with great elasticity in recent decades, imposes signif-
icant limitations on the reach of Federal action.
A. Promotional Programs
Let us first consider promotional programs. What should govern-
ment do to promote clean waters? Fundamental is to have informa-
tion on the basis of which to plan and carry out programs. A thorough
understanding of the processes whereby water is degraded is necessary.
Comprehensive information is needed about what uses are being made
of water and in what condition it is being discharged to its courses
after use. Continuous and thorough data regarding the location of
water supply, its quantity, flow, and quality must be recorded so long
258
-------
as any degrading uses of water must be tolerated. Thorough knowl-
edge must be gained of how to treat used water before it is returned
to its courses, working always toward the goal of finding effective
and economical means of eliminating all pollutants.
The technology of treatment facilities must keep pace with research
findings about effective treatment techniques. In the case of sub-
stances whose use is important or cannot be avoided but for which
no satisfactory treatment techniques have been discovered, ways must
be sought for isolating them from the flow of municipal, agricultural,
"and industrial wastes.
Knowledge and technology are useless without adequate facilities
and trained personnel to apply them. These should be deployed in
such a way as to assure that they will be brought to bear most expedi-
tiously and efficiently in all efforts to preserve water quality.
1. Present Federal promotional programs.—The basic Federal pro-
motional programs are authorized by the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, which requires that they be carried out by the Surgeon
General under the direction and supervision of the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare.
a. Development oj comprehensive programs for water pollution con-
trol.—Under section 2 of the Act, in cooperation with other Federal
agencies, State and interstate water pollution control agencies, and
with the municipalities and industries involved, comprehensive water
pollution control programs are required to be developed which give
due regard to conservation of waters for all legitimate purposes.
This is probably the most important program specified in the Act
since the goal of all water pollution control activities is the develop-
ment and implementation of comprehensive programs to conserve
water for its best uses. All of the other major provisions in the Act
largely support comprehensive programs.
Comprehensive programs require a determination of the causes of
water pollution, and their effects on quality of the water resources and
on the beneficial water uses. They develop agreements on the desired
beneficial water uses and the water quality objectives necessary to
accommodate these uses. They outline the pollution control measures
that must be provided to achieve the desired objectives and a time-
table for their accomplishment. They provide for orderly and effi-
cient water quality control in the development of the Nation's water
resources and are needed for every river basin in the country.
b. Technical assistance.—-The Public Health Service has been pro-
viding technical services to State and interstate agencies and other
Federal agencies for nearly 50 years.
The Act greatly broadened the technical services to be provided by
the Public Health Service—actually, all its major provisions can be
259
-------
regarded as technical assistance. Section 4 (a) of the act requires
that—
The Surgeon General shall conduct in the Public Health Service and encourage,
cooperate with, and render assistance to other appropriate public (whether Fed-
eral, State, interstate, or local) authorities, agencies, and institutions, private
agencies, and institutions, and individuals in the conduct of, and promote the
coordination of research, investigations, experiments, demonstrations, and studies
relating to the causes, control, and prevention of water pollution.
Obviously, the technical services to be provided are very broad and
no agency or individual having concern with water pollution is
excluded. '
In rendering technical assistance, the Surgeon General is specifically
authorized to—
i. Upon request by any State or interstate water pollution
control agency, conduct investigations and research, and make
surveys concerning any specific problem of water pollution
confronting such agencies, or a community, municipality, or
industrial plant. (Sec. 4(b) of the act.)
ii. Provide training in technical matters relating to the causes,
prevention, and control of water pollution. This can be done
by direct training by the Service, by grants-in-aid to or by
contract with public and private agencies and individuals, and
by the establishment of research fellowships (sec. 4 (a) (4) and
(5) of the act.)
iii. Collect and make available, through publications and other
appropriate means, information on research, demonstrations, and
investigations, including appropriate recommendations. (Sec.
4(a)(l) of the act.)
c. Research.—Under section 4 (a) of the Act the Surgeon General is
required to conduct water pollution research within the Service and
to encourage, cooperate with, and assist other appropriate agencies
and individuals in such research. In accomplishing this, he is
authorized to (1) carry out research relating to the causes, control,
and prevention of water pollution; (2) contract for research with
public and private agencies and individuals; (3) make grants-in-aid
for research and demonstrations to such agencies and individuals;
(4) secure the services of research experts and consultants; (5) estab-
lish and maintain research fellowships; and (6) collect, publish, and
disseminate information on the results of research.
d. Basic data.—Section 4(c) of the Act provides that the Surgeon
General shall collect and disseminate basic data on chemical, physical,
and biological water quality and other information relating to water
pollution, in cooperation with other Federal, State, and local agencies
having related responsibilities.
260
-------
Basic data are needed for the intelligent planning and management
of water pollution control. Such data furnish necessary information
on: (a) the sources, kinds, and amounts of pollution; (6) the effects
of pollution on water quality; (c) the present and future required uses
of the affected waters; (d) the remedial measures needed to accom-
modate the required water uses; (e) the kinds, costs, and efficiencies
of the remedial measures; (/) the costs and benefits of pollution and
its control; (g) long-term water quality trends; (K) potential pollution
situations before they become serious and require major action; (i)
comprehensive program developments and enforcement actions; and
^j) areas of vitally needed research.
e. Construction grants.—Section 6 of the Act provides for the appro-
priation of $50 million annually up to an aggregate of $500 million
for grants to municipalities for the construction of treatment works,
no individual grant to exceed 30 percent of the estimated cost or
$250,000, whichever is smaller. The administration of the program
of grants to municipalities for the construction of sewage treatment
facilities is a joint responsibility of the Public Health Service and
the States.
To meet its responsibilities for the equitable and efficient adminis-
tration of the construction grants, the Public Health Service main-
tains technical staffs in each of the Department's nine regional offices.
These staffs: (1) review and approve grant applications for eligibility;
(2) determine propriety of Federal aid in accordance with criteria
adopted for this purpose; (3) give technical review and approval of
construction plans and specifications; (4) make field inspections of
projects under construction for payment purposes; and (5) keep
records. The headquarters office in Washington provides policy and
program guidance and renders decisions only on matters which cannot
be reconciled in the field.
j. Program grants to State and interstate agencies.—Section 5 of the
Act provides for $3 million annually in grants for State and interstate
agencies to assist them in meeting the costs of establishing and main-
taining adequate water pollution control programs. These are
matching grants, in effect, for the States are required to provide from
one-third to two-thirds of the costs of their programs, and were
intended to have a stimulatory effect on State appropriations for water
pollution control.
Public Health Service responsibilities in administering the program
grants include allotment of funds and approval of State and interstate
water pollution control plans as required by the act. Regional office
personnel work with the States in developing program improvements
and make evaluations of progress. The program grant authorization
expires with fiscal year 1961 unless extended by amendment of the Act.
261
-------
g. Cooperation to control pollution from Federal installations.—
Section 9 of the Act directs Federal agencies to cooperate with the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and with States,
interstate agencies, and municipalities in controlling pollution from
Federal installations. Public Health Service responsibilities under
this provision include inventorying such pollution, providing technical
and consultative services to all the jurisdictions involved, acting as
liaison between jurisdictions as necessary, and providing research1
services and field investigations.
h. Interstate cooperation and uniform laws.—Section 3 (a) of the Act?
directs the Surgeon General to encourage: (1) cooperative water
pollution control activities by States; (2) the enactment of improved
and, where practical, uniform State laws; and (3) compacts between
States.
2. Need to strengthen present promotional programs.—Our current
promotional programs to prevent and control water pollution leave
much to be desired in terms of results. Our basic knowledge about
water quality degradation is not keeping pace with the progress of
industry in developing new, exotic chemicals and radioactive sub-
stances. While we are reasonably well informed about the configura-
tion of municipal waste disposal, we are not adequately informed
about what agriculture and industry are doing to our waters. In
spite of the great strides which we have made in the first 3 years of
operation of the National Water Quality Network since its initiation
in October 1957, there is much room for improvement in the com-
pleteness of our data on the chemical, physical, and biological quality
of waters and in our ability to make effective use of these data. We
especially need added knowledge about underground waters and the
fate of soluble materials therein.
Although we have learned much about how to remove oxygen-
demanding substances, suspended solids, and disease-producing
organisms from wastes, we have barely scratched the surface of learn-
ing about the removal of dissolved materials, especially the new
synthetic organic chemicals. Our knowledge lags in nearly all aspects
of waste treatment.
We are handicapped in accelerating progress, in increasing our
knowledge and improving our technology by insufficiency of trained
personnel and research and technological facilities. The Robert A.
Taft Sanitary Engineering Center at Cincinnati, Ohio, is the largest
and finest research and technological facility of its kind in the world,
and it is staffed by leading scientists and engineers in the field of
water pollution. Since its completion and initiation of operations in
1953, the Center has conducted steadily expanding programs of re-
search, technical services, and training of scientists, engineers and
262
-------
other essential specialists. In spite of this, the resource represented
by the Center is small compared with the problems confronting us.
In these remarks about the need to strengthen promotional pro-
grams, I have been speaking of Federal programs conducted under
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, The condition of corre-
sponding promotional programs among the States also is in great
need of strengthening. It should, of course, be noted that much has
been done to this end by means of the program grants made under
the act to State and interstate agencies. One measure of such prog-
ress is the increase since 1956 in the level of State appropriations for
water pollution control programs from $4.2 million to $7.6 million
for fiscal year 1960. Another is the almost 50 percent increase of
their technical and supporting staffs by State and interstate agencies.
These increases have made possible the initiation and expansion of
pollution surveys, research, and basic data collection. Also, program
grants have made possible the purchase of major items of field and
laboratory equipment needed to support expanding programs.
In short, State programs^have' been strengthened under the Act, but
there is always room for improvement. In this connection it seems
clear that the present section 5 authorization for State and interstate
agency program grants should be extended beyond its present June 30,
1961, expiration date. I would also urge consideration of the removal
of the appropriation ceiling of $3 million.
3. Suggestions for strengthening promotional programs.—How else
shall we accelerate our progress in the foregoing promotional programs?
a. Strengthen the arms of research and technology.—First, there should
be an expansion of programs of research and fundamental technology
within the Public Health Service, by contracts and grants-in-aid, and
through fellowships. This is a pattern of primary Federal responsi-
bility in areas of national concern which is already well established.
Indeed, it is essentially the present situation in the field of water
pollution.
b. Regional laboratories.—Second, as the research and technological
program in the field of water pollution is expanded by the Public
Health Service, I would recommend consideration of a more localized
activity through the establishment of a number of regional service
laboratories. Such an approach could afford more effective, firsthand,
and comprehensive approaches to specific pollution problems than is
possible through centralized facilities. It would enable closer collabo-
ration between Federal programs and field services and those of State,
interstate, and municipal agencies, industries, universities, and others
concerned with water pollution problems. It would enable a more
effective marshaling of total resources in various areas of the country
883283—61 18 263
-------
for application to problems. It would facilitate the stimulation of
greater awareness and understanding on the part of the general public
of the significance of maximum conservation in the use of our limited,
available water resources for their own health, economic welfare, and
recreational opportunity. It would afford a better means of segregat-
ing basic research and fundamental technology centered in Cincinnati
from applied research and engineering essential to the solution of
specific field problems and the conduct of regulatory activities.
A pilot facility such as the one I have described might well be es-
tablished to test the validity of such an approach.
Regional laboratories could be strategically situated throughout
the Nation with respect to water pollution problems of the major river
basins; the resources of other Federal agencies; interstate, State, and
Local agencies; universities and research institutions; and transporta-
tion facilities.
c. Personnel resources.—My third suggestion is to mount a con-
tinuing survey of personnel resources in the area of water quality
management. We are suffering an acknowledged and serious shortage
of scientific, engineering, and other specialized manpower in this whole
broad area. The survey should be conducted by the Public Health
Service in cooperation with the States, industries, and research
institutions, and should measure the extent of our present shortage,
project our needs into the future, and keep a spotlight focused on any
gap between future needs and predicted output from educational
institutions. If such a survey demonstrated the need, consideration
could then be given to establishing appropriate programs of graduate
fellowships and vocational education to assure us against personnel
shortages. By keeping track of employment conditions in the area
of water quality management, the survey would also help to assure
that qualified persons in sufficient numbers will embark on and con-
tinue careers in this work to meet our needs in the crucial area of
public health programs.
d. Industrial waste pollution.—My fourth suggestion is that we
develop more effective ways of learning about industrial waste pollu-
tion. Much has already been done—but much more needs to be done.
This will demand a team effort, with industry and Government playing
key research roles. Armed with this knowledge, we will do a more
effective job of abating industrial pollution.
Although it has not been possible as yet to quantify the economic
significance of industrial water pollution, in view of the size and com-
position of industrial production and the very considerable extent to
which industrial wastes are discharged untreated to surface waters,
it is generally assumed that the economic significance of industrial
water pollution is at least as large as pollution caused by domestic
wastes. It seems reasonable to assume that progress in understanding
264
-------
the economics of water pollution will lead to a more intensified program
by industry as a whole to return water to its course in as good con-
dition as it was withdrawn.
However, the campaign to abate industrial pollution cannot be
founded solely on the basis of an economic justification. The national
interest in cleaning up and keeping clean our natural waters transcends
particular industrial economic interests.
It is quite likely that the most effective stimulant to progress in
abating and preventing industrial water pollution lies in regulatory
activities which are considered later in this paper. Nevertheless wre
must also design our promotional programs so as to make maximum
use of them to achieve this goal. In this connection we might also
consider what sort of financing assistance through credit accommoda-
tion, tax, or other incentives might be devised to stimulate greater
water pollution control activity by industry.
e. Construction of waste treatment facilities.—Finally, we come to
suggestions concerning the construction of facilities to treat wastes
before they are discharged to our lakes, rivers, and streams. Under
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, under State laws and under
the charters and ordinances of municipalities, it is clear that primary
responsibility for the provision of waste treatment facilities lies with
local communities and with individual industrial concerns and private
individuals.
It is, however, significant to note that under the Federal Act, and
also under several State laws, provision has been made for sharing of
this responsibility by the Federal Government and by the States.
The Federal facilities construction grant program was written into
the present Act in lieu of a loan program which had been authorized
in the Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 to help finance construc-
tion of sewage treatment plants. No funds were ever appropriated
by the Congress for the earlier loan program. Under the present Act,
annual appropriations for the grant program are limited to $50 million
per year, with an aggregate limitation of $500 million. When the
Act was passed, a 10-year program at $50 million per year was en-
visaged. Appropriations have been made at the rate of $45 million
per year for each fiscal year from 1958 through 1961. As of Novem-
ber 1, 1960, a total of 2,418 Federal grant offers to municipalities have
been made in support of projects costing an estimated $1,169.9 million.
The Federal grant offers totaled $199.6 million, contrasted with State
and local commitments of $970.4 million, showing a local-to-Federal
dollar participation ratio of 4.86 to 1.
Before further consideration of the waste treatment facilities con-
struction grants program, we should note that it represents only one
portion of the Federal program for promotion of clean water by
financial assistance to facilities construction. The other portion is a
265
-------
loan program administered by the Community Facilities Administra-
tion of the Housing and Home Finance Agency. Under this program
local public agencies may finance construction of needed public works
through long-term, interest-bearing loans when such loans are not
otherwise available on reasonable terms and conditions. Priority is
given to assisting communities with a population of less than 10,000 in
the construction of basic public works for which there is an urgent and
vital public need, including works for the storage, treatment, purifica-
tion or distribution of water; sewage, sewage treatment, and sewer
facilities; and gas distribution systems. Since the establishment of the
Community Facilities Administration in 1955, it has, as of November
1, 1960, made 260 loans totaling $66 million for water and sewer
projects.
A final observation to be made about the present pattern of govern-
mental responsibility for financing of construction of waste treatment
facilities is to note that several States have enacted various programs
designed to assist municipalities or industries. These include tax
relief for industries, in the form of property tax exemption for such
facilities and accelerated amortization of the cost of such facilities for
tax purposes, and financial assistance for municipalities in the form
of planning and construction grants and guarantees of municipal bond
issues.
Under the national water pollution control policy recommended in
this paper, it is proposed that primary responsibility for the construc-
tion of waste treatment facilities remain, as it is under present na-
tional policy, with local communities. On this point the logic of
President Eisenhower's statement in his message disapproving
H.R. 3610 of the 86th Congress is persuasive. He wrote in part as
follows:
Polluted water is a threat to the health and well-being of all our citizens. Yet,
pollution and its correction are so closely involved with local industrial processes
and with public water supply and sewage treatment, that the problem can be
successfully met only if State and local governments and industry assume the major
responsibility for cleaning up the Nation's rivers and streams.
Working from the starting point of placing primary responsibility
on local and State governments, we can also see the need for supple-
mental action by the Federal Government.
We need a vigorous program of abating pollution from Federal
installations. This will require firm leadership within the executive
branch together with willingness on the part of the Congress to provide
necessary funds.
A start has been made by the declaration of congressional intent
in section 9 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act which recites
in part that—
any Federal department or agency having any jurisdiction over any building,
installation, or other property shall, insofar as practicable and consistent with the
266
-------
interests of the United States and within any available appropriations cooper-
ate * * * in preventing or controlling the pollution of such waters.
The Public Health Service is currently engaged in making an inven-
tory of waste disposal conditions at all Federal installations. This
inventory was directed by President Eisenhower's memorandum to
the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare dated May 13, 1960.
The memorandum read in part as follows:
It seems to me that the Federal Establishment must take every possible action
to make certain that its own house is in order with reference to the problem of
controlling and preventing stream pollution.
I should * * * like you to take the lead in making an inventory of the pollution
control situation at Federal installations. This inventory will assist each Federal
agency concerned in determining what corrective actions may be required and how
rapidly they could be accomplished to eliminate those conditions which may be
contributing to the pollution of waters. It seems quite clear to me that such an
inventory, combined with the national inventory of water pollution control facili-
ties, is an essential step toward the initiation of corrective actions.
As soon as data from this survey are available, a schedule of pollu-
tion abatement through construction of waste treatment facilities at
all Federal installations discharging untreated wastes directly to our
natural waters should be established and funds sought from the
Congress to carry it out. There can be no justification for a failure
of vigorous leadership to abate pollution at Federal installations.
If we are to stimulate the construction of waste treatment facilities,
we must review carefully the Federal role from the standpoint of our
pollution abatement and prevention needs, the financial requirements
to meet the needs, and the results so far attained. This must also
be looked at by the new Congress from the standpoint of whatever
fiscal policy is adopted by the new administration. I would not
presume at this point to suggest as a matter of overall Federal fiscal
policy what should be the level of funding of the construction grants
program.
I would recommend amendment to section 6, as H.R. 3610 and the
administration's subsequent bill in the 86th Congress (S. 3574, H.R.
12309) would have done, in the case of a multimunicipality project,
in effect to multiply the individual project grant ceiling by the number
of municipalities to be served by the project. This change would
facilitate planning and construction of projects serving metropolitan
areas rather than individual communities, and provide for more
economical use of public funds.
Serious consideration should also be given to changing the present
individual project grant ceiling for waste treatment projects so as to
give the program a stimulative effect in large municipalities.
Finally, it would be desirable to review all the present provisions
of Section 6 in the light of experience under them to determine whether
there might not be other improvements which could be made at the
time the foregoing suggestions are considered.
267
-------
B. Regulatory activities
Now let us consider regulatory activities in service of water pollu-
tion control policy. As suggested earlier, such activities have the
effect of curbing or prohibiting the disposal of wastes and waste
waters whose effect is to degrade the water quality of our lakes, rivers,
and streams.
These activities generally take the form of exercise of enforcement
authority to abate pollution declared illegal by law or issuance or
denial of applications for permits or licenses required for the discharge
of sewage and industrial wastes.
In all discussions of water pollution control policy, the subject of
Federal regulatory activities has tended to be highly contentious
with political sensitivity for current pollution practices. The issue
has usually been drawn on what should be the nature and scope of the
Federal Government's authority to take enforcement action to abate
pollution. This is the only specific regulatory activity authorized
for the Federal Government under our present national water pollution
control policy.
Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Federal enforce-
ment authority applies to pollution of any interstate waters, which the
Act defines to include "all rivers, lakes, and other waters that flow
across, or form a part of, boundaries between two or more States."
Under this definition almost all coastal waters are excluded; so are
waters which, though they may be navigable, do not cross or form
part of State boundaries.
Federal enforcement authority covers only pollution of interstate
waters, defined as above, which "endangers the health or welfare of
persons in a State other than that in which the discharge origi-
nates * * * ." This is the only pollution which is subject to abate-
ment under the Act.
The effect of this limitation is to put Federal enforcement officials
into our waters to trace the noxious effects of some polluter's dis-
charge through the discharges of often hundreds of other polluters to
some point in another State where the effect can be segregated from
its host of acquired companions and found to endanger the health or
welfare of persons. The enforcement process is then, by reason of
the wording of the act, intrinsically slow, expensive, and far less
efficient than possible.
Twelve enforcement actions have been initiated under the Act to
abate pollution in over 4,000 miles of interstate streams. It is esti-
mated that the remedial measures which will have grown out of these
actions will include construction of over $500 million worth of waste
treatment facilities. These statistics alone give some indication of
the significance of enforcement action as a stimulus to construction of
waste treatment facilities.
268
-------
In spite of these results, experience with the enforcement provisions
of the present Act have led many to the conclusion that they can and
should be strengthened so that enforcement may serve more broadly
and more efficiently as a stimulus to waste treatment facilities con-
struction. I agree. Two principal proposals were advanced to this
end in the 86th Congress.
One was the administration bill (S. 3574 and H.K. 12309). The
Bother was the so-called Blatnik-Dingell bill (H.R. 10243 and H.R.
10244, also introduced in the Senate as S. 2992). Each of these
~ would have broadened the scope of Federal jurisdiction to abate
* pollution. The administration bill extended authority to abate
pollution to coastal waters and to any interstate waters which are
navigable without need for a showing of adverse effect in another
State. The Blatnik-Dingell bill extended abatement authority to
pollution of any navigable waters (including coastal waters) which en-
dangers health or welfare of persons. Both bills also made various
changes in the procedural provisions governing Federal enforcement
action.
I believe that the Federal Water Pollution Control Act should be
amended so as to utilize the full constitutional regulatory authority of
the Federal Government so as to assure maximum potential stimula-
tory effect from Federal action to prevent and abate water pollution.
This would mean extending the authority for Federal action to all
navigable waters of the United States.
It should be noted that the scope of Federal jurisdiction for regula-
tory activities, even if extended to all navigable waters, will still fall
short of covering all water sources within any given State. All non-
navigable waters, including all underground waters, would in such
event be amenable only to State regulatory jurisdiction. The
Federal Government can, however, and should, through its promo-
tional programs, render assistance to States in the exercise of their
regulatory authority over such waters.
269
-------
The Needs and Obligations
of Interstate Agencies
EDWARD J. CLEARY
Executive Director and Chief Engineer
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission
Before discussing the role of an interstate compact agency in the
administration of water-pollution control, it would seem appropriate
to define the nature of a compact agency. The interstate compact
is a unique device in our form of government for positive cooperation
among States. It is as old as the United States itself, provision for
its use stemming from Section 10 of Article I of our Constitution.
Here the States retained the privilege of joining together for a mutu-
ally desired purpose—provided that the Congress of the United States
gave consent to such an agreement or compact.
Thus provision is made for two or more States to establish a mech-
anism for resolving problems whose influence extends beyond the
political boundaries of an individual State without burdening the
Federal Government in the process. Control of pollution in streams
that pass through or are contiguous to several States is one of the
problems whose resolution has been sought by means of interstate
compacts.
Without indulging in a review of ideologies relating to Federal or
interstate control of water pollution, there is one point that deserves
mention. It is the intent of the Congress, as expressed in the National
Pollution Control Act of 1948 and the amended Act of 1956, that the
Federal authorities encourage the formation of interstate compacts.
At the present time there are seven interstate agencies recognized by
the U.S. Public Health Service as engaged in water pollution control.
All of them owe their existence solely to the initiative of the States
involved; and the five that are devoted exclusively to pollution prob-
270
-------
lems came into existence prior to enactment of the Federal law in
1948. If the Federal authorities have given any encouragement to
the formation of new interstate agencies, the results have not yet
manifested themselves.
Without any claim to be a spokesman for the interstate agencies
who are actively engaged in pollution control, I would suggest that
their role parallels that of the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation
Commission (ORSANCO), with which I am associated. The role of
Orsanco is to coordinate and supplement the activities of eight States
who have pledged faithfully to cooperate "in the control of future
pollution and the abatement of existing pollution." It is my inten-
tion to describe how ORSANCO is performing this function.
But first it should be said that this voluntary desire of the sover-
eign States of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, New York, Ohio, Penn-
sylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia to pool their resources and
powers for more effective control of pollution found expression in a
compact that was signed by the Governors of these eight States on
June 30, 1948. Among other things, the compact established a com-
mission composed of three representatives from each State appointed
by the Governor of the State, and three representatives of the Fed-
eral Government appointed by the President of the United States.
It is the duty of the members of the commission to promote execution
of this pledge of cooperation.
To achieve this end, the commissioners promptly and unanimously
agreed on a matter of basic policy. Simply stated, this policy rec-
ognized that coordination and sxipplementation of State efforts offered
the most expeditious avenues toward accomplishment. This policy
did not ignore the grant of certain powers of enforcement; it simply
put first things first. And as was profoundly observed at that time:
"The Commission's power to invoke the strong sanction of enforce-
ment is the best guarantee that only rarely will it have to exercise
it." This has been the case in fact; on only two occasions in the 12
years of the commission's existence have the enforcement provisions
of the compact been invoked; in both cases the action was inspired
by States who concluded that they had exhausted their own remedies
in dealing with cities polluting interstate waters.
The Nature of Coordination
Several examples will illustrate the nature and scope of activities
designed to promote coordination of pollution-control effort in the
Ohio Valley.
One of the first matters of business to come before the commission
was the adequacy of laws within each signatory State to enable it
to carry out the obligations assumed under the compact. These dis-
cussions gave impetus and support to a complete overhauling of legis-
lation in Kentucky and Ohio, as well as to amendment of pollution-
271
-------
control laws in several other States. By 1953, when amendments to
West Virginia legislation became effective, every signatory could
report that it had complied with a primary obligation set forth in
the interstate agreement.
Recognizing that industrial enterprises held one of the biggest
stakes in the water conservation program of the Ohio Valley, the
eight States concluded that industry representatives should be invited
to share in the development and promotion of pollution-control
measures. Thus, in 1950, the executive committee of ORSANCO was
authorized to explore with management representatives of industry
how this might be accomplished. The result was the establishment
of so-called industry-action committees, representing generic groups
such as steel, coal, chemicals, oil refining, metal finishing, and paper
manufacturing. For more than a decade these committees, aggregat-
ing some 150 members, have been participating in the review and
formulation of measures to curb pollution. This activity has pro-
foundly influenced coordination of effort among the States and their
industries.
One of the satisfying accomplishments from this integration of view-
points was unanimous agreement in 1955 on a statement of policy and
procedure for industrial-waste control. The importance of this under-
taking may best be understood by noting that control of industrial
wastes has been distinguished by the widest variations in philosophy
and practice. This situation was not unknown to the drafters of the
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Compact. Consequently, they
expressed their intent for regulation in broad terms to provide oppor-
tunity for the commission to deliberate on and develop procedures for
carrying out this complex assignment. This is not the time or place to
go in details, which are set forth in a four-page document issued by the
commission. The point is that after some 2 years of analysis and
debate, the States did agree on procedures that have permitted the
pursuit of industrial-waste control in a rational and practicable
manner.
These examples will be recognized as representing coordination in
three vital areas of pollution-control practice—namely, legislative
adequacy, industry relationships, and administrative philosophy.
Meantime, a more obvious type of coordination was promoted in such
areas as the establishment of sewage-treatment requirements for inter-
state waters. The compact clearly stated that no single standard of
sewage treatment could be prescribed because of such variable factors
as size, flow, location, character, self-purification, and usage of waters
within the compact district. As a consequence the commission is
called upon to conduct investigations and evaluate these factors before
reaching decisions.
In carrying out this responsibility, the commissioners draw upon the
combined wisdom of the chief engineers of the eight States who are
272
-------
organized as an engineering committee. This committee reviews
staff studies, examines proposals, and develops recommendations for
the guidance of the commissioners in establishing requirements that
have an impact on the affairs of hundreds of municipalities. Such
decisions have been made for the 981-mile Ohio River involving the
interests of six States; for the Wabash Eiver where two States are
coordinating their control programs; and on the Monongahela River
where two other States are concerned in the protection of water
common to both.
Because this committee is composed of the chief engineers of State
programs it has logically developed as the clearinghouse for coordinat-
ing a host of administrative and technical matters that contribute
to effective functioning of both State and interstate affairs. Here, for
example, ideas are exchanged on data assembly and evaluation, on
staffing and organization, on improvement of survey and analytical
techniques, and on the conduct of public relations and enforcement
procedures.
Supplementing State Efforts
In addition to promoting coordination, the commissioners of
ORSANCO are constantly exploring and exploiting opportunities to
supplement State efforts.
Perhaps the most important—certainly the most imaginative and
productive—of this supplementation effort has been that devoted to
creation of public awareness and support for pollution abatement.
Facing up to the realities of generating positive response from millions
of people and thousands of industries in the eight-State area, it was
concluded at the beginning of the program that something more than
technical surveys, research programs, and legal compulsions would be
necessary. The conditions prevailing on the Ohio River dramatically
supported this view. Less than 1 percent of the 3K million people
living along the river provided treatment for their sewage discharges
in 1948 when ORSANCO was organized. This unhappy circum-
stance was not due to lack of laws or technical know-how. Basically
it represented lack of citizen understanding and inspiration.
Therefore, a major part of staff effort, coupled with the vigorous
support of individual commissioners and State-agency personnel, has
been channeled into activities designated to motivate communities
and industries to move more promptly in meeting their obligations for
pollution abatement. What this has encompassed is detailed in an
article that appeared in the June 1959 issue of the Journal oj the
American Public Health Association (pp. 757-761). Suffice it to say
for the purposes of this statement that in less than 10 years the com-
missioners of ORSANCO could report that 95 percent of the popula-
tion on the Ohio River had sewage treatment works in operation or
under construction.
273
-------
Obviously something had happened to cause a change in public
attitudes—and with it the willingness to spend huge sums of money for
clean streams. In this incredibly short period of time the States had
emphatically reversed the trend of half a century of river abuse in the
Ohio Valley. And this occurred during a period when other parts of
the Nation were bewailing a stalemate in sewage-works construction
and calling for Federal subsidies.
Perhaps the best indication of how the ORSANCO States feel about
supplementing their efforts in maintaining public support for pollution
control is the authorization of further activities in this direction. This
action recognizes that an informed citizenry is the strongest ally in the
fight for clean waters. Accordingly, ORSANCO has been charged with
the conduct of an intensified "public affairs" program. This includes
a series of documentary films on Ohio Valley pollution-control dealing
with problems yet unsolved as well as with progress that is being made.
These films are tailored so that the regional aspects of the interstate
program are interspersed with a segment dealing specifically with
situations in the State where it is to be shown. Thus, each of the
eight States is supplied with a version of the film highlighting local
affairs in relation to what is going on in neighboring States.
The public-affairs project is also designed to take further advantage
of the public-service time made available by radio and television
stations. Transcribed "action oriented" messages dealing with var-
ious aspects of the antipollution efforts of the State agencies are
supplied to the 60 television and 400 radio stations in the ORSANCO
area. In addition to supplying these transcriptions, the station man-
agers are given the names of local members of the State staffs who are
available to participate in discussions or other special programs that
the station features.
In order to promote most effective use of the films, the transcriptions,
and other material, the ORSANCO staff has conducted the first of a
series of "clinics" for State public-relations personnel. Under the
guidance of a consultant retained by the commission, techniques are
explored and ideas exchanged in development of better methods of
communication with the public.
Still another form of supplementary service sponsored by the
signatory States is a valleywide river monitor and surveillance pro-
gram, which is now in its 10th year of development. Through the
operation of a network of some 40 monitor stations, ORSANCO head-
quarters receives continuous reports on river-quality conditions.
This serves two functions. On the one hand, it is the source of vital
data for the assessment of control measures. Perhaps of even greater
significance, the monitor stations have permitted the establishment of
an "alert" system whereby the State agencies and the users of river
water are kept informed of unusual conditions so that appropriate
corrective actions can be taken promptly.
274
-------
Looking toward improvement of the "alert" potentialities of the
system, the States have sponsored development of an electronic
sentinel, the first units of which are now in operation. Perfection
of the OESANCO robot monitor holds the promise that the Ohio may
be the first river in the world to be placed under night-and-dayvigilance
for water quality protection. The importance of this innovation in
pollution control practice may be appreciated by noting that more
^han 2% million people obtain their water supplies from the Ohio
and almost a hundred huge industries draw their supply from the
river. In pioneering this new concept for safeguarding water supplies,
flie eight States have demonstrated the leadership potentials that
can emanate from the pooling of efforts.
Considering further possibilities of supplementing State efforts,
the commissioners of ORSANCO this year authorized expenditure of
funds to employ personnel for assignment to the States. The object
is to provide additional manpower during the summer months to ease
the burden of checking compliance of municipalities and industries
with interstate control measures. A trial during this past summer in
one State indicates that this supplemental activity offers promising
possibilities.
In the field of research and special investigation the commissioners
have been most sympathetic in their endeavor to sponsor projects
recommended by the States through their engineering committee.
This year, for example, it was possible to authorize 10 contracts
totaling $165,000. In addition, the ORSANCO staff carries out in-
vestigations that are considered to be of mutual concern to the States.
Two of these are now nearing completion. One deals with an analysis
of river conditions in the Pennsylvania-Ohio-West Virginia area during
the shutdown of the steel industry; the other is a field demonstration
of a taste-and-odor control proposal.
By Way of Summary
These examples typify the manner in which one group of States
has harnessed its interstate agency to provide coordination and
supplemental aid in the voluntarily chosen task of promoting a regional
program of pollution control.
The nature and scope of these activities reveal that an interstate
agency can perform a host of needed services without intruding on
the sovereignty and responsibilities that are delegated to the States
alone. However, an interstate agency can accomplish only what its
signatories are willing to have it accomplish. A compact among
States is a pledge of good faith; how well that pledge is redeemed
depends on the sincerity, the ingenuity, and the moral fiber of its
participants. Thus the commissioners of a compact agency are the
custodians of a great responsibility. In brief, they are the "con-
science" of the signatory States as well as the inspiration for what
275
-------
these States can accomplish together. Therefore the effectiveness of
an interstate agency in accomplishing its mission is a measure of the
dedication of the men who serve it.
Among those who have rendered devoted service to the Ohio Valley
compact, none is more distinguished than Koss H. Walker, present
chairman of ORSANCO. A member of the commission represent-
ing the Commonwealth of Virginia since 1948, he recently expressed
himself as follows:
t.
The great advantage of working through a compact is that the signatory States
are in fact working with individuals who are neighbors. And solving problems &s
neighbors is much more satisfying than turning over the task to people wlio^p
background and interests may be quite remote from the area they are asked to
serve.
These sentiments epitomize what might well represent the most
important role of an interstate compact—namely, the opportunity for
neighbors to pool then- resources for solving mutual problems.
Dr. WOLMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Cleary, for this very
inspiring summary of what can be done, given purpose and enthusiasm,
in an interstate group under a compact system. The record on the
Ohio, I think, is well worth emphasizing and reemphasizing because
it was described, as I recall, in 1935 and 1936 in one of our earliest
reports of the National Water Resources Board, as a common open
sewer. This has been quoted time and time again.
I think Mr. Cleary might very properly demand, as time goes on,
that this description of the river be changed in the light of the accom-
plishments that he has pointed out.
276
-------
The Needs and Obligations
of State Agencies
KARL M. MASON
Director, Bureau of Environmental Health
Pennsylvania State Department of Health
State water pollution control agencies are not doing the job expected
of them. Regardless of recent surveys which indicate that 96 percent
of the program administrators believe that reasonably good progress
has been made in pollution abatement, statements before Con-
gressional committees, the trend toward increased enforcement
powers of the Federal Government, and the statistics available on the
subject tend to substantiate this castigation. Perhaps the difference
in opinion reflects a disparity in objectives and criteria as to what
constitutes a successful water pollution control program. If this is
the case, there appears to be a need to follow one of two courses: either
(a) convince the interested organizations and agencies that the param-
eters used by the water pollution control agencies are satisfactory, or
(b) elevate the present goals to coincide with the expectations of the
parties concerned.
Although it is true that vocal minorities often overemphasize the
effects of local pollution on the conservation or our water resources
and even occasionally misstate the facts, the general consensus that
more must be accomplished in water pollution control cannot be
disregarded. As representatives of the public interest, it is difficult
to see how the responsible agencies can fail to pursue the latter course
of action.
What, then, are the needs and obligations of State water pollution
control agencies in meeting this public demand?
Initially, it is essential that these agencies recognize that they are
the keystone to success in water pollution control. Extensive partici-
277
-------
pation by the Federal Government and interstate agencies; whole-
hearted support by local, State, and national organizations; and active
cooperation by municipal officials and industrial groups are all indis-
pensable. Nothing, however, can substitute for a dynamic and
determined State water pollution control agency.
The first requisite for such an agency is an adequate and competent
staff with sufficient funds and equipment to do the job. Surveys
among administrators of these programs indicate that a deficiency in
this area is the greatest deterrent to a successful program. To over-
come this difficulty, the State water pollution control authorities must
secure the interest and assistance of other governmental officials, of
statewide organizations, and of the general public. More public
understanding and support stands high on the administrator's list of
needs to strengthen his program, and only a determined effort on his
part can surmount this obstacle.
Another important need for improving our water pollution control
activities is the development of acceptable water quality standards.
Most State and interstate agencies have classified streams or estab-
lished certain minimum requirements for the treatment of municipal
and industrial wastes. There is little unanimity, however, in these
standards, and this situation leads to misunderstanding and confusion.
Such differences in requirements often result in industrial concerns
considering the possibility of constructing or relocating in^States
which have lower standards of pollution control.
Since the States have not come to grips with this knotty problem
through the operations of their various national organizations, it
becomes an obligation on their part to support vigorous action by the
Federal Government in developing such standards. The Public
Health Service, then, should assume leadership in this endeavor in
conjunction with representatives of municipal and industrial organiza-
tions, conservation groups, and State and interstate water pollution
control agencies.
In the several surveys that have been conducted among the admin-
istrators of State programs, little indication has been shown that more
stringent laws or stricter enforcement is considered of great impor-
tance in improving water pollution control. Exception might well be
taken to this attitude. Where the law is not adequate for the preserva-
tion of our water resources, it is an inherent responsibility of the official
to initiate and support attempts to rectify this situation. Although
administrative flexibility is necessary in any regulatory program, it
can be carried too far if it results in continued failure to comply with
statutory law. Few public officials desire to invoke legal action, but
after all other efforts have failed there is no other recourse.
As mentioned previously, no one derides the importance of an ex-
tensive public relations program and close working relationships with
the governmental and industrial groups affected by the regulatory
278
-------
program. The administrator of a State water pollution control agency,
however, must always keep foremost in mind that his principal objec-
tive is to prevent and abate water pollution. All of his varied and
complex duties should be directed toward this end.
To accomplish this goal, it is necessary that the progress of the
program be measured continually. Assuming that certain criteria
have been established by the agency, the compliance status of all
pollution sources should be evaluated by determining (1) if the agency
has notified the polluter of what he must do, and (2) whether or not
•the polluter has complied. Where prescribed time limits have been
exceeded, the agency must institute necessary actions such as admin-
istrative conferences, cease-and-desist orders, agency hearings, or
injunctive and mandamus proceedings.
In order to insure continued compliance with treatment standards,
some type of surveillance must be instituted. Such a system can con-
sist of reviewing operational reports from treatment plants, the
inspection of such plants during operation, the sampling of effluents,
and the monitoring of streams at significant points.
Even when all sources of pollution have been minimized, the pro-
gram administrator's job is by no means complete. Studies of the
stream must be continued to determine if the present treatment levels
provide the quality required for the current water uses. If such is
not the case, the entire program cycle must begin again.
Water pollution control programs are so complex that the States
cannot cope with these problems without the active assistance of the
Federal Government. The present role of the Federal Government is
primarily that of consultant and partner, and there is need for a change
in certain aspects of this relationship. Although the Federal Govern-
ment continues extensive program activities in training, research,
grants-in-aid, and interstate enforcement, there are few instances in
which a managerial role is assumed for a nationwide water pollution
control program. If, as provided in Public Law 660, the Public Health
Service is responsible for developkig a comprehensive plan for this
activity, then it should be incumbent upon that agency to coordinate
all water pollution control programs throughout the country. In
order to receive Federal funds for administrative purposes, all States
must submit to the Public Health Service a detailed plan describing
proposed program activities. More coordination could be achieved
if the Public Health Service would withhold approval of their program
grants if the plan of operations did not indicate an extension of water
pollution activities or was not in conformity with the national plan.
An overwhelming majority of the water pollution control administra-
tors are in favor of retaining Federal water pollution control activities
within the Public Health Service. That agency, however, has been
extremely sensitive to the rights of States in water pollution control
and this policy may be partly responsible for recent proposals to
583283—61 19 279
-------
transfer Federal water pollution control functions to a different agency.
In order for the Public Health Service to retain its present responsi-
bility for water pollution control, it may well become necessary for
the States to accept more direction from that agency in planning and
evaluating their water pollution control programs.
In summary, then, the major needs and obligations of the water
pollution control agencies appear to be in the field of more effective
management. We need to determine the desired objectives, enlist
vigorous public interest and support, obtain the necessary laws and"
regulatory authority, provide an adequate staff and operating funds',"
adopt acceptable standards, develop appropriate policies and pro-*
cedures, and support a stronger role on the part of the Public Health
Service in water pollution control activities.
280
-------
The Needs and Obligations
of Metropolitan Agencies—Municipal
JUSTUS H. FUG ATE
City Commissioner, Wichita, Kans.
At the outset I wish to acknowledge the invaluable assistance and
advice of my colleague, A. E. Howse, former mayor of Wichita. To-
gether we have fought battles of water supply and pollution control,
and it is a matter of pride with us that Wichita now is entering the final
phase of a Jong-range water supply program in which pollution control
is an integral part for the benefit of ourselves and our neighbors down-
stream throughout the Arkansas River Basin.
I wish to acknowledge our joint indebtedness to Hon. Eobert S.
Kerr, the senior Senator from Oklahoma who also serves as the chair-
man of the Select Committee on National Water Resources of the U.S.
Senate. We have drawn upon his current book, Land, Wood and
Water, and upon the publications of the Senate Select Committee for
many of the facts and figures presented by this paper.
During the past 150 years we have seen a steady growth and expan-
sion of Federal interest in water and related matters. Single-purpose
works have been replaced by multiple-purpose, maximum-use projects.
Local concepts have been expanded into river basin development plans.
Soil conservation, reforestation, and watershed programs slowly are
beginning to change tributary streamflow; small dams are conserving
water at the source; large dams and reservoirs are impounding water
for future use and are providing the collateral economic benefit of
multiple-purpose projects.
The Federal Government has spent $20 billion on water projects,
and half this amount was spent in the last 10 years. Expenditures
presently are running at the rate of a billion dollars a year. Some
$6.6 billion in projects are now before the congressional committees
281
-------
seeking authorization. Some $6 billion in projects are now under
construction for which appropriations are made on an annual basis.
Some $10 billion in projects have been authorized, but no funds have
been appropriated while these authorizations are gathering dust in the
Bureau of the Budget.
In spite of the effort at the Federal level, and in spite of substantial
effort at the municipal and State levels, there are not now under con-
struction or even planned for construction, by all the public and private
agencies combined, sufficient water projects to provide the amount of
water of acceptable quality that we will require in 1975. The naked
fact is the United States faces a water crisis.
Our population in 1900 was 75 million. Our population will reach
225 million by 1975 and 330 million by the year 2000. The municipal
demand for water is sensitive to the changing habits of daily life and
each turn of the screw of civilization requires more water. The farm
home without running water used 10 gallons per capita daily, but a
modern home with running water consumes 150 gallons per capita
daily. Thus, we have not only the problems of a rapidly expanding
population but also the additional factor of substantial increases in
per capita use (1).
Until recently water development projects were concerned almost
entirely with water volume. Withdrawal of water in 1955 was 240
billion gallons per day, of which surface water sources supplied 80 per-
cent and ground water sources supplied 20 percent. By 1975 we will
be withdrawing 450 billion gallons per day. The present upper limit
of our water supply is the average of 1,200 billion gallons a day. At
first glance, it would appear that the water supply of this country is
adequate, but because the supply is variable in time, in place, in
quantity, and in quality, national and yearly averages do not reveal
the fact that 45 percent of our municipal water supply is inadequate.
This means that 40 million Americans are teetering on the edge of a
serious water shortage (1).
In 1900 we used 40 billion gallons of fresh water daily. Consump-
tion has risen to 270 billion gallons daily at the present time and will
reach 650 billion gallons daily by 1980. The current estimate of
usable fresh water in lakes, streams, and reservoirs is 650 billion gallons
daily. As a country we will soon reach the limit of our water supply
and, because water demands will continue to rise hi accordance with
population increases and per capita use, it becomes abundantly clear
that water needs can be met only by continued reuse of the available
supply.
As a major beneficiary of water for navigation, flood control, irriga-
tion, power, water supply, pollution abatement, conservation and
recreation purposes, it is obvious that the municipality has both the
urgent need and the direct obligation to keep water clean. The
megalopolis or supercity is already here. It stretches along the
282
-------
Atlantic seaboard from Boston to Norfolk. By the turn of the century
much of the population of the United States will consist of great belts
of cities. In 1900 about 35 percent of our population lived in cities
and towns, but by 1950 some 60 percent were in the urban centers.
By the year 2000 some 85 percent of our population will be living in
the metropolitan complexes (1).
The combination of municipal and industrial water uses presents
the largest single use of our available water supply. Municipal use
may approximate 90 billion gallons per day in the year 2000. Indus-
trial use as a whole will soon become our largest use of water, although
projections do not distinguish clearly between municipal use and
industrial use. In 1950 per capita water use for farming purposes was
664 gallons as against industrial per capita use of 560 gallons. In 1960
the position was reversed, with industry soaking up 850 gallons per
capita to farm use of 766 gallons per capita. By 1975 the prediction
is 1,195 gallons per capita for industry, with farm use remaining stable
at 820 gallons per capita (1).
The scientific borderline which we have set up between sewage
water and drinking water is a precarious one. We live on the edge of
a human or mechanical failure in our water purification works that
could bring pestilence upon us, and the danger grows every year.
We have some 30,000 sewage and industrial outlets discharging waste
into our streams. Of this number, 10,000 outlets drain municipal
sewage systems serving more than 100 million people, and of this
number more than 25 percent of the total sewage load has been dumped
into our waterways without any treatment whatsoever (1). Many
cities and industries are using our waterways for disposal purposes
without any intention of complying with pollution abatement legisla-
tion and consider that paying a small fine occasionally is cheap disposal
cost. This is not good citizenship; it is not good economics; and it is
not good government.
Pollution degrades the physical, chemical, biological, bacterial,
and esthetic qualities of water, the degree depending upon the kind
and amount of pollution in relation to the extent and nature of reuse.
Pollution can be just as effective as a drought or a consumptive with-
drawal in reducing or eliminating a water resource.
Water quality mangement means providing the right quality of
water in the right quantities for the purposes to be served and at
the places where it is needed. Generally speaking, water quality
management can best be accomplished by the prevention, control, and
abatement of pollution. The most effective assistance we can give
ourselves in the immediate water crisis is to clean up the water we
have. As increasing demands are placed against our limited supplies,
more usable water can be provided by the prevention and control of
pollution than by any other means. It seems clear that we cannot
permit uncontrolled and indiscriminate use of our water resources
283
-------
by any one individual, any one industry, any one municipality, or
any one State.
Water quality management can be accomplished best when we
recognize the river basin as the logical unit for water resources de-
velopment, including pollution abatement. Progress will be made
in direct proportion to the cooperation developed between municipal,
State, and Federal Governments in matters of legislation, enforcement,
financial assistance, research, intelligence, education and training,
and public information. No single level of government can do the
job alone and direct responsibilities can be assigned logically to each
of the governmental levels.
River Basin—The Basic Unit
Rainfall, evaporation, and transpiration continue in an unbroken
cycle as water works its way slowly to the sea. The constant move-
ment of surface and ground waters disregards entirely city limits,
State boundaries, and national borders. Watershed drainage and
tributary streamflow present difficult questions. The conflicts of
English riparian water law versus Roman appropriation water law
add confusion to the expanding and overriding interest of the Federal
Government in its conflict with the State governments over water
matters. All these factors added to the unique characteristics of
water have been studied for the past 30 years by the legislative and
executive branches of the Federal Government in cooperation with
the States and by five different boards and commissions in the past
10 years including the two Hoover Commissions.
There is general agreement that water resources planning, develop-
ment, and administration must be conducted on a regional or interstate
basis with each of the major river basins as a comprehensive unit.
The first efforts toward river basin planning were made by the National
Resources Planning Board during the 1930's. The latest efforts are
those of the U.S. Study Commissions created by the Congress in
1958 to undertake studies for the full development of all purposes of
the water resources in Texas and the Southeastern States.
In between the National Resources Planning Board and the two
new Study Commissions, other multiple-purpose planning programs
have been undertaken such as the Tennessee Valley Authority pro-
gram, the Coulee Basin program (Washington), and the Central
Valley Project (California) in the 1930's; the Missouri Basin Develop-
ment plan (Pick-Sloan plan) authorized in the 1944 Flood Control
Act; and the Federal Inter-Agency River Basin planning studies of
the New England-New York Inter-Agency Committee and the
Arkansas-White-Red River Basins Inter-Agency Committee in the
1950's.
The reasons supporting river basin unit planning for water resources
development purposes are obvious. Municipal jurisdiction is con-
284
-------
fined within city limits; State authority ends at the border of the
State. Economic, legal, and political factors make it impossible
for a single unit of government to develop a river basin resources
program without the cooperation and participation of all levels of
government concerned.
The transition from single-purpose navigation, flood control, and
irrigation works to multiple-purpose, maximum-use projects is com-
pletely logical and is dictated both by the scarcity of adequate sites
and by water economics. Once used, reservoir sites are gone for
'""practical purposes and are not available for future water resources
•4 development. The Commissioner of Reclamation testified in public
hearings before the congressional committees in 1959 that, with
hindsight, the Bureau of Reclamation would now construct most of
its single-purpose works as multiple-purpose works. There simply
are not enough suitable water project sites available to permit loss
of a single site from its maximum use. The Federal Power Com-
mission has made a detailed examination of prospective reservoir
sites and has concluded that even if all the sites were developed,
less than one-half the 1975 demand for hydroelectric power would
be satisfied (1).
As single-purpose flood control and irrigation works evolved into
multiple-purpose projects, it became clear that the public interest
could be served by including storage capacity for industrial and
municipal water supply at substantially less cost than comparable
storage could be constructed separately. Similarly the costs allocated
on a reimbursement basis for water supply purposes in turn reduces
substantially the project costs allocated to other reimbursable and
nonreimbursable purposes. The expansion of water facilities into
multiple-purpose, maximum-use projects is dictated by economics
which indicate approximately 50 percent less construction cost for
each benefit included in the works than might be occasioned by the
separate construction of single-purpose works for each of the benefits.
The development of reservoir sites to their maximum use raises
some question as to storage or benefits for future use as against
immediate use. Obviously, no single municipality and no single State
is in a position financially, legally, or politically to develop water
resource sites to their maximum use for multiple purposes from which
the present and future benefits will accrue to downstream users of
water throughout the entire river basin. Conversely it makes no
sense to permit a single municipality or a single State to develop
water resource projects for local purposes only at less than maximum
development of the site and to the ultimate detriment of the entire
river basin area.
285
-------
Legislation
The authority of the Federal Government should be clarified, and
if necessary, increased, not for the purpose of establishing an over-
riding bureaucracy that will extend into every State and city, but
for the purpose of establishing clearly the Federal authority and
responsibility over (1) interstate waters (which may now be the case),
(2) navigable streams and their tributaries, and (3) underground water
reservoirs in such manner as to permit the Federal authority to pre- ^
scribe general levels of research, education and training, intelligence, -*>
enforcement, and financial assistance. Water resources facilities are t
too scarce, water-trained personnel and technicians are too few, and
water intelligence is too limited to permit their indiscriminate use or
waste. Fifty different States going off in all directions will not pro-
duce 50 good answers to the problems of water quantity and quality.
Add to this confusion the uncoordinated activities of several thousand
cities, industries, and other water users and polluters, and you will
have confusion compounded.
The authority of the Surgeon General was established in 1944 by
the Public Health Services Act; was broadened in the Water Pollu-
tion Control Act of 1948 which was extended by the 82d Congress
in 1951 and reaffirmed by the Water Pollution Control Act of 1952;
and was strengthened by the Water Pollution Control Act of 1956.
The legislation should be brought up to date and the authority of
the Surgeon General established clearly over all water resources insofar
as pollution control and allied functions are concerned. Control of
pollution in ground water reservoirs is of particular importance. The
field is comparatively new. The quantity of water available, the
rapidly increasing rate of withdrawal, and the difficulties of detection
and abatement of pollution all combine to make it desirable that
there be no question concerning the exercise of the full authority of
the Surgeon General.
Great progress has been made during the past few years. So-called
model water control legislation has been developed by the Public
Health Service and has been made available to the State legislatures.
Some States have adopted the legislation which should be updated
in the light of experience and adopted by all States.
Specifically, Congress should enact legislation to establish the river
basin as the basic unit for development of water resources and within
that framework: (1) to provide for comprehensive development of
resources for maximum-use, multiple-purpose works; (2) to provide
for recognition of all purposes in water projects, including navigation,
flood control, power, water supply, irrigation, recreation, conserva-
tion, and pollution control; (3) to provide for appraisal of present
and future benefits on a uniform basis applicable alike to all projects
in similar circumstances; (4) to provide for municipal, State, and
286
-------
Federal participation in costs on a uniform basis applicable alike to
all projects in similar circumstances; (5) to provide for Federal assist-
ance for research, training, and water intelligence purposes subject
to such coordination at the State levels as may be prescribed by the
Public Health Service; (6) to provide for pollution control on all
waters intrastate and interstate in accordance with a program to be
prescribed by the Public Health Service; (7) to provide for the devel-
opment of appropriate water management legislation, including such
present and continuing levels of pollution control as may be pre-
scribed by the Surgeon General, to be adopted by State legislatures
as a condition precedent to Federal assistance of any kind in water
projects; and (8) to provide for levels of coordination between munic-
ipalities and the various State boards of health, on the one hand,
and between the Public Health Service and State boards of health,
on the other hand.
State legislatures should adopt legislation authorizing States
and cities to participate hi river basin projects and within that
framework: (1) to provide for cost sharing by municipal and State
governments of appropriate portions of present and future benefits
of maximum use-multiple purpose works; (2) to provide for coordina-
tion of intrastate research, training, and intelligence at State levels,
presumably with State boards of health or water pollution control
boards; (3) to provide for pollution control on all waters in a manner
supplementing river basin programs established by the Federal
Government; and (4) to provide for development of appropriate water
management ordinances with respect to environmental sanitation,
sewer use, and levels of pollution control, all on a present and con-
tinuing basis, such ordinances to be adopted and placed in effect by
the municipality as a condition precedent to receipt of Federal or
State assistance and approval of State permits for municipal sewage
discharges and sewer line extensions.
Municipalities should adopt ordinances to supplement Federal
and State legislation and within that framework: (1) to provide for
pollution controls at the local level applicable without exception
to all pollution originating in or flowing through municipal limits;
(2) to provide appropriate regulations governing sewer use; (3) to
provide appropriate regulations governing environmental sanitation;
(4) to prove appropriate regulations governing use of industrial
sewers; (5) to provide appropriate standards for operation of municipal
sewage treatment works; and (6) to provide appropriate standards
of in-plant pretreatment of industrial waste before acceptance in
municipal sewage systems.
Enforcement
With respect to the enforcement of pollution controls, it is clear
that municipal authority is confined to city limits and that State
287
-------
authority ends at State boundaries. Federal authority must be
used to control interstate pollution and that authority should be
definite and conclusive and applicable either upon the authority of the
Surgeon General or the request of any State or municipal^ aggrieved
by pollution.
This is not to say that Federal authority should not be used on
intrastate pollution matters. It is to say that primar}^ enforcement
activities should be left to the States and the municipalities without
bureaucratic duplication at the Federal level. The level of enforce-
ment should be prescribed by the Surgeon General, and Federal
authority should be made available when States or municipalities are
unwilling or unable to act effectively.
Unfortunately, it is unrealistic to expect a municipality to adopt
complete pollution controls unless and until basinwide action is
taken by all the cities involved. The political facts of life being what
they are, an FBI level of pollution control enforcement can no more
be accomplished by the municipality solely than a city can maintain
an FBI level of general law enforcement. However, the combination
of local enforcement efforts reinforced by State authority and
buttressed by Federal authority can be most effective.
Financial Assistance
Considering all the aspects of Federal assistance and cooperation,
the greatest immediate need and direct benefit may be related to
financial assistance. Certainly the need is staggering.
The only time when construction of sewage treatment facilities
kept up with sewer construction in this country was during the Federal
public works programs of the. 1930's. Before that time, and since,
the number of persons served by sewers increased much more rapidly
than the number served by sewage treatment facilities. The con-
struction of industrial waste treatment facilities has never kept up
with the increase in the number of industrial sewer outlets or the
increase in the industrial waste. As a result, a large backlog of
necessary sewage and industrial treatment construction has accum-
ulated through the years.
Nearly 2,900 new sewage treatment works are needed to serve
19.5 million persons living in communities that have never provided
treatment for their waste. Another 1,100 new plants are needed for
3.4 million persons in communities where treatment works built in
the past have become overloaded or obsolete. In addition to these
4,000 communities needing new plants, another 1,600 communities have
sewage treatment facilities requiring enlargement or the addition of
new units or processes in order to serve adequately populations
totaling more than 25 million.
This bacldog is not the whole problem. Population growth and
urbanization create new sewage treatment needs continuously and
288
-------
existing treatment works become obsolete. If municipalities are to
catch up with the treatment needs by 1965, they will have to spend
$1.9 billion to eliminate the backlog, $1.8 to provide for new population
growth, and $900 million to replace plants which will become obsolete.
Insofar as industrial waste is concerned, it appears that some 6,000
construction projects are needed at a cost of another $4.5 billion.
Most cities are creatures of their State legislatures and, except for
the comparative few that have been granted some measure of home
-—^ rule, are operating under debt limits and terms dictated by their
State. Most municipalities already are staggering under debt limits
that are as high as they can go. As a general rule, property taxes,
or ad valorem taxes, have reached a point beyond which further
property taxes would mean confiscation. The other great reservoir
of taxes, the income tax, is preempted for the most part by the Federal
Government.
Shifting the burden of financing local pollution control works
from the city to the State to the Federal Government is not the answer.
Each level of government—Federal, State, and local—should bear its
share within the framework of a river basin program. Generally,
municipal sewage works are financed by general obligation bonds with
10- to 20-year maturities. This is unrealistic in view of the nature
of the works, the pressing need for financing large-scale programs, and
the longer maturities of other types of municipal obligations. If the
State of California can sell 100-year maturity water bonds for its
Central Valley Project, why should bonds for sewage and treatment
works which are an integral part of any water supply program have
maturities greatly less than the life of the projects?
A better solution may be the use of revenue bonds for financing
the municipal share of cost of constructing water and sewage works.
Certainly it would have the advantage of being outside the property
and income tax fields, and the users of the service would pay the bills.
Taxpayers and water and sewer users may not be the same persons, and
if not the freeloaders are imposing a heavy burden on the taxpayers.
Few bonds other than general obligation bonds enjoy the certainty of
payment that is present in water and sewer revenue bonds, and this
fact is reflected in the favorable interest rates. Maturities should
be extended to a minimum of 50 years, with provision for additions for
modernization purposes.
Long-term revenue bonds of our cities for water development and
water quality pollution control purposes should be immediately
marketable under a Federal system of guarantees such as FIIA-
guaranteed mortgages or guaranteed loans for defense production
purposes. In addition, a Federal finance agency similar to a "WATER
RFC" ("Water Resources Finance Corporation'') should be authorized
to discount, purchase, or collateralize such bonds for loan purposes.
Federal grants-in-aid and Federal assistance in financing should be
289
-------
accomplished on the river basin basis if possible and with each State
bearing its proportionate share of the cost of each project as it relates
to an overall river basin water development and control program.
In any event, this cardinal rule should apply to all Federal financing
whether by loan, grant, subsidy, or other means. No Federal money
should enable any project to continue water pollution practices. The
adoption of water management and quality controls on a present and
continuing basis should be a condition precedent to the application
for Federal funds, and this requirement should be applied to public
works projects also.
The construction of individual water and sewage treatment facilities
by each individual city is absurd. Especially is this so when cities
are crowded together and are dumping waste into a common supply
source. Pipelines are simple to construct and easy to operate.
Wherever possible, consolidation of public water and sewage works
should be made both intrastate and interstate. The economics of
costs, shortage of competent personnel, increased efficiency of opera-
tion, and improved health results indicate the advisability of
consolidated works.
Industrial sewage operations are of a great variety both in method
and efficiency. Public health responsibilities should not be abandoned
or delegated by the municipality and, where at all possible, industrial
sewage should be discharged into municipal works. Neither should
municipalities evade their responsibilities of public health to their
citizens either by the deannexation of trouble areas and industrial
pollution sources or by failure to annex and to bring such problems
under municipal control. The pollution will not disappear simply
because local officials lack the courage to deal with powerful industrial
interests not primarily concerned with the public welfare.
Research
The national water pollution problem is a complex one involving
many facets. Water is withdrawn for use over and over again for
many purposes as it flows to the sea. Most of this water is taken for
granted and is used freely for all purposes, including the disposal of
waste materials. Because of this indiscriminate use, water is be-
coming badly polluted. The expanding need for water emphasizes
the necessity of preserving its quality as our water demand rapidly
approaches a final limit of supply.
Water supply and pollution trends show that one of the most
pressing problems in water quality management is the need to develop
new treatment processes which will remove more of the contamination
from municipal waste than we are able to do by present methods which
remove only 75 to 90 percent each of the suspended solids and bio-
chemical oxygen demand in domestic sewage. Little of the total nitro-
gen and phosphorus is removed, and their availability for stream ferti-
290
-------
lization and algae growth is actually increased. Because of these
deficiencies in present treatment methods, large quantities of water
must be available to dilute and transport the residual waste after
treatment, and when this water is not available serious pollution
oblems result.
Unless new methods of treatment are discovered, the volume,
strength, and complexity of future municipal waste can only result in
the discharge of larger and larger amounts of impurities into badly
needed water resources. To do this we must develop new treatment
processes probably based on entirely new concepts and principles that
will achieve what approaches conversion of waste waters to fresh water.
This will require a major coordinated research program which must
utilize the best minds in the country and be able to attract physicists
physical chemists, hydrologists, economists, and devotees of other
skills that have not up to now been fully utilized hi water pollution
research.
Water pollution substances may be classified according to eight
general categories: (1) sewage and other oxygen demanding wastes;
(2) infectious agents such as disease-causing organisms from wastes
of municipalities, hospitals, slaughtering plants, stockyards, and
similar operations; (3) plant nutrients of which nitrogen and phos-
phorus are the two elements principally involved; (4) organic chemical
exotics such as detergents, insecticides, pesticides, herbicides, petro-
leum derivatives, and decomposition products; (5) other mineral and
chemical substances such as chlorides, salts, brine, and acids; (6)
sediments consisting largely of suspended solids from the surface
runoff into our streams and rivers approximating at least 700 times
the loading caused by sewage discharges; (7) radioactive material
from nuclear operations; and (8) heat resulting from the tremendous
quantities of water withdrawn daily for cooling purposes by steam
electric powerplants, steel mills, petroleum refineries, and other
similar industrial plants.
It is clear that the Federal level must handle research with respect
to the exotic materials or that portion of the research activity charged
with pushing back the frontiers. In order to avoid the expense of
duplicate effort, the Federal level should be free from routine research
operations. Certainly the excessive cost of the more sophisticated
equipment such as specialized instruments for the detection of radio-
active wastes cannot be duplicated at the municipal level or even at
the State level. Until recently, scientific water pollution research
averaged less than $1 million a year from all sources. Even now
research expenditures total less than $6 million, of which the Federal
Government spends $2.5 million, industry $2 million, and the remain-
ing $1.5 million is provided by State governments including university
expenditures. This is an exceedingly small sum when compared to
the great backlog of unsolved problems and the rapid increase of new
291
-------
problems resulting from new technologies and changing living
standards and patterns. This amount should be increased.
In order to avoid the duplication of facilities and manpower engaged
in research activities, general levels of research should be established
by the Federal Government, and coordinated levels should be assi
to municipalities and States. It is obvious that the sophisticated
level must remain within the purview of the Federal agencies. It
also obvious that the municipalities should maintain laboratories for
purposes of operating control and for certain basic research work in
river basin areas. It is further obvious that a great deal of municipal
research can be coordinated at a State level or river basin level.
This coordination is desirable in order to avoid clogging the Federal
laboratories with more or less routine matters.
In addition to the governmental research programs, it appears
desirable to coordinate industrial research if for no other reason than
to again avoid duplication of resources and personnel. Municipalities,
States, and the Federal Government are presently controlling indus-
trial research indirectly through various ordinances and legislation
prohibiting certain results in sewage treatment works. This activity
should be increased as the exotic new chemical products continue to
pour into public sewage systems. It may be that certain legislative
restrictions should be applied prohibiting end use or results. Cer-
tainly we are rapidly approaching the time when sewage treatment
systems should not be expected or required to accommodate every
type of waste that might be dumped into it as a result of industrial
processes. It may be necessary to explore the possibility of requiring
all waste to be within certain limits of tolerance, the net results of
which requirement would be that industrial research would be
centered specifically in the direction of accomplishing in-plant waste
treatment methods before new products were permitted to be dumped
into public sewer systems.
Intelligence
Successful management of water resources requires adequate
information. Both the collection of data and the application of
research to the solution of water pollution problems need to be
expanded greatly. Basic data for pollution control consists princi-
pally of information on the source, kinds, and amounts of pollution;
the causes of pollution and its effects on water quality and uses; the
present and future intended uses of water; the pollution prevention
and control measures required to accommodate the planned water
uses; the kinds, costs, and efficiencies of remedial treatment works;
and the costs and benefits associated with pollution and its control.
These data need to be collected, evaluated, and distributed on a
cooperative basis among the water resources agencies concerned. To
make the data more reliable, they need to be collected on a continuing
292
-------
basis in all the river basins; to make them more usable, they need to
be made available on a continuing basis. We need to know where
and why we are gaining or losing ground in the control of pollution.
We need to maintain a water intelligence that will detect pollution
Jituations as they arise before they become major problems. We
heed this surveillance and intelligence both on interstate and intrastate
^waters.
The Public Health Service has established a basic data collection
program the most recent phase of which was started in 1957. This is
the national water quality network which is now operating 62 stations
on interstate streams in a proposed network of 250 to 300 stations
considered necessary to provide minimum interstate water quality
service. The network is currently being expanded to 75 stations and
an increase to 120 stations is being planned for 1961. This water
quality network should be expanded and should be applied on a
mandatory basis to all municipalities with a sewage disposal load
equivalent to a population of 5,000 people.
The basic data program as a whole requires complete cooperation
between municipal, State, and Federal agencies. The importance of
the program is such as to warrant it being applied by legislation on a
mandatory basis rather than on the basis of cooperation. Municipal
information needs to be coordinated at the State or regional levels in
order that river basins may be handled as separate units, and further,
in order that a great mass of routine information not clog the admin-
istrative channels in Washington. Such legislation as may be adopted
with respect to the mandatory collection of basic data should be
applied without exception to all industrial operations discharging
waste into rivers and streams outside municipal or metropolitan
sewage disposal works.
Much can be accomplished once we know precisely the nature and
extent of the problem. A number of States have basic water quality
data collection programs underway at the present time. All States
should adopt this program for the obvious reason that river basin
programs can become effective only as all the information becomes
available.
Education and Training
Unfortunately, we are not operating our present sewage disposal
facilities at the top level of their capabilities because municipalities
refuse to recognize the technical requirements and skills required.
Personnel involved in such activities should be placed within a pro-
fessional category in municipal job rating scales and should be re-
moved entirely from political appointment or even tenure programs
not based directly on technical competance.
Two types of training generally are available in this field. First,
the so-called in-plant training which should be a requirement of all
293
-------
municipal sewage treatment works and particularly those works bene-
fiting from Federal aid. A condition precedent to Federal aid should
be established wherein adequate in-plant training programs are carried
out on a current and continuing basis. Second, academic training is
available largely through universities and colleges. While this train-*_
ing itself is desirable, the means and resources are quite limited in
comparison with the number of technicians that will be needed within-^~
the next 15 years for pollution control purposes.
Here again we find a field in which duplication of effort and over-
lapping activities should be subordinated to Federal coordination
establishing training levels for the municipal, State, and Federal
Governments. The so-called exotic fields should be handled by the
Federal Government for the country as a whole. The coordination of
various State or regional activities should be delegated to the States
through their boards of health and State universities, supplemented
by a program of licensing on an annual basis within each State certain
categories of operators employed in pollution control works. Basic
training can be accomplished at the municipal level and it can be
supplemented with annual schools both in the State universities or
conducted for licensing purposes by the professional organizations
involved. Training and technical skill of pollution control operators
should be as much a prerequisite of employment as the professional
training and skill ol any other professional employee.
Public Information
A major hindrance to the accomplishment of an effective water
quality program is the apparent reluctance of the public to finance
such programs for pollution control. Much of this reluctance may be
attributed to the lack of identification between taxes and the pollution
control functions provided by government. Related to all the ele-
ments in water quality management is the need for a much better
public understanding of the water pollution situation and greater
public support for what needs to be done.
We need to remove public consideration of water as a cheap com-
modity. We need to relate in the public mind the cost of water to
the cost of pollution and let the economics of the situation, presently
estimated at $1 billion annually, apply to each local community. We
need to inform the people in our cities of the huge investment now
accumulating in water and sewage treatment plants and to make them
aware of the false savings accomplished by irresponsible public officials
in reducing maintenance on these multibillion dollar investments.
We need to inform the public in our cities that water and sewer
service are the two most valuable services performed by a munici-
pality, and that they should not be made available beyond municipal
limits except under most extreme circumstances. Our people need to
know the direct relation between irrigation use, municipal and indus-
294
-------
trial use, and conservation and recreation in order that they may
realize water must be kept clean for all these purposes. We need to
inform our people of the dangers faced by a community both for health
and economic reasons in those situations wherein large industries refuse
,rto adopt pollution control measures and threaten withdrawal from the
city if controls are forced upon them. Certainly no industry, regard-
>. less of its size, is more important to a community than the health of
all the citizens in the community, and certainly no single city is more
important to a river basin area than all cities combined in the same
area.
We need to inform our people of the grave dangers, the serious
difficulties of detection, and the technical problems of abating water
pollution in underground water sources. Unfortunately, pollution in
these underground water reservoirs is not as readily apparent as it is
in surface waterways. Once present, pollution may work its way
through an entire ground water reservoir and not become apparent
until many years in the future. The increasing importance of ground
water reservoirs as a source of supply indicates the advisability of
complete public information and knowledge of this important aspect
of our national water problem.
We need to establish an annual rating procedure applicable to water
supply and pollution control works in each municipality in much the
same manner as the annual rating of the fire department, by the insur-
ance underwriters. Efficiency of operations can and should be meas-
ured and the results should be made known to an informed public at
least on an annual basis.
In addition to the critical nature of the water supply problem and
in addition to the fact that the quickest way to alleviate our present
water shortage is to clean up the water we already have available,
it should be made known to our people that river basin developments
require the complete cooperation of all cities and States in the river
basin area. It must be made clear that no single community can
clean up a polluted river basin area by itself and conversely that a
river basin area cannot be cleaned up as long as any one single city
persists in pollution practices.
Unfortunately, local officials elected by their municipal citizens are
frequently unwilling or unable to relate conditions within their own
city to an over-all river basin operation. The cooperation of cities
should not be left to chance but should be required as a part of legisla-
tion applicable to all cities alike under similar circumstances through-
out the river basin area. Federal aid, whether in the form of grants or
otherwise, should be made available to those municipalities seeking to
improve their pollution situation. Federal aid should be reserved for
those municipalities willing to cooperate within a river basin program.
Federal aid should not be made available to municipalities on the
basis of placing a premium on recalcitrance. Those cities which
583283—61 20 295
-------
deliberately permit themselves to be branded as polluters and delib-
erately refuse to build sewage treatment works in order to attract
Federal aid for remedial works should not be encouraged in that
direction.
In conclusion, it is clear that we should be shaping a broad national
water policy with the river basin as the unit for development and
administration. Water resources policy and water quality manage-
ment are so inter-related as to make it impossible to discuss one
without the other. We should adopt stringent pollution measures
now at the city, State and Federal level and we should develop these
controls further in the light of experience and new situations. This
will require more action than we have had, more reason than we have
shown and considerably more understanding and courage than we
have used so far in attacking the problem.
We must protect and improve the water we have and we must find
more water. That is the price of survival! (1)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(1) Land, Wood and Water by the Honorable Robert S. Kerr, Senator from
Oklahoma, published in 1960 by the Fleet Publishing Company.
(9) United States Senate Select Committee on National Water Resources
Committee Print No. 2—Reviews of National Water Resources Dur-
ing the Past Fifty Years
Committee Print No. 3—National Water Resources and Problems
Committee Print No. 4—Surface Water Resources of the United States
Committee Print No. 5—Population Projections and Economic As-
sumptions
Committee Print No. 7—Future Water Requirements for Municipal
Use
Committee Print No. 8—Future Water Requirements of Principal
Water Using Industries
Committee Print No. 9—Pollution Abatement
Committee Print No. 12—Land and Water Potentials and Future Re-
quirements for Water
Committee Print No. 24—Water Quality Management
Committee Print No. 27—Application and Effects of Nuclear Energy
Committee Print No. 28—Water Resources Research Needs
Committee Print No. 29—Water Requirements for Pollution Abate-
ment
(5) Remarks of the Honorable Mike Mansfield, United States Senator from
Montana as published in the Tuesday 27 January 1959 issue of the Con-
gressional Record.
(4) Address of Elmer B. Staats, Deputy Director of the Bureau of the Budget,
before a joint meeting of Inter-Agency River Basin Committees on Friday
19 August 1960 at the University of Colorado.
(5} Statement of the Municipal Conference of Mayors concerning public water
supply problems and recommendations as presented by Justus H. Fugate,
Mayor of Wichita and A. E. Howse, former mayor of Wichita on 18 No-
vember 1959 to the Select Committee on National Water Resources of the
United States Senate in public hearings at Topeka.
296
-------
(6) Recommended water and pollution abatement policy submitted by Justus H.
Fugate, Mayor of Wichita in November 1959 to the Committee on Water
Resources of the American Municipal Association in Denver.
(7) Task Force Report on Natural Resources dated January 1949 and prepared
I by the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Gov-
ernment. (First Hoover Commission)
(8) Task Force E,eport on Water Resources and Power dated June 1955 and pre-
pared by the Commission on Organisation of the Executive Branch of the
Government. (Second Hoover Commission)
(9) Report of the Presidential Advisory Committee on Water Resources Policy
dated 17 January 1956 and prepared by the Cabinet Committee on Water
Resources Policy. (House Document 315)
(Iff) A Water Policy for the American People dated 11 December 1950 and pre-
pared by the President's Water Resources Policy Commission.
(11) Land and Water—a report dated 1953 and prepared by the Missouri Basin
Survey Commission.
(IS) The Arkansas River and Its Tributaries—a report dated 24 August 1935 and
prepared by the Secretary of War pursuant to the Flood Control Act of
31 May 1924, the River and Harbor Act of 21 January 1927 and the Flood
Control Act of 15 May 1928. (House Document 308)
(IS) A plan for Development of Water and Land Resources of the Arkansas-
White-Red River Basins dated 17 January 1957 prepared by the Arkansas-
White-Red River Basins Inter-Agency Committee. (Senate Document
13)
(14) Long Range Water Resources Report dated March 1955 and prepared by
the Mayors Advisory Committee on Water Resources.
297
-------
The Needs and Obligations
of Metropolitan Agencies—County
M. JAMES GLEASON
Multnomah County Commissioner, Portland, Oreg.
The fine paper by Justus Fugate is very complete and commend-
able. There are no basic differences in his thinking and my own.
Mr. Fugate has presented a most comprehensive discussion of com-
plete water control, for all puposes—power, navigation, irrigation,
timber—palatable and polluted. He has embraced methods of proper
water management.
These problems are problems of very grave concern to us from the
Far West. However, for purposes of this discussion, I will confine
my remarks to water pollution as it affects counties and cities making
up metropolitan centers.
So that we may all understand the terms used by Mr. Fugate in re-
lation to my own usage, let us consider them briefly. He uses the
terms municipal, municipalities and municipal limits. Many times
they are misunderstood. Popular understanding is that they refer to
cities. I have discussed with Mr. Fugate his meaning of the term
municipal and find that he encompasses any form of local govern-
ment less than a State—that is, cities, towns, counties, metropolitan
areas, etc.
However, as I use the terms counties, cities, districts and metro-
politan area in my remarks I will be referring to the same areas as did
Mr. Fugate when he used municipal, etc. Use of these subordinate
terms will clarify my thinking by identifying a particular segment or
unit.
For many years it was considered that sewers ended at city limits.
But new thinking came in the last three decades, 1930-1960, as
experience showed that population was moving into counties outside
incorporated cities—thus forming large metropolitan areas.
298
-------
People and industries locating in these metropolitan areas regard the
central city as the business and cultural center of their lives and
operations. But they make then: homes hi the suburban districts.
Two-thirds (66% percent) of the Nation's growth in the past decade
"(1950-1960) has been in these metropolitan areas outside the central
city. In the United States there are at the present time, 54 million
v persons living outside the central city in the metropolitan areas.
Another 57 million are living inside the city in the metropolitan
areas. With the continued expansion of growth outside of the cen-
tral city, there is an urgency for services for which the population is
willing to pay, and which it needs. Definitely there seems to be no
inclination by these 54 million people to annex themselves to the cen-
tral city. Frankly, there isn't need to join the central city. There
are other competent governmental structures which can provide
services as needed and should provide them wherever the population
is located.
Because of rapid urbanization, county government has had to change
its thinking. It has moved from problems of a basically rural nature
to an urban structure of services in all of these rapidly growing areas.
This has come from the need to provide facilities such as streets
water, schools, water distribution and sewers and treatment plants.
Counties are in a most enviable position to provide leadership in
these fields. They are best able to be the coordinator among cities,
districts, towns and for other counties because they are the larger of
local governments. In reality, they already are coordinating many
unified services, such as collecting taxes for the other levying bodies
within the county.
In control of water pollution all local governmental units must
work together for a unified system. Only a unified system can bring
fair and equitable rates that will provide for construction, mainte-
nance and expansion. Only such unification will properly serve the
population and the industries of the metropolitan area. Rates
should be uniform for the entire area, so that no individual or no one
industry will have a trade advantage in its home market.
The methods of financing public projects often have confused the
average citizen. He has mistakenly believed that the total cost was
to be the amount of the general obligation bonds issued. But he has
overlooked, or not been thoroughly acquainted with all the financing
costs—interest, legal fees, etc. There is no bargain basement price
on good pollution control.
There is another evil. Too much of the thinking on Federal grants
to communities has been on small unconnected plants that were
uneconomical, could not provide for expansion of population or have
a large enough unit to provide for proper maintenance and operation.
299
-------
Often the result has been a continuation of the local pollution
problem.
Let us look at our situation today :
(1) In a report by Abel Wolman, in 1953, he said, "It required
nearly one-third of a century to eliminate cesspools and septic tanks^
in a large part of the congested area of the United States. Today we
find that accomplishment has become negative. In the last 12 years _^
we have put in more septic tanks and cesspools than we took out in
the previous forty. We describe this situation as one that 'crept up
on us'." This was from 1941 to 1953 and the situation is twice as
bad in 1960.
(2) Population in central cities and metropolitan areas are nearly
equal — 57 million in the city — 54 million outside. The population
outside the central city is growing almost six times as rapidly as it is
inside the city. Within a very few years many millions more of the
population will reside outside the central city than in it.
(3) Right now — today — there is an urgent demand and need for
service for most of the 54 million who already live outside the central
city.
(4) Right now there is an ever-present danger of disease as well as
a lowering of the standard of living for all unless service is provided.
(5) When the need for service is properly presented, the public
is willing to pay.
(6) It is unrealistic to contemplate the withholding of needed
services to force annexation to central cities.
With the above facts in mind, let us examine our position and set
a course that will provide the needed protection to society and give
it at a cost compatible with the benefits.
As I see it, there are two alternative courses from which to choose.
The first would superimpose another governmental unit (Metro) with
its attendant costs and bureaucracy. The second would use the
existing governmental units, cooperating on jobs too large for a
single unit and without regard to arbitrary political boundaries.
I choose the second course. It is far superior. I believe that
reasonable, efficient officials can cooperate and submerge local pride,
that they will subordinate local feeling to a much-needed and better
solution of problems in the larger area.
The counties, because they are the larger unit and are not so narrow
in their boundaries, are ideally suited to be the coordinating party
for projects that are larger in scope than cities but smaller than of
river-basin in size.
In projects smaller than river-basin areas you have to think in
watershed or drainage-area scope. A drainage area may encompass
300
-------
one or more counties, many cities and districts. A metropolitan area
may possibly encompass more than one drainage area. The entire
metropolitan area needs to be serviced by a unified system. The
project needs to be engineered as one system, planned as one system,
with rates designed for one system and managed as one system.
Plants, interceptors, trunks and laterals should be designed and built
for the maximum population forecast for the area. The most eco-
nomical system is by gravity flow and should be handled and treated
by the governmental unit best situated, regardless of what political
boundaries are crossed.
Much legislation is needed on both Federal and State levels to make
this possible. Federal legislation will be needed to provide:
(1) Pollution control standards by U.S. Public Health Service.
(2) Combination of grants allocated to individual plants into
a larger, more comprehensive program. Each allocation allow-
able for small plants and interceptors should be added together
for a larger metropolitan plant and interceptor system.
(3) Establishment of a National Investment Fund to provide
long-term financing for prudent and necessary public works.
This should be at reasonable interest rates, possibly with interest
for the first few years waived and payment deferred until the
system is built and operating.
Now for the State Legislatures—what must they do? Legislation
is needed to—•
(1) Allow cities, counties and individuals to contract for design,
transportation and treatment of sewage.
(2) Allow master plans for sewage disposal in metropolitan
areas, with enforcement that will prevent sub-standard construc-
tion in any section of the master system.
(3) Empower the State Public Health or State Sanitary Au-
thority to enforce proper design, treatment and transportation
of sewage.
(4) Allow long range general obligation and revenue bond
financing if desired.
(5) Have State Public Health or State Sanitary Authority
inspection and enforcement of level of treatment, including in-
filtration of surface water.
To accomplish this it is essential to have the highest type of local
leadership. This requires:
(1) An awareness by public officials—city, county, district,
etc., of the need for this type operation and the savings that a
metropolitan unit will bring.
(2) An awareness of these needs and the desirability of the plan
by all public information sources—newspapers, T.V., radio,
medical societies, service clubs, etc.
301
-------
(3) Complete agreement by both public and officials as to—
A. The need.
B. The benefits.
(4) Cooperative contracts between the affected public bodies
covering cost, scope of services, charges, and all other
elements.
(5) Single engineering studies, design and construction.
In the matter of financing there are five possible courses.
are (1) General obligation bonds.
(2) Revenue bonds.
(3) Connection charges.
(4) Tax Levy.
(5) Monthly charges.
All of these may be used or any combination used. But it is im-
portant that whatever method of financing is chosen it should be
engineered for sufficiency and fairness.
At this point, in my discussion, I should like to present an outline
of the areawide plan that I instituted in the Portland Metropolitan
Area.
A Review of the Tri-County Sanitary Authority of Multnomah,
Washington and Clackamas Counties of Oregon
In the fall of 1954, with a spiraling metropolitan population, Com-
missioners of Multnomah, Washington and Clackamas counties faced
an increasingly critical problem brought on by untreated sewage,
recognized that the sewage problem did not follow political boundaries
nor was it confined within any one unit.
The initial steps involved meetings with the health officials and
governing bodies of the three counties and the engineering staff of the
Oregon State Sanitary Authority. These officials and engineers were
fully aware of the situation and were just as eager as I to institute
positive action toward the solution of this problem. It was from
these meetings that the "Tri-County Authority" was formed.
The metropolitan and urban area covered by this Tri-County
Authority involves an area of 150 square miles, lying east and west of
the Willamette River which flows northerly to the Columbia River.
In the area are ten incorporated cities in three counties. The Wil-
lamette River also flows through the city of Portland.
In general, the city of Portland area on the west side of the Willam-
ette River is high ground with steep slopes, thus preventing the flow
of sewage from unincorporated fringe areas to the city of Portland's
sewerage system. Likewise, several areas of the city of Portland
lying west of this high ground presently require pumping sewage over
the hills to the city's system.
302
-------
Fortunately for the Tri-County area and the city of Portland, the
Willamette Kiver can successfully accept secondary treated effluent,
which is a requirement of the Oregon State Sanitary Authority, and
the Master Plan envisions such a system with complete gravity flow.
" It was first necessary to predict the population to determine the
size of the facilities needed. The population trends very clearly indi-
^cate why numerous problems exist in the suburban areas. The present
metropolitan population is 647,000 of which the population in the
area that Tri-County would serve is 276,000. From 1930 to 1960,
outside the Portland corporate limits, the population increased 350
percent while for the same period inside the city, it only increased
23 percent. However, it is interesting that the population of the city
has shown a slight decrease in the last 10-year period.
Determination of the design population was an important part of
the work involved in this study. Every possible source of informa-
tion, including local planning commissions, census reports, school,
water and fire districts and work by the League of Oregon Cities was
utilized in determining the population densities to be considered.
Generally the area was divided into four population classifications,
less than three per acre, 3 to 5 per acre, 5 to 10 per acre and 10 to 15
per acre. All population extensions were made on a 50-year basis or
to the year 2005. On this basis the design population was determined
to be 587,000, exclusive of the city of Portland.
This committee then sponsored certain bills in the 1955 session of
the Oregon State Legislature. They included:
(1) Adoption of a coordinated Master Plan for the collection,
transportation and treatment of sewage.
(2) Requirement that the plans for the installation of new
sewer systems or sewage treatment works in areas under Tri-
County jurisdiction outside the boundaries of cities conform to
this Master Plan.
(3) Legislation for conduct of surveys and investigations, levy
and collection of taxes for the purpose of providing funds to
prepare the coordinated Master Plan, expenditure of funds for
such surveys, investigations and studies. Also, allowed the
authority to enter into contracts or agreements with cities, other
counties, the Federal Government or any other person for the
cooperative financing and developing of a coordinated Master
Plan.
With the enactment of this enabling legislation, the Tri-County
Authority retained the services of a consulting engineering firm to
prepare a Master Plan for the metropolitan areas of the three counties.
In addition to the population trend this Tri-County Master Plan
was extremely comprehensive including geography and topography
303
-------
of the Tri-County area, existing subsurface disposal and sewerage
systems, suggested revisions to the sanitary statutes of the State,
treatment plant location and costs; and, interceptor and trunk loca-
tions, size and costs.
I recognized that the planning of sewerage works upon a basin-widef
area provides the most economical means for the solution to the
perplexing environmental sanitation problem in Tri-County. The
present multiplicity of municipal entities within the Tri-County"*
area serves to complicate the problem and a satisfactory solution
cannot be realized by following the unit development plan of the past
which must by necessity yield to an accepted over-all coordinated
system.
Most of the local streams can be regarded only as temporary
channels for final disposal of treated sewage. Most of these streams
would be dry in the summer except for effluents from sewage treat-
ment plants. These streams are in no way capable of accepting
treated sewage without causing a measurable degree of pollution and
resulting nuisance since from 10 to 20 percent of the pollution material
of sewage is not removed prior to fiaal disposal in the average second-
ary treatment plant.
The cost of the small sewage treatment plant is high, being $50
and $60 per capita; whereas a large plant serving 100,000 or more
people could be constructed for a cost close to $30 per capita. Since
the small sewage treatment plants in Tri-County must eventually
be abandoned, an economic waste exists and the economic loss can
only be held down by use of temporary plants designed for short
service life.
Sewerage systems are always expensive to install. However, experi-
ence has shown that the increases in property values usually more
than offset the cost of installation of sewerage facilities.
In the development of new tracts this may be explained by the
fact that in many areas much smaller lots can be used if a sewer
system is installed rather than individual septic tanks and drain
fields. This not only accomplishes efficient use of the land by per-
mitting more residences per acre, but also reduces the cost per unit
for all improvements. A reduction in lot frontage will effect a direct
saving to individual property owner for streets, curbs, walks, storm
drains and water lines. Indirect savings will be realized through
reduced cost to the utility companies for power, telephone, and gas
lines which can be passed on to the consumer. In some areas much
needed housing construction has been retarded or completely stopped
because of the lack of sewers. Even oversized lots cannot solve the
sewage disposal problem where high ground water and impervious
subsoil exist.
Kesale values of homes are considerably higher in those areas served
by a sewer system. Buyers have become increasingly aware of the
304
-------
importance of an adequate and permanent solution to the sewerage
problem. A well designed and constructed public sewerage system
is the only acceptable answer to many discerning purchasers. In some
as where the soils are clayey and there is a high ground water
able the resale of homes is almost nil except to those unacquainted
with the sanitary sewage problem. A modern sewerage system will
^immediately bring the value of these homes up to the normal market
prices enjoyed in areas more favorably situated.
Certain areas within the city limits of the city of Portland are
within the drainage basins considered as part of Tri-County and the
ultimate disposal of sewage from such areas, although within the
city limits, should and will be through Tri-County facilities.
Had such a disposal system been constructed, the city of Portland
would not have been forced to construct, at no small cost, several
major sewage pumping stations to pump sewage over the hills into
the city's existing sewerage system, but instead could have used the
more logical and economical gravity system of Ti'i-County.
The basic concept of the Master Plan envisions:
1. A major Tri-County sewage treatment plant on the Willa-
mette River near Oswego with an ultimate capacity suitable to
treat the sewage from a population of 587,000.
2. A basinwide system of interceptor and main trunk sewers
to serve a population of 309,000 in an area of 65 square miles
lying west of the Willamette River.
3. A basinwide system of interceptor and main trunk sewers
to serve 278,000 people in an area of 85 square miles lying east-
ward to the Willamette River.
The estimate of cost for construction, as outlined in the Master
Plan, brought up to date is $33 million for plants, interceptors and
trunks, and upon completion will be a self-sustaining operation.
While there was no estimate of cost for the construction of laterals
and house-branch connections in the Master Plan, it is the general
consensus of opinion that this cost is in the area of $30 million.
In order to make an actual start on the construction of this system,
being governed almost entirely by finances, it was decided to build
two interim treatment plants having a capacity of 20,000 persons
each. One was to be built on the site of the permanent plant along
the Willamette River; the other centrally located in an area where
heavy urban development is being experienced. The Tri-County
Authority engaged the services of a consulting engineering firm
widely experienced in this field to make the design. Both plants
are designed for secondary treatment and must provide at least 90
percent efficient B.O.D. (Biological Oxygen Demand).
Consideration was given in the design toward incorporating these
plant units in the permanent plant to be constructed at a later date.
305
-------
The Tri-County System, in addition to the plants, includes only
sanitary trunk and interceptor sewers from 12 inches to 60 inches in
diameter; all being designed on the basis of the predicted population
50 years hence. The design rate of flow is 130 gallons per capita per
day average with 300 gallons per capita per day as maximum. Baseo*
on the predicted population and these estimated flows, an average of
40 million gallons per day of sewage from the west side of the Willa-^
mette Kiver and 36 million gallons per day from the area east may be
expected.
For the present Multnomah County is acting as an agent for the
Tri-County Authority and since June 1959, we have spent $1,200,000
for engineering, plant and interceptors. A connecting district has
spent another $1,500,000 for a collection system. In addition to this
sum we are in a position to receive $250,000 from the Federal Gov-
ernment, Public Law 660—Health, Education, and Welfare, Public
Health Service.
One interim sewage disposal plant, capable of serving 20,000 people,
has been constructed and will be in operation by January 1, 1961.
Also, approximately 1 mile of interceptor sewer ranging from 30 inches
to 60 inches in size has been constructed and another 4 miles is planned
for next year.
As to financing the over-all project, after considerable investigation,
it was determined that utility type financing would be the most
desirable. We thought that it was more desirable to collect for the
connection to the system from the person at the time of the actual
connecting with monthly rates sufficient to provide money for con-
struction, operation, repair, expansion, etc. It is the philosophy of
the Tri-County Committee that all users of the system shall pay
equally for the "community benefits", i.e., the trunks, interceptor
sewers and treatment facilities.
In order to arrive at the rate to be charged for connection to our
system a "Comprehensive Rate Study" was prepared. The purpose
of this engineering, economic and rate study of the area was to establish
the Tri-County standard rates.
Broadly speaking, it was determined that for the average single
family dwelling, a fee of $300, to connect was to be collected. Rates
were also established for multi-family dwellings, high schools, hospitals,
industrial and commercial buildings, etc. A monthly sewer service
charge was also determined by the study. (See tables.)
It was decided to use the more or less universal collection of sewer
service charges, measured by the domestic water consumption of
the user. On the following pages are the tables for both the connection
and the sewer service charges.
306
-------
The most obvious need at present is for construction financing.
Without monetary aid the area does not have sufficient valuation to
construct sewage facilities and without facilities the area cannot
develop. It is believed that the most helpful aid would be in the
Jform of long term loans, probably with interest deferred, until the
project develops to a point where it is self-sustaining. Some Federal
legislation would most assuredly be of great benefit to the counties in
helping toward the solution of the common problem.
Tri-County Authority, Multnomah County
Sewer Connection and Service Charges
TABLE I
For the purpose of determining connection charges for various types of estab-
lishments :
Single-family dwelling 1 unit per dwelling.
Multi-family dwelling 1 unit per family unit.
High Schools 12.5 students per unit.
Elementary Schools 17 students per unit.
Motor Courts 2 rental spaces per unit.
Trailer Parks 2 rental spaces per unit.
Restaurants and Taverns 6 seating spaces per unit.
Hospitals and Institutions 2.5 beds per unit.
Industrial and Commercial Buildings 10 employees per unit.
Domestic "U Wash" Establishments 3.2 washing machines per unit.
Industrial Wastes Equivalent to Normal Sewage
For facilities contributing such wastes to the system, size can best
be established by population equivalent based on volume of water
consumption. On this basis, each 950 cubic foot increment of water
consumption equals one unit. Adjustments must be made for special
cases where large volumes of water consumption do not reach the
sewer. Where it is determined that any wastes are injurious or
harmful to the operation of the sewage treatment facilities then
pretreatment will be required.
TABLE II.—Connection charges for multiple unit facilities
Number of units Total connection charge
1 $ 300.
2___ __.__. $ 588.
3 $ 864.
4 $1,128.
5 $1,380.
6 $1,620.
7 $1,848.
8__ $2,064.
9__ ____ $2,268.
10 $2,460.
Over 10 $2,460 plus $180
for each unit over 10,
307
-------
TABLE III.—Service charges for domestic sewage or equivalent
Total volume of water used (C.F.)
0-950 $2.00/month minimum.
951-1900 $2.00 plus .0020/C.F. for excess over 950 C.F.
1901-2850 $3.90 plus .0019/C.F. for excess over 1900 C.F.
2851-3800 $5.71 plus .0018/C.F. for excess over 2850 C.F.t
3801-4750 $7.42 plus .0017/C.F. for excess over 3800 C.F.
4751-5700 $9.04 plus .0016/C.F. for excess over 4750 C.F.
5701-6650 $10.56 plus .0015/C.F. for excess over 5700 C.F.-*
6651-7600 $11.99 plus .0014/C.F. for excess over 6650 C.F.
7601-8550 $13.32 plus .0013/C.F. for excess over 7600 C.F.
8551-9500 $14.56 plus .0012/C.F. for excess over 8550 C.F.
Over 9500 $15.70 plus .0011/C.F. for excess over 9500 C.F.
308
-------
The Needs and Obligations of Industry
LEONARD E. PASEK,
Special Assistant to the Chairman
Kimberly-Clark Corporation
Inasmuch as this National Conference is being presented under the
auspices of the United States Public Health Service, it is fitting for
me first to set my brief remarks within a general framework of reference
to the concept of public health.
The safety of public water supplies in the United States is world
renowned. No other country has so many supplies with so high a
quality. This record was achieved by the construction and use of
modern treatment facilities; by the employment of qualified operators;
and by an ever-increasing knowledge of the principles of water
treatment. Health departments, from those at the local level to the
state level to the U.S. Public Health Service, played a prominent
part in gaining these milestones in public health. Consulting engi-
neers and city administrators helped shoulder the burden of putting
local programs into effect. Today a U.S. citizen can travel anywhere
in his country and be assured that the water from the tap will be safe.
Persons who have traveled in other countries are particularly aware
of and appreciative of our good fortune in having supplies that can
be counted on to be safe.
There is a great bulk of industrial water usage that need not measure
up to high quality requirements. On the other hand, for those water
supplies that must be of high quality for particular purposes in
particular industries, the reliance is on modern treatment facilities
just as it is in the public water supply field, and with equally remark-
able successful results. These requirements for high quality industrial
water are different and frequently higher than the requirements for
public drinking water. From the standpoint of discharge of waste
waters, industrial waste waters unless mixed with sanitary sewage
309
-------
do not normally become contaminated with pathogenic organisms
which affect public health.
In general, industry feels confident that there is no cause to worry
about a national shortage of water to meet the requirements of an
expanding economy over the remaining decades of this century. *
As stated by the Geological Survey of the United States Department
of the Interior in 1960:
The United States is in the happy circumstance of being well supplied with
water. After nature takes its share of water which falls as precipitation, there
is available for man's use about 7,500 gallons of water per day for every citizen
in the country. Of this available water, we presently use about 1 gallon out of
every 5.
In a national sense, then, the country is not likely to run out of water in any
foreseeable future.
This confidence is also based upon achievements that are being
made in industrial water conservation, both in regard to efficiency of
quantitative usage and in regard to qualitative control. The impor-
tant thing to remember is that industrial water usage, to a very high
degree, is non-consumptive. Abel Wolman Associates, in A Report
Upon Present and Prospective Means for Improved Reuse oj Water
to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on National Water Resources,
states:
Only 2 percent of the water used by industry is actually consumed, with the
greater portion returned to nature and hence not actually lost.
The tremendous significance of the potentialities of water reuse in
industry was brought out by a statement made by Dr. Richard D.
Hoak, Senior Fellow, Mellon Institute, Pittsburgh, in a speech on the
subject of "Water Conservation and Re-Use Possibilities in Industry":
It has been predicted that industrial re-use of water is likely to be the most
important technological development in the water resource field over the next
10 to 25 years. The present re-use, which approaches 100 percent, may be
expected to rise to 400 percent, i.e., one gallon of intake water will be used five
times. This would result in twice the present production of goods without a significant
increase in industrial demand for fresh water. (Emphasis supplied.)
Hudson and Abu-Lughod, in a symposium on "Water For Industry"
sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, in 1953, stated:
In view of the present-day tendency toward incorporating water-saving equip-
ment in new plants, it is believed possible that the industrial water use may not
increase in proportion to industrial production and the future total requirements
may be little greater than those of the present. Should it become economically
feasible to accelerate the installation of water-saving equipment in existing plants,
the total need for industrial water might even be reduced.
And, of course, it is just plain good economic horse sense for industry
to be frugal with water since water and its use costs money. In this
era of keen commercial competition, no unit of our private enterprise
economy can afford to be careless about any cost factor.
310
-------
It is clear that many of the projections made for increased water
usage in future years have not taken increased re-use by industry
adequately into account. Gross figures for total present or prospec-
tive water use, particularly when compared with the estimated poten-
tially available amounts, must be used with caution. The very large
return of used water to natural watercourses make the gross figures of
'water usage extremely misleading as to what the Nation's volume
requirements actually are. In addition, it should be kept in mind that
many of our present industrial plants were not originally built with
water conservation and water quality control in mind. The new
plants that are being built are equipped with modern devices to cope
with these problems. Thus, projections of future industrial water
demand and future industrial waste loads are erroneous in that they
ignore the modernization trend that is taking place in industry.
However, I do not mean to minimize the fact that American
industry must have large quantities of water available for use. It has
been pointed out that, while 1,000 gallons of water can produce about
10 cents worth of agricultural crops, the same 1,000 gallons of water
can make $11.70 worth of manufactured goods. It might also be
pointed out that agricultural use of the water consumes 80 percent of
it, although the U.S. Department of Agriculture has predicted that
increased efficiency in use of irrigation water will reduce the volume
required by about 20 percent. This contrasts with the very low per-
centage of water consumption by industry. In any event, the great
value of water to our economy in providing industrial jobs and pro-
ducing the goods and services needed to maintain our standard of
living and our national defense is readily apparent. To a very sub-
stantial extent, American industry—and thereby our economy—has
been built upon the base of that valuable economic asset—the ability
of our great waterways to dilute, assimilate and carry away industrial
wastes. The result has been a living standard of widespread abun-
dance and a national defense potential that has delivered the goods
during three periods of military conflict.
At least three decades ago, however, industrialists began to exert
strong efforts to minimize the necessary workload on these water-
ways. Since that time, great strides have been made in industry's
progress toward solution of industrial wastes problems and toward the
financing and constructing of the facilities to implement these solu-
tions. It is obvious that, as population grows and industrialization
grows, all parties utilizing the diluting, self-purifying and flushing
characteristics of our waterways must make some equitable contribu-
tion toward preserving their usability. These working streams are
vitally important since the most efficient dissipation of pollution is
achieved by the stream itself. The real problem is to limit the waste
loads in order to keep within the working ability of the particular
stream.
+
583283—61 21 311
-------
Industry's efforts in the field of conservation of water supplies both
in quantity and quality are exerted at the plant level, the company
level, and through various industry, technical, and professional or-
ganizations. Some of these efforts may be listed in the following-,
generalized fashion:
1. Plant and process design and redesign to decrease the amount of
water required per unit of product; substitution of air and other media-4
for water wherever possible; in-plant water surveys and employee
educational programs to reduce use of water; and recirculation of
water through the use of cooling towers and other devices in order
to achieve multiple use of water.
2. The use of ocean salt water and brackish water in place of fresh
water wherever possible.
3. The direct reuse ol treated municipal waste waters for industrial
purposes.
4. Cooperation with municipalities in handling waste disposal
problems.
5. Cooperation with state and interstate regulatory agencies in
carrying out stream surveys and recommending desirable operational
procedures.
6. Cooperation with the Federal Government, in its research, data-
gathering, and educational programs.
7. The installation and operation ot waste treatment devices.
8. Continued industrial research and exchange of information on
difficult, unsolved waste treatment problems.
Thus, there is every indication of a marked increase in conservation
of water by industry. In a short paper such as this, it is impossible
for me to tell the story of how each great American industry is im-
plementing its program in the field of water usage and water pollution
control. Therefore, I shall confine myself to the story of the pulp
and paper industry, with which I am most familiar. This will make
my presentation more concrete and at the same time be suggestive of
parallel developments in other industries.
Each industry carries on its efforts at the plant level, the company
level and through various industry committees, associations and or-
ganizations. In the pulp and paper industry, two of the most active
organizations in this field are the National Council for Stream Im-
provement and the Sulphite Pulp Manufacturers' Kesearch League.
The National Council for Stream Improvement was formed in 1943,
as a result of the efforts of a far-sighted group of pulp, paper and
paperboard industry leaders who recognized the need for an industry-
wide and sustained effort to solve the industry's stream pollution
problems. It was organized to develop, through research, solutions
to the pulp, paper and paperboard industry's waste disposal problems
and to make those findings available to members for application in
312
-------
actual mill operations. Supported by pulp, paper and paperboard
manufacturers in the United States, the National Council's operations
are financed by dues assessed on a tonnage basis. It operates on a
regional committee basis through a paid staff. These regional and
sectional committees, through their chairmen and members have made
a great and valued contribution to the industry's program. Manage-
jnent functions are centered in a central operating committee and a
board of governors consisting of executives representing the various
broad types of pulp, paper and paperboard manufactured in the
United States. Research is conducted at regionally located institu-
tions and the results of this research are disseminated to the industry.
Information on stream improvement problems is furnished to mem-
bers through the National Council's technical staff and regional
resident engineers.
Among the important policies adopted early by the board of gov-
ernors are: cooperation with State, interstate and Federal agencies
in the water pollution control field; nonintervention in political and
legislative matters; and recognition of the basic, fundamental concept
that research is merely a means to an end, and that unless research
findings are reflected in improved waste disposal methods the research
program is, to a large extent, nullified. The wisdom of these policies
has been frequently demonstrated, particularly that relating to co-
operation with public agencies. Without such cooperation, much of
the progress achieved could not have been accomplished.
The Sulphite Pulp Manufacturers' Research League, while different
in some aspects is also a cooperative research arm of the pulp and paper
industry, established and governed in somewhat the same manner as
the National Council. By attacking specific industry problems, as
well as undertaking general basic research, this group is also making
outstanding contributions in this field.
The problems involved in pulp and paper industry waste disposal
are many and diversified. Different mills produce different wastes,
and the characteristics of the receiving waters vary substantially
depending on hydrology, waste load, assimilative capacity, usage and
regulatory control. Thus, in a narrow sense, each situation consti-
tutes a different problem. Through the years, however, an over-all
and broader concept of the basic problems has emerged. Under this
broad concept the numerous individual situations can be categorized
under the following general headings:
1. Stream Analysis and Reoxygenation of Rivers.
2. Suspended Solids Removal, Dewatering and Disposal.
3. Aquatic Biology.
4. BOD Reduction.
Throughout the years, a definite research pattern has been es-
tablished. Research institutions are selected on the basis of their
313
-------
facilities, including equipment and manpower, their past experience
in the problem under investigation, and their proximity to the area in
which the problem under investigation exists.
The research procedure begins with an investigation of the literature.
From this and other sources, possible leads are selected for laboratory
investigations. If this investigation shows promising results, further
studies are instituted on a bench or field type pilot plant. From such,
pilot plant studies, cost and design factors are determined and, if these
are favorable, the process is made available for actual mill application
by members.
The following are some of the institutions whose research facilities
have been utilized hi the pulp and paper industry's research program:
Mellon Institute of Industrial Research
Institute of Paper Chemistry
University of Michigan
Rutgers University
Purdue University
Louisiana State University
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Oregon State College
Washington State University
University of Georgia
North Carolina State College
University of Maine
Kalamazoo College
Bates College
New York University
Manhattan College
Columbia University
Western Michigan University
Syracuse University
University of Florida
The accomplishments of the paper and pulp industry's pollution
abatement activities can be measured by several criteria: reduction
hi total pollution load; reduction hi pollution load per ton of product;
conservation of fibre, which can be translated into wood conservation;
and conservation of water.
In all of these, the industry has made notable, in fact phenomenal,
progress. In the past 20 years, annual production of paper and paper-
board soared from 13,500,000 to 34 million tons, an increase of over
150 percent. The waste load, on the other hand, is now less than it
was in 1939. To put it another way, the waste load from the average
ton of paper and paperboard has been reduced by more than 50 percent
since 1939. This has been accomplished without any tax-derived sub-
sidies from any governmental agency and has not been the resultant
314
-------
of any Federal legislation on the subject. It involved the expenditure
of more than $100 million by companies in the industry.
During this same period, the industry reduced its average fibre loss
Jrom 5 percent to less than 2 percent, a saving of over a million tons of
fibre and a vast reduction in the waste load. From the conservation
viewpoint, this saving is significant, representing as it does over one
>-and a half million cords of pulpwood.
This reduction in the pollutional effect of paper industry wastes was
accomplished by a number of different methods. These include
effluent treatment, new or novel waste disposal procedures, reduction
of solids losses by recirculation of process waters and use of solids
removal equipment, retention of increased percentages of wood sub-
stances in the finished product, more efficient recovery of chemicals and
heat from spent pulping liquors, new recovery systems applicable to
certain pulping liquors, and recovery of byproducts.
Vast economy in water use has also been accomplished during this
period. Today, when great concern is being expressed in connection
with future water resources, the industry can look back with satis-
faction on an average reduction in water use of more than 50 percent
per average ton of production during the past 20 years. Even by 1954,
the industry was making its intake water do the job of 2% times as
much water.
The pulp and paper industry was the first to employ stream analysis
techniques, on a wide scale, for forecasting the effect of waste effluents
on receiving waters and predicting the degree of waste treatment re-
quired to meet predetermined water quality criteria. Through a re-
search project, started at Manhattan College and continued at the
University of Michigan under the direction of Prof. C. J. Velz, not
only was effective use made of existing methods of analysis, but
valuable new and refined techniques were developed. For example, in
addition to forecasting the dissolved oxygen sag curve resulting from
the discharge of organic wastes and the effect of bottom deposits on
dissolved oxygen levels; waste storage requirements and discharge
schedules can now be predetermined for locations where runoff is
highly seasonal and mill effluent must be impounded for long periods.
Stream analysis techniques thus developed are widely used for de-
terming waste impoundment and release schedules. Several large
impoundments of this type are in operation by individual mills where
it is necessary to regulate waste discharge to peculiar runoff patterns
caused by natural conditions and/or peaking hydroelectric power sta-
tions upstream. Where sufficient and suitable land is available for
developing large impoundments, maximum utilization of the entire
dilution capacity of the annual runoff can be realized. In this way,
downstream users are protected from wide variations in water quality
caused by effluent discharge disproportionate to the runoff.
315
-------
Through the years, a vast store of hydrologic and other data con-
cerning rivers in this country have been accumulated by the National
Council. This information is available to National Council members
and others having a proper interest in these matters. A large amount
of basic data on rivers, which was originally obtained by government
agencies, is also part of this file which is constantly being expanded.
For many years, the industry has been interested in finding a means*
whereby natural reoxygenation could be supplemented so that dis-
solved oxygen levels could be raised in sections of streams where
critical conditions occur.
Three means of doing this are under intensive investigation. One
of these is to develop improved aeration equipment and explore the
use of surface-active agents as a means of increasing the rate of solu-
tion of oxygen. Studies directed toward this end are supported by
the industry at the University of Maine. Headed by Dr. S. A.
Zieminski, of the Department of Chemical Engineering, an aeration
device has been developed which appears capable of dissolving con-
siderably more oxygen per unit of power applied than direct diffusion.
This project has also demonstrated the fact that certain chemicals,
such as the higher alcohols, when introduced with the air in vaporized
form have a pronounced effect upon the rate of solution of oxygen.
Experiments are continuing to determine if there are more effective
chemicals than those presently known which could be economically
applied.
Another method employs the introduction of air into the turbine
draft tubes at power stations. This method has been applied by a
number of mills and is being intensively studied by the Wisconsin
Committee on Water Pollution in cooperation with the Sulphite Pulp
Manufacturers' Research League. While its application is limited to
the coincidental presence of a hydroelectric power station and low
oxygen levels in rivers, it has the great advantage of requiring no
elaborate installation of equipment, and is the most efficient method
to date for dissolving oxygen in water. Power is lost from the tur-
bines on introduction of air to about the same degree as that which
would be required to dissolve oxygen in water by mechanical means.
Still another method which has been given considerable attention
recently, both in this country and Europe, concerns the ability of
weirs and cascades of various types to dissolve oxygen in water.
This line of attack embraces both the improvement of existing over-
flow structures and the construction of new ones with this factor
in mind.
It appears from the review above that artificial stream reaeration
will receive increasing attention and application in the future and
that this means of supplementing the purification capacity of streams
will in time become common practice.
The removal of suspended solids from pulp and papermill effluents
316
-------
has received more attention than any other phase of stream pollution
control. Since such solids can interfere with downstream uses, deposit
on the stream bottom and absorb dissolved oxygen, and float in un-
sightly masses on the water surface, they bear obvious witness to
'pollution.
The first step taken by the industry toward suspended solids re-
duction in mill effluents was to remove bark and rejects which could
be successfully screened from mill effluent, and subsequently dryed,
burned or dumped. Following this, fibre recovery became the objec-
tive. In this activity, the industry has made an almost incredible
record. Coupled with water reuse, this has proved to be a true con-
servation measure, since, by these practices, water usage has been
cut to less than 50 percent of that previously employed. Fibre
savings amount to a million tons annually.
While mills have grown tremendously in productive capacity, the
quantity of water available for effluent dilution has not, on the whole,
increased. This fact, together with greater use of waste papers and
other materials in manufacturing which contribute more suspended
matter to effluents, has made it necessary for many mills to remove
a very high percentage of suspended solids from the effluent. The
residue collected from the removal operation is generally gelatinous
in nature, which causes the separation of additional water to be ex-
tremely difficult. This means that a large volume of very watery
sludge must be disposed of and, preferably, be dewatered prior to
disposal.
Most States regulate the discharge of suspended matter in industrial
effluents. Kequirements vary widely. Some are concerned with their
visible effect on receiving waters, others their concentration in the
plant discharge, and still others specify that effluents be treated in a
manner whereby removal of such solids to a certain degree can be
achieved. Because of such regulations, it is seldom permissible to
build a mill today without providing for the removal of a large per-
centage of the suspended matter present in the waste. Every indica-
tion is that regulations regarding the discharge of suspended solids
will become more stringent since the increased use of surface waters
for recreation will increase public pressure for their removal to a higher
degree.
For many years, research has been conducted by the industry to-
ward determining the best methods of suspended solids reduction for
various mill effluents, the variables affecting their efficiency, and the
effectiveness of coagulating chemicals in clarification. Accompanying
this effort, there has been extensive development and application
work carried on by the mills, equipment and chemical companies.
In addition, survey studies made by the industry have aided in evalu-
ation of the various methods, and have been of assistance in establish-
ing present practice. The institutions that have played a part in
317
-------
these investigations have been Mellon Institute, Eutgers University,
Kalamazoo College, Western Michigan University, and Syracuse
University. The industry's research groups have also contributed to
a substantial degree through their surveys, operation of pilot plants,
and contacts with individual mill solids reduction programs. In*
general, excellent progress has been made by the industry in removing
suspended matter from mill effluents.
Extensive research and experimental operations have also been""
carried on by the industry on problems related to aquatic biology and
biological treatment of effluents for reduction of biochemical oxygen
demand. Industry research projects at many colleges and universities,
and field studies at many of the industry's mills are involved in this
work. It is impossible to go into much detail on the difficult, com-
plex, and frequently frustrating aspects of these problems. I believe
that I have already given you a good picture of one industry's efforts.
In other industries, similar efforts are being carried on by such
groups as the Committee on General Research of the American Iron
and Steel Institute, especially its Water Resources Management Sub-
committee; the Committee on Disposal of Refinery Wastes of the
American Petroleum Institute; the Land and Water Use Committee
of the National Coal Association; and the Water Pollution Abatement
Committee of the Manufacturing Chemists' Association. I have
mentioned only a few and have slighted a great many industries and
organizations by not mentioning them.
CONCLUSION
I have endeavored to suggest in concrete fashion some of the needs
and obligations of industry in regard to wise use of our water resources.
For a number of years, industry has been very cognizant of problems
in this area. I am hopeful that this paper has properly indicated the
assumption of responsibility by industry in these matters and that
there is no intention to shirk this responsibility. It is evident that
we are only beginning to make significant break-throughs on some of
the difficult, complex problems. Industry is endeavoring to learn
more of the present characteristics of over-all industrial water use and
waste disposal through conduct of a national "Water In Industry"
survey, such as was accomplished in 1949.
In most States, an industrial company must notify the appropriate
state agency of changes in processes and changes in disposal systems as
well as new installations. As the years go by, there will be consider-
able upgrading of industrial practices. Many States are doing an
excellent job of promoting the cause of wise use of water resources
without disrupting their own economy. Industry is cooperating be-
cause it is willing to contribute to the attainment of improved stream
conditions. What industry does object to is being forced to make
large expenditures to meet arbitrary standards that are unrelated to
318
-------
the conditions in the particular stretch of stream in question. In
short, industry is perfectly willing to spend money to improve
demonstrated problem situations in particular areas, such as oxygen
* depletion or sludge deposits, but application of abstract, theoretical
criteria can easily result in the imposition of uneconomic penalties on
our entire system of production and consumption.
*• It is inevitable that we will have increases of population and to
support this increase in population we must have industrial develop-
ment. In existing areas of moderate to heavy population and indus-
trial density, it is only reasonable or equitable to conclude that the
self-purification action of the stream must be considered as an integral
part of pollution abatement. Generally, no two waste problems can
be handled in the same manner. A blanket requirement as to method
of treatment or degree of percentage removal is not consistent with the
complexity of the problem. The extent of self-purification is de-
pendent upon specific characteristics inherent in each body of water
and these characteristics may differ markedly from place to place.
Further, to evaluate this ability to recover, such factors as time,
temperature, distance, weather conditions, volume of flow, velocity,
reaeration, dispersion, type of waste, etc., must be considered.
There is little doubt that economics are a major factor in all waste
treatment. Whether it be a municipality or an individual industry,
each will search for the most economical means of handling its prob-
lems, taking into consideration the self-purification ability of the
receiving body of water. Excessive waste treatment requirements
may prevent industrial growth or make its position untenable. As
pointed out by Morgan, in Iron and Steel Engineer, July, 1960, in
regard to the industrial plants along the Mahoning River in Ohio:
These plants are dependent upon the river, and considering that their monthly
payroll plus goods and services purchased locally totals probably as much as
$12,000,000 per month, the economic health of the community is in turn dependent
upon the competitive position and prosperity of these same plants. The state
regulatory agency has, so far, recognized these fundamental facts and has treated
the Mahoning as an industrial stream, whose primary use is to serve the plants and
through them the communities on its banks.
It is obvious that the many kinds of efforts presently being carried
out by industry to attain wise use of our water resources must be
continued and in some cases stepped up or accelerated. The public
will have to accept the fact that the cost of maintaining water quality
must be and is part of the cost of production and must be paid for by
consumers. This is the appropriate private enterprise way to accom-
plish the result and undoubtedly the least costly way. Industry
is not trying to get a free ride from anybody, but in return it asks for
freedom to operate and freedom to make decisions. This will provide
social advancement as well as the economic advancement that sustains
our society. Historians have noted that over the centuries Oriental
319
-------
despotism has been associated with centralized control of water re-
sources. Unless it is the decision of the American people to alter
our economic system and abandon our private enterprise approach,
the only progress that can be made by private economic units will be,
the result of having control and application of solutions at local or
regional levels in order to maintain the flexibility necessitated by the
fact that different conditions surround every problem of wise use of
water resources.
Dr. WOLMAN. We are indebted to you, Mr. Pasek, for presenting
the position of industry with respect to the pollution abatement
problem. I would take only a moment to point out, Mr. Pasek,
that you demonstrated a high degree of courage by commenting on
the fact that we are not, hi fact, on the verge of disaster either hi
quantity or quality of the surface and underground waters of the United
States. I think the record would show that that comment is well
within the realm of accuracy.
When I admire your courage, it is because in every Conference such
as this, the advocates of the precipice type of approach—namely,
that we are just about to fall over the edge of the precipice in this
kind of a situation—I suppose is generally suggested because it lends
drama for the solution of the problem. It is drama that we are search-
ing for in order to arrive at a better understanding on the part of the
public and, of course, a better acceptance on the part of the public
and of industry of the necessary bill.
It is important, however, as Mr. Pasek points out, to keep reminding
ourselves that while we are seriously interested in the total problem
of the management of our water resources, that we should not forget
we are walking either in a crisis or on the verge of disaster. It just
isn't so. I, for one, for example, have been increasingly bored over
the last ten years by the repetition in every one of our popular and
scientific journals with the restatement, in case of the New York City
water shortage, that this was a prime example of an 8 million popula-
tion literally on the verge of disaster because we were running out of
water in the New York area. Nothing could be further from the
truth. It happens to sit hi one of the richest water resource areas in
the United States. And what I think the journals should learn to do
is to say that this was the result of delayed planning and execution,
delayed management of the very rich resources in that area that put
New York City for a considerable length of time on rations. Anybody
looking over that area can not escape the conclusion that this could
hardly be listed in the United States as an area devoid of potential
water resources for that great metropolitan area, not only until the
year 2000, but considerably beyond. As one of the minor prophets
myself, I don't like to see very much beyond the year 2020. This is
about as far as I think we could probably guess.
320
-------
DISCUSSION
JAMES M. GILL,
JPlant Manager
Ethyl Corporation, Pittsburg, Calif.
The paper by Mr. Pasek includes several excellent ideas and aspects
*~which, I believe, merit further consideration. The value of water
throughout the nation is increasing. The availability of a good, clean
water supply is a most important factor in determining the limits of
economic growth for any area of our country. The needs for water
are obvious and the obligations of those who make use of it on its way
to the ocean are becoming increasingly clear.
While it is believed, as Mr. Pasek stated, that there is an adequate
supply of water to meet the requirements of our expanding economy
in the foreseeable future, the distribution of the available water supply
is of considerable concern in some areas of the country. The State of
California is one such area.
Although the State has sufficient water to meet its needs, the avail-
able water is concentrated in the northern part of the State, while the
southern part is extremely short of water supply. As part of the
program to provide better distribution of the available water, the tax-
payers last month approved a 1.75 billion dollar bond issue for facilities
to store and transport water from the northern part of the State into
the southern area. This is a significant expenditure from any stand-
point and will be reflected in the total economy of the State; moreover,
it may be only the first step in a ten plus billion dollar expenditure
before the system is finished. The redistribution of water resulting
from the new plan will have a significant effect on water pollution
activities within the State. The users of this newer, more expensive
water will be handling a valuable commodity and must make maximum
use of it without undue pollution. It will also mean that many
industries in Northern California that have traditionally benefited by
the diluting effect of the water now scheduled for diversion to Southern
California will have to reappraise their water pollution abatement
facilities in light of the new flow conditions in streams to which they
now discharge their waste products. It is inevitable that many other
parts of the country will face similar needs and problems in the future.
The extreme differences in available water and water pollution
problems between the various areas of California were recognized and
considered when State water pollution legislation was enacted. The
State is divided into regions according to watersheds, with each region
being under the control of a Regional Board composed of representa-
tives of major types of water users in the region. These Regional
Boards operate with a high degree of autonomy, with a State Board
functioning as a policy-making and coordinating group. This type
321
-------
of organization allows the flexibility required to set pollution require-
ments based upon a multiplicity of factors which vary from area to
area.
Regardless of the methods used in controlling pollution, industry
has an obligation to itself and to the public to present its views in any"
legislative matter involving regulatory measures in the field of waste
control. Obviously, industry's position cannot be that of opposing^
necessary controls of water pollution but the approach should be that
of making certain that the controls imposed are constructive measures
based upon sound scientific and economic factors, contributing to the
region's total economy and well-being. In some instances, regulations
have been based on public outcries and political expediencies. The
cost involved in conforming to such regulations has been, on some
occasions, greater than warranted by the small benefit that may have
been achieved.
All groups concerned must make every effort to insure that expend-
itures for pollution abatement facilities will result in worthwhile
improvements in water quality. How can this be done? First and
foremost, there must be available adequate and sound data on which
to define clearly the specific problems involved and to indicate the
requirements that must be met to maintain water quality at the
highest reasonable level. As Mr. Pasek has mentioned, there are a
number of industry committees, associations, and organizations that
attempt to gather such information and sponsor research activities
in appropriate fields. Local, State, and Federal Government have
also contributed to research activities and a better understanding of
the problems involved. In particular, the United States Public
Health Service, under whose auspices we are meeting today, has made
some significant contributions in the field of water pollution research.
All of these efforts must be continued and, in many cases, expanded.
There is no substitute for knowledge in the field of water pollution
abatement. It is not enough to simply say we must keep our waters
clean. How clean is clean? At what point is a stream polluted?
We must continue to recognize that use of waterways for dispersion
and assimilation of waste effluents is inevitable and proper, provided
provisions are also made for the preservation of other beneficial water
uses. This is necessary if our community and industrial growth is to
be maintained for the greatest total good of our society. To do this,
however, we must continue to expand our field of knowledge in water
pollution. Research must provide us with answers to, "How clean
is clean?" and "At what point is a stream polluted?"
It is most important to recognize that the science of water pollu-
tion control, as Assistant Surgeon General Mark Hollis expressed in
an address at the California Institute of Technology in May of this
year, is far from a true science but is, in fact, a science in evolution
replete with gray areas yet to be resolved. A great deal of research
322
-------
on the waters of this country will be required to assess their present
condition and extent of pollution as well as changes in pollution
resulting from the increasing growth of the Nation. A scientific
.approach must be used to determine the contribution of various
types of discharges to the total stream pollution problem. Regula-
tions may then be based on these factual findings and applied on a
fc. local basis.
As Mr. Pasek has stated, industry has made substantial invest-
ments in the development and construction of water pollution abate-
ment facilities to maintain water quality at the highest reasonable
level. Industry has the obligation to continue this work and to
search for new methods of waste treatment. New processes are con-
tinually presenting new wastes which may require treatment before
discharge. Research must be carried out to determine the most effec-
tive and efficient treatment of these wastes. Consideration of waste
treatment facilities is now more than ever an integral part of new
plant design. The cost of pollution research and pollution abatement
facilities must be considered as part of the cost of doing business in
today's society. Over the past decade, these costs have constituted
an increasing percentage of new plant investment. Significant steps
in pollution abatement have been made in the past, and there is no
reason to believe that this trend shall not continue until the ultimate
maximum beneficial usage of our waterways is obtained.
In summary, the national economy requires that industry have
tremendous quantities of water to maintain its current growth. To
assure that industry has a supply of suitable water and to maintain
its position in society, it must continue to spend time, money and
effort to control its waste effluents. Much research will be required
to develop the science of water pollution control to the point that it
adequately benefits all segments of our economy. Industry must
insist that all regulatory actions be based on sound, scientific and
economic considerations. Dispersion and assimilation of wastes is
an inevitable and proper use of receiving waters, provided other
beneficial uses are also protected. Industry has made significant
strides in the field of waste abatement, but increasing effort will be
required of all of us, industry and communities alike, if we hope to
keep the streams in proper condition, despite the inroads of an
expanding economy.
Panel III
General Discussion
Mr. ADAMS. This question is directed to Mr. Forsythe and was
asked by Prof. Don Bloodgood, Purdue University: "You use the
323
-------
term 'navigable stream' in defining area of jurisdiction of pro-
posed Federal law. What do you mean?"
Mr. FORSYTHE. It goes to the very essence of what you are going
to do in the matter of Federal regulation. As you know today, very*
briefly, we can go in with regulatory powers if we find, or someone
finds or invites us to come in, and attack a pollution situation which ^
is interstate in nature—one which is a hazard to the health or welfare
or persons in a State other than that in which the discharge originates.
It has been found by the people who work with regulations that
this particular definition is one which has impeded the clean-up in
certain areas of our streams and our rivers. It has led to more costly
and slower regulatory activity.
Now, if you are going to change the definition under which the
Federal Government can come in, two of the definitions which have
been suggested are interstate navigable streams and navigable waters
or streams. Obviously, 'interstate navigable' is more narrow in con-
cept than navigable waters, yet, more liberal than the definition we
are working under at the present time. If you accept interstate
navigable waters, you leave out some coastal waters which are im-
portant in the problem of pollution.
So, when I said "navigable," I was suggesting that you consider the
matter of Federal regulation whether the Federal Government should
go into the navigable waters as such, including coastal waters. It
would, of course, leave out undersurface waters, but would give the
Federal Government and the Public Health Service more authority
and would allow them to do a job more effectively and efficiently and
we believe at less cost. That is what I meant by that particular type
of definition.
Let me say one thing in closing out this question. Several com-
ments have been made, which indicate to me, at least, that most of us
here on the panel and I suspect in the room have vast areas of agree-
ment. The need for research and technology, laboratory work, proper
personnel, seeking out answers to the problems we have.
I might suggest, too, that in my paper which I did not have a chance
to read, there were certain other activities which I recommended in
which there may not be too much argument here on the panel, and
which can be used to help the Federal Government in its activities.
For instance, one might consider assistance to industry in the form of
credit accommodations or tax incentives for the high cost of waste treat-
ment which we have heard about here today in connection with indus-
try activity. We believe in the Public Health Service, the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, in this administration, that
Federal installations have a great responsibility for cleaning up their
waste disposal in streams. This program has already been launched
by President Eisenhower. And in my paper, I take a very strong
324
-------
position to the effect that Federal installations must play a more
active part in this.
I have called for consideration of change in the individual project
grant ceilings under the present waste facilities construction program;
•also extension and expansion of program grants to allow for more
research and more activities on the part of the States. These are
some of the activities and suggestions which I have made in my paper
*" which I believe, when coupled with the recommendation on the ques-
tion referred to here, will give us a better program from the standpoint
of the Federal Government, without undue restrictions upon localities,
States, and industry.
May I say to the chairman I certainly agree with him. I do not
think anybody in this Conference is going to say that we are at the
precipice, that we are going to fall over into a situation of pollution
which cannot be considered. We are addressing ourselves to a resource.
We are addressing ourselves to the problems that we have in connec-
tion with that resource today, and we are trying to anticipate what
we might do to get a sensible program for the future. Then perhaps
we might never reach that day when we come to a situation where
arbitrary and quick action would have to be taken on a crash basis
which would not be beneficial either to the Federal Government, to
the States, industries, or anybody else concerned.
Mr. ADAMS. The next question is for Karl Mason of Pennsylvania,
who is quoted by Harold H. Hair of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce:
"You say the States have failed to come to grips with the knotty
problem of standards. Why do you not press for them to do so
rather than advocate that they pass the buck to the Federal
Govern ment?"
Mr. MASON. I think I can answer that by saying that in the com-
paratively short period of years that I have been involved in this
type of work, there has been much effort, I believe, on the parts of the
individual States and through their interstate and national organiza-
tions to come to some agreement on just what are the standards for
water quality. What are the criteria we should strive for to determine
the type of treatment that is necessary for a specific use, whether it
be for public water supply, recreational purposes, or industrial? All
I can say is that I feel the time is long past when we need to have some
agreement at a national level on these questions.
Since we have been unable, to date, to do it through our own
organizations, perhaps if all of us—the States, industries, munici-
palities and interested organizations get together under the leadership
of the Public Health Service, we may come up within the near future
with a set of acceptable water quality standards.
Mr. ADAMS. This question is addressed to Mr. Fugate and was
asked by J. H. Skeen of U.S. Rubber Co. "What do you mean, by
325
-------
your reference to the expanding and overriding interests of the
Federal Government in its conflict with the State governments
over water matters?"
Mr. FUGATE. It has been interesting to me to sit here and hear the
comments from those others who come from water rich areas of our *
Nation, as I come from one of the water poor areas of the country,
relatively speaking. It is my observation over the past several years
that water is not a local resource. We need it locally. Once we have
used it, it continues on its way, in our particular instance, some 40
miles south of us and becomes an interstate commodity. It becomes,
shall we say, of local interest in a community in Oklahoma. It goes
from there into Arkansas, to Louisiana, and perhaps Mississippi. To
me, the control and development of that resource must be more than
a matter of concern of my community, of your community, of my
State or the State of Senator Kerr or any other particular community
or State in order that that resource be developed to the maximum with
the greatest reuse of it and its potential.
It appears to me that our experience in the past and our delay in
meeting this problem, a delay even evident in our great city, New
York City, that we must give recognition to the fact that water in any
locality has a national characteristic, a greater than local character-
istic. What we do in our community affects those below us. What
those above us in a watershed do affects us. And I think that it is only
by the interjection, if you will, of the necessary overriding Federal
authority, the recognition of the national importance of this problem,
that we can reach a solution of it within a reasonable time.
I, personally, am not one of those who are afraid of government,
perhaps because I am in it. I am not afraid of either working with or
under our State governments, nor has my association with the Federal
Government in water projects led me to think that I have any reason
to fear the national government in this problem.
Mr. ADAMS. S. Leary Jones (Tennessee Stream Pollution Control
Board), will you read this one paragraph resolution that you have
asked the privilege of presenting to this Conference?
Mr. JONES. This was a resolution that was passed on December
6th at Chicago at the Third Annual Meeting of the Interstate Confer-
ence on Water Pollution. I received it yesterday, and I think the
group would be interested in it. The fact that there have been so
many statements advocating additional Federal control, I believe this
should go into the minutes.
The first part of the resolution, I will skip. It agrees with many of
the items in the proposed bill.
But on this part, it reads: "Be it further resolved that this Con-
ference"—and this was the Interstate Conference—"vigorously
opposes the extension of Federal regulatory jurisdiction over intrastate
326
-------
pollution by means of a general assertion of enforcement jurisdiction
over 'navigable waters' or by any other means which would interfere
with the State performance in this field."
Mr. ADAMS. The next question is addressed to Edward J. Cleary
*by G. A. Howell of the United States Steel Corp.: "To obtain the
fullest beneficial usage of our streams, effective regulatory bodies
have adopted the practice that the discharge into the stream
should be governed by the full assimilative capacity as measured
at the point of use. What is your thinking on this?"
Mr. CLEARY. Mr. Howell, that question has all the elements of the
proposition that occupied the theologians of the 15th century. Then
they weren't concerned with exploding population. The question was:
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? The answer, it
was finally concluded, depended on the size of the head of the pin
and also the dimensions of the angels. Obviously, this called for
some judgment.
I think the matter of the use of the assimilative capacity of a stream
is also a matter of judgment—engineering judgment—and it calls for
appraisal and analysis of such factors as: location of the water uses
below the discharge; what water uses are affected and the standards
adopted for the protection of these uses. So, to state that the full
assimilative capacity of a river should be used calls for a lot more
time than we have to debate at this particular session.
I would emphasize that the assimilative capacity of a stream cannot
be ignored in any economic analysis and determination with regard
to the treatment requirements. But I would suggest that we do
ourselves a disfavor to debate the technical aspects of this issue when
we are faced with less sophisticated matters that call for immediate
attention. For example, there is much obvious pollution that needs
to be abated without any reference to economic, engineering or any
other types of analysis. When I learn that a mill puts 136,000 gallons
of waste oil a month into a river, I don't need to make a study of the
K factors of assimilation in order to determine that this is contrary
to the public welfare. Or, when I read at the hearings on a major
river that tons of pounch manure and blood and entrails are discharged
from an abattoir I hardly think it is necessary to make a scientific
study of the assimilative capacity of the river. These are obvious
conditions of pollution that can be seen and smelled. This is what
the public wants cleaned up. The public is not concerned with the
B.O.D. of the stream or the number of particles of suspended solids
or any other sophisticated parameters of pollution.
We, too, must be concerned with getting some obvious pollution
cleaned up. Therefore, the assimilative capacity question is one that
might be delayed until the obvious things have been done first.
583283—61 22
327
-------
Mr. ADAMS. This is a question for Mr. Pasek from Everett E.
Thuener, from the Chamber of Commerce of Schenectady, N.Y.:
"Could the installation of weirs and other agitating media on
locks in a navigable river aid, to any extent, in raising the amount
of oxygen in the water of that river? If so, has it been done and'
where?"
Mr. PASEK. This, again, of course, is a highly technical question. _
In my paper, I suggested that both in Europe and in this country
such devices are being tested, researched, designed, and redesigned.
There is some prospect for this type of device being used to advantage.
At this time, I know of no, what might be termed, commercial develop-
ment in use. There could well be.
There are technical people here that could answer the question
better than I. I think that is sufficient answer to the question.
Mr. ADAMS. This is a question directed to Mr. Gleason by Daniel
W. Cannon of the National Association of Manufacturers: "Would
you care to comment about the success in the Pittsburgh, Pa.,
metropolitan area of achieving a $100 million sewage treatment
project financed by revenue bonds of the Allegheny County
Sanitary Authority?"
Mr. GLEASON. Mr. Chairman, that is a very difficult question for
me to answer because I am not familiar with either their problem
or their solution in that one area. I can only answer that of the two
areas that I am particularly familiar with, that of my own metro-
politan area surrounding the city of Portland, Oreg., and that of the
metropolitan area of Detroit, that it appears that revenue bond
financing with complete utility type payment and sufficient funds
collected for connection and monthly charges to defray the entire
expense is by far the more desirable type of financing over anything
that we have found up until now.
Mr. MASON. I think, as Mr. Gleason mentioned, that this is a
very complex problem. I would like to make only a brief statement
saying that I think the accomplishments that have been attained
through the present interceptors and sewage treatment works of the
Allegheny County Sanitary District certainly are evidence of the
wholehearted cooperation between our interstate agency ORSANCO,
the State Sanitary Water Board, the city of Pittsburgh and all of its
officials. The same applies to Allegheny County and also to the
very close cooperation received from the industries and smaller
municipalities in that area that put their money on the line in the
sum of $100 million to collect and treat the sewage from that extensive
metropolitan district in Southwestern Pennsylvania.
328
-------
PANEL III, Afternoon Session
Dr. Abel Wolman, Presiding
, We will open our session this afternoon with a talk by R. G. Lynch
of the Milwaukee Journal. Mr. Lynch is well know to many of you
as a leading figure in the field of conservation.
Public Awareness
and Citizen Responsibility
R. G. LYNCH
Columnist, Milwaukee Journal
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen—
I think that most people are aware that there is a pollution problem.
They just don't pay attention to it unless it affects them directly.
That is important to keep in mind.
What is needed is a public sense of urgency.
As for citizen responsibility, that is just a fine-sounding expression.
In the broad sense, I think, it never really exists except in times of
emergency, and then it is not truly responsibility, but fear, anger or
outrage.
Do you think that the citizens of St. Joseph, Mo., recognized any
responsibility when they voted down sewage plant bonds last spring?
And certainly they were aware that their sewage was going down the
Missouri River, creating problems for other communities.
I see by the Conference program that I am the only representative
on any panel of mass communications. This makes me wonder if
more realistic thinking is not badly needed. Before you get very far
with these efforts, the best minds in the newspaper, radio and tele-
vision field and in advertising and promotion had better be assembled
for a panel discussion. All I can give you is one man's ideas about
the basic reason for the failure of pollution prevention and the only
means by which pollution can ever be adequately controlled.
All of us might as well be meeting and talking in a vacuum if the
newspapers and radio and television people do not spread the word.
And I can tell you right now that they will not spread enough of it
widely enough; and that relatively few of the readers or listeners will
pay attention to it, much less talk about it as something they should
do something about.
All of the things they are talking about in the other rooms, and the
things preceding speakers have talked about in this room, would
resolve themselves easily in the face of public demand.
329
-------
Cleaning up water and keeping it reasonably clean—really is no
problem. And, believe me, I know something of the appalling
dimensions and complexity of this galloping national disease. I mean
that science and technology have provided the tools and are capable«
of providing better tools as needed. All we have to do is get at the
job in dead earnestness on the whole broad front.
That will not happen until the people demand it, for it will take *
money—a lot of money. The other problem on the horizon, that of
shifting the emphasis to disposal of wastes elsewhere than in water,
will be resolved only in the same way. The public must will it.
It is going to take a hard sell. When it comes to dollars, people
are subjective—selfish. Pants pocket economics takes precedence
over big economics and public welfare. Citizen resistance to higher
taxes can amount to a general allergy. How else can we account for
the defeat of bond issues for such basic things as schools and sewage
treatment?
There's a story about Noah Webster, the dictionary man. Bathing,
it's said, was abhorrent to him. One time a woman, standing behind
him at a gathering, said to a companion, "That's Noah Webster; he
smells badly." Webster turned and said, "Lady, you smell badly; /
stink!"
The story usually is told to emphasize the misuse of the adverb.
I tell it to emphasize a word: stink. Some people think it is not a
nice word. To me it is a working word; it has impact. Nice words,
like nice guys, as Leo Durocher once said, don't win.
Without stink, it might be said that we would have very little
pollution control. If people cannot smell it, or see it, or taste it; if
it does not cause illness—in short, if it does not affect them directly,
they do not care whether anything is done about it or not.
Sometimes even when they can smell it and see it they will do
nothing about it unless forced.
On the fringes of Milwaukee's metropolitan complex, subdividers
hi ignorance of the law have built homes on land incapable of
absorbing household wastes—a condition familiar wherever there is
urban sprawl. State inspectors tell me that home owners in such
areas complain about then1 neighbors' septic tank seepage into ditches
and low spots but when they find out that they have the same
problem and can't solve it without a lot of expense, they just shut
up, willing to live with the nuisance and the health hazard.
People don't get worked up over oil dumping in the ocean or the
Great Lakes—not even Senators—or about radioactivity in the
Tennessee River, mine acids in the Ohio or packinghouse wastes in
the Mississippi, not unless it is right under then- noses.
Dead fish and dead ducks in the Milwaukee River last year aroused
some comment; and when beaches on Lake Michigan were closed
because of pollution there were letters to the editor. But when
330
-------
storm sewers overflowed into sanitary sewers last spring and backed
up a stinking mess into basements, the uproar had aldermen and
county supervisors jumping—-and they're still clamoring for remedies.
So, I say to you, any hope for real action against pollution must lie
* in an appeal to this subjectiveness. Self-interest must be the target.
Put the story into ordinary language, dramatize it, localize it, per-
sonalize it.
The same people who vote down sewage plant and school bonds
buy television sets, transistor radios to carry about, power lawn
mowers for postage stamp lawns, clothes dryers, air conditioners.
Some of them probably spend more in a year on cigarets than the
bonds would cost.
I do not criticize their spending. I merely point out that they will
put up money for things they want—in fact, will go into debt. And
in this Nation the art of making people want things, including what
they don't need, has been developed to the point where it dominates
our economy, if not our culture.
This talent, the best that can be had, must be recruited to make
people want pollution control.
It can be done. The Ohio Valley is exhibit No. 1, Ed Cleary,
Executive Director of the Ohio Kiver Valley Water Sanitation Com-
mission, has proved that public support CAN be aroused, and has
demonstrated what can be achieved with public support.
One of the problems in the pollution field, incidentally is to get an
organization that can override political boundaries and do an effective
regional or watershed job. The same roadblock exists in other fields.
Only public demand can overcome the resistance of county, village,
city and state officials, jealous of their jurisdiction.
There is no better man, I think to head up or advise a national edu-
cation program in the pollution field than Mr. Cleary.
It is no coincidence that the Cincinnati Enquirer, in the city of his
headquarters, has a pollution plank in the platform printed daily
under its masthead. Cleary has made a vigorous and successful
effort to enlist the press of the Valley.
Neither is it a coincidence that pulp and paper mills in Wisconsin
lead the national industry in attacking disposal of waste sulphite
liquor, one of the Nation's major pollutants. My paper, the Mil-
waukee Journal, has been marshalling public opinion for the conserva-
tion of natural resources for many years and it is now the policy of the
State's press, generally. Paper mill waste, in the spotlight of pub-
licity, long since became a public relations problem for the mills.
Sulphite liquor is discharged in enormous quantities. Finding
salable byproducts to offset the disposal cost is important. Only 11
of the Nation's 65 sulphite mills are in Wisconsin, but nearly half of
the byproducts were produced there last year. And some 30 Wis-
consin pulp and paper mills have installed or are installing a German
331
-------
device for sucking air into turbines at dams to add oxygen to the
rivers.
These things cost money. Remember that industry, too, has an
economic problem, like the taxpayer. Many industrialists have de-
veloped a conscience about pollution, but they have to contend with '
stockholders. Spending for pollution is limited unless it takes on a
dollars and cents value. Public demand creates such a value. But
optimum spending for pollution control will not exist until there is a
national demand, putting pressure on all competitors in an industry.
A national demand will never be created by merely a national pro-
gram. This thing has got to be attacked vigorously and intelligently
at every level, with an organized effort at each level.
Fortunately, pollution control fits into the purposes of many or-
ganizations, civic, business, conservation, scientific and technical.
All of them must be enlisted, and not just to pass resolutions and make
gestures.
The League of Women Voters might make pollution its study of the
year, as it did with water. The Federation of Women's Clubs also
is actively interested in conservation. Women can be a big, big help
in this campaign. They are an increasingly potent force in public
affairs; so many able women, their families grown, are eager to devote
their time to worthwhile things. And no one can realize better than
they how worth while this one is.
Last January I attended a Senate committee hearing on water
resource management, and one of the most impressive presentations
was by the League of Women Voters' representative, Mrs. Whitte-
more.
The league has a regular television program in Milwaukee and
probably in other cities, ready made for discussing pollution.
The National Wildlife Federation, with an active affiliate in every
State, might make pollution the subject of its annual wildlife week. I
know how widely its ripples spread. A water booklet that I prepared
for the federation has run through two printings of 10,000 copies each.
Pollution could be the theme, or at least a major program topic, of
the North American Wildlife Conference and the National Watershed
Congress.
Organizations that join in this effort should establish liaison at
national and local levels, with each other and with scientific and tech-
nical people and public agencies. Joint action committees under
aggressive chairmen could be most effective in enlisting cooperation
in the communications and industrial fields. Industries already
organized to attack pollution should be represented on the national
action committee, and industries in each community should be asked
to appoint an able man to work with the local committee. Industry
can contribute importantly both in employee and public relations
campaigns.
332
-------
Conservation teachers in the Nation's schools might be enlisted
through the Conservation Education Association and the Joint
Council of Economic Education, which has a conservation and re-
'source use project.
These details, and the use of communications, must be left to a
planning and working group. I mention them to round out the pro-
portions of the job and the possibilities.
All media can be helpful, but the essential medium is the press. If
you don't get into the papers, you don't get to the mass of people.
I am not just being loyal to my profession; every publicist knows this
is true. Even that may not be enough; you may have to use the door-
to-door method of charity collections.
Somehow, get the newspaper editors actively interested. Don't
beg; don't preach; don't get into controversy. Let the editors argue
about Federal, State, and local responsibility—and money. Stick
to information.
Approach the editors by letter, and not a form letter. Approach
them personally by means of local delegations. You might borrow
an idea recently tried in the science field. Some leading editors
were guests in September at a seminar on science and the news,
financed by a grant from the National Science Foundation. Top-
rank men like Teller, Sears, and Kevelle were speakers. Two
Washington editors attended—Mr. Wiggins of the Post & Times
Herald and Mr. McKelway of the Star. This thing can be overdone;
editors are busy men, but it is something worth thinking about.
Dr. Flemming or Dr. Burney might well have written personal letters
to 25-30 leading editors about this Conference.
At any rate, you might be able to get speakers on programs of
editorial associations—and pick good, sharp speakers.
By these means, tell the editors how bad things are and how fast
they are getting worse. Maybe they know; you can freshen up their
knowledge.
Tell them that a lot of modern pollution doesn't stink and people
can't see it, so they must be warned, because it is damned well a flood.
Tell them that the old saying about water purifying itself has
become a boobytrap—that radioactivity and a lot of chemicals are
invulnerable to the bacteria which dispose of organic pollution.
Tell them that you are going to send story material at intervals.
Then send it. Not handouts. No scientific and technical gobble-
dygook. Use men who know what has a chance to get into a news-
paper and what has not. Your stuff will have to compete with a
torrent of news and information about world, national, and local
affairs. Sludge worms like Khrushchev and Castro make more news
than the sewage variety.
But newspapers have daily and Sunday sections that go to press
in slack time and there editors might use a well-written article,
333
-------
perhaps illustrated with charts and pictures, about the Public Health
Service's river network and the strange pollutant that showed up at
New Orleans and was traced all the way to St. Louis.
Or a piece about the large amount of radioactivity that vanishes'
from river water in a relatively short distance below any nuclear
plant, and the efforts being made below Oak Ridge to find out where
the radionuclides go in the plant and animal community.
If such stories are to be acceptable to editors, there is a condition
that needs a remedy.
A good deal of information about pollution is uninteresting, even
pointless to ordinary persons, unless interpreted in terms that give
it meaning. But people in public agencies do not always feel free
to do such interpreting.
For instance, the river network showed much greater quantities of
beneficial algae in the Ohio River during the steel strike than before
and after, a significant indication of water quality. But Public
Health Service personnel did not feel free to publicize the obvious
inference.
And the fact that several State and Federal agencies were cospon-
soring a comprehensive stream study below Oak Ridge was announced
in a news story without any explanation that would make it interesting
to the public. The story did not tell how concerned some biologists are
about the uptake of radioactivity from water by plants and animals.
You cannot treat people like children, deny them the significant
facts in understandable form, and then complain that they lack
"public awareness and citizen responsibility."
A republic or a democracy cannot function successfully without
an informed people.
I have found this wariness of Federal and State people in all
agencies dealing with natural resources, and I think it is one of the
barriers to good resource management. Most of us know the reasons
for it. Informed men must be encouraged to speak their minds.
Scientific men must learn not to quibble, as physicians have learned,
who give medical testimony before juries. Ifs, ands and buts are not
convincing.
Getting back to editors and their space problems, I can tell you
that any topic may suddenly become important. Any organization
that may grow out of this Conference should be alert for such oppor-
tunities and set up to make effective use of them.
When dead fish are floating on a river or lake, when ducks are
trapped hi oil or dying of botulism, when algae stink, when floods have
left filth in basements and streets, when septic tanks drain into
ditches, when people are angry and the news is on the front page—
then is the time to get the whole story told, or as much as possible.
I keep a file of resource material. When something in the news
focuses attention on some problem, I dig into the file. After local
334
-------
pollution troubles hit the front page, I wrote two columns about the
national situation and the editor was glad to get the article for feature
play the following Sunday.
So, when a local or State pollution situation gets into the news,
Regional public health people or your local citizen groups should
quickly inform the information headquarters. And while the local
interest still exists, local editors should be sent material with the
"suggestion that their readers may be interested in related problems
all over the Nation.
The dollar consciousness of the public might be turned to account.
People should be told how much any delay in tackling pollution may
cost them. According to the Engineering News Record index,
construction costs went up 240 percent from 1940 to I960; 62 percent
since 1950. In the case of treatment plants, the rise was partly
offset by improved designing, but that does not apply to sewers and
outfalls.
And if you think that many communities are not still in the septic
tank era, take a look at the proportion of sewer systems and inter-
ceptors in the PHS summary of construction awards.
The volume of wastes increases, too, and more plants must be
built at the higher cost. And it is not just the cost increase; a bond
issue may double the apparent cost. Many a community which
could afford to add to a plant, if one had been built years ago, finds
itself unable—or is unwilling—to build the whole plant now.
Delay results in a vicious spiral, which should be explained to the
people. Wartime and postwar priorities prevented construction.
Even States with aggressive programs have been hard pressed to over-
come this handicap and keep pace with the increasing load.
Wisconsin has had a good law and a good organization for years.
In a quarter century, the treatment of organic pollution tripled.
At the end of the period, almost as much was being eliminated as the
total potential load that existed at the start; but so much more
polluting material was being discharged into the State's waters that
the net reduction was only 7 percent. I speak in terms of pounds of
biochemical oxygen demand. This does not consider the tremendous
new load of detergents and other chemicals, etc., that do not yield to
biological disposal.
If this is true in a State with a good program, what must be the
condition where the attack on pollution began late, or is just getting
started?
Delay also can impose an insurmountable handicap. Milwaukee's
flood problem is an example. In common with all old urban areas,
Milwaukee has sewers which take both sewage and storm runoff.
With the development of treatment, cities learned to provide separate
sewers. Still later they became aware that foundation drainage
should be kept out of sanitary sewers.
335
-------
The dual-purpose sewers can be replaced, although it is a long,
expensive job; but it is practically impossible to change the connection
of house drains from sanitary to storm sewers.
Two results of this loading of storm water into sanitary sewers are
(1) that sewers back up into basements in time of heavy rains, do'
much damage, and leave a lot of filth which can create health hazards;
and (2) that a torrent of storm water, which needs no treatment,
overburdens sewage plants. After a continued wet period, it can *
amount to as much as one-third of the total volume. An efficient
activated sludge plant, which can remove upward of 90 percent of the
bacteria and solids under ordinary conditions, may remove only 60
percent at such a time.
Building code changes to prevent aggravation of this problem
should not be delayed; but in how many communities do the people
understand this?
These comments may seem to be digressions from my theme,
but they are offered with a purpose. I think that examples of this
sort might be used effectively in an information program. Many
persons are more impressed by specific things than by generalities.
Subjectiveness again—the specific things might happen to them.
It seems to me that the lively public interest in water supplies
creates a wonderful opportunity. Much more effort should be made
to emphasize the important role of pollution control and prevention.
There is grandeur about big dams. People can look at them and
use the reservoirs for recreation, and feel the satisfaction of achieve-
ment.
The idea of getting fresh water from the sea captures the
imagination.
Sewers, however, are buried in the ground. There is nothing
grand about a sewage treatment plant and no boating or swimming in
a stabilization pond.
But the treatment of sewage can mean a great deal more in the
way of usable water to a great many more people than reservoirs or
saline water conversion. I think that every effort should be made
to help people understand this.
They should know that a water supply near at hand is infinitely
more important and valuable than one at a distance. They should
know how much it costs to store water and to move it, unless it is
going downhill. These costs already have placed irrigation in the
West beyond the financial reach of landowners, unless users of elec-
tricity and the general public carry part of the load.
Saline water has not yet been converted for as little as $1 per 1,000
gallons, and the boldest hopes are for a cost around 40 cents. The
Milwaukee sewage plant restores water from sewers to better than
90 percent purity at a cost of 4 cents for 1,000 gallons. And the
336
-------
very distillation processes used to convert salt water could be used
much cheaper to restore contaminated water to absolute purity.
Some problems have dramatic or picturesque aspects that lend
themselves to publicity gimmicks. The smoking debris of a forest
makes an impressive backdrop for Smokey Bear and his slogans.
Perhaps a stretch of filthy stream, with floating garbage and dead
fish, might be used as a background for a picket line of magnified
bacteria, bearing signs with such legends as—
"Unfair to organized organisms";
"We demand more oxygen"; or
"Down with the 24-hour working day."
The forest fire, of course, recalls latent memories of great losses of
human life and property, as at Peshtigo, Wis. If the people killed
on the highways were dying of poisonous drinking water, this meeting
would not be necessary.
As it is, the task of arousing a public demand for pollution preven-
tion and cure is stupendous. Just thinking about it can be frustrating.
So, let's not think about it; let's get at it!
We are very late.
DISCUSSION
Mrs. ARTHUR E. WHITTEMORE
Chairman, Water Resources Committee and
Director, League of Women Voters of the United States
After the lively and practical presentation we have just heard, it is
obvious we should be well on the way to solving pollution if we had a
Mr. Lynch on every newspaper and a Mr. deary in every river basin.
Unfortunately this is not the case. I should like to pick up three
of Mr. Lynch's points and discuss them from the point of view of the
citizen organization: How it can join with the experts, the Govern-
ment agencies, and the mass media so that all can be more effective.
The three points are facts in usable form, joint action committees,
and the regional attack.
But, first, another tribute to the word "stink." The League of
Women Voters of Beaumont, Tex., found it effective some years ago
when they were unable to get the community aroused about a par-
ticularly bad sewage disposal problem. In desperation they adopted
the slogan "Beaumont is beautiful, but it stinks." This shock
treatment worked.
To do this type of thing in a community, there usually has to be
some citizen group, as there was in Beaumont. It seems to be the
337
-------
rare person who feels he knows enough about a subject like pollution
and feels strongly enough about it to act under his own steam. Most
of us do better working along with others in some organization.
You will understand that I draw my illustrations from the organization,,
with which I am most familiar, but men's service clubs, women's
clubs, PTA's, garden clubs, and many others could report similar
experiences. .
The first task of such a group is to get the facts, local ones and
related regional and national ones. There is available a terrific
amount of information, but just try to find it. Sometimes it is in
scientific jargon in small print surrounded by figures and charts.
Sometimes it's in some agency's files or heads; or embedded in a book
resulting from a research project, full of formulae each taking an
entire page. I hasten to say that occasionally a State or Federal
agency, or a compact commission, puts out interesting and effective
reports. But even this does not remove the need to round out the
facts from other sources, and get them into simple form for average
citizen use.
Once the facts are assembled, the next job is to get them out to the
public in such a way as to stimulate action. Here is where I think the
citizen group is extremely important. Even more effective is the
joint action committee, including a number of organizations.
Let me give you an illustration: the recent action taken in Kansas
City, Mo. By September 1959 nothing had been done by the city
to clean up serious pollution, in spite of Federal and State efforts to
get it to do so. Then the Missouri Water Pollution Board placed
restrictions on sanitary sewer extensions and the Veterans Housing
Administration threatened to cut off loans.
About this time effective group action began. Several organizations
participated from the start, but my knowledge comes from the report
sent in by the Kansas City League of Women Voters. Their Novem-
ber bulletin reporting on the climax of a year's effort says—•
We worked and worked for the sewer bonds. We spent October 12, 13, and 14
telephoning from a room in the Plaza provided by the Chamber of Commerce.
Forty-two of us kept nine phones busy from 9 to 4:30 each day. We got in touch
with over 500 organizations, took orders for thousands of pieces of literature,
placed about 30 speakers, and secured endorsement by many groups.
An excellent three-page question-and-answer piece was put out by
the League early in the campaign with down-to-earth information about
Kansas City water costs compared to other cities and what would
happen if the bond issue failed to pass. They also issued in large
quantities a flyer, "You are Guilty . . . You are Guilty of Pollution."
The Kansas City Star reported that toward the end there were 64
organizations supporting the bond issue. Among them were the
Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, many women's groups, service
clubs, the Jackson County Medical Society, church groups, the Con-
338
-------
servation Council, the Regional Health and Welfare Council, and the
Home Builders of Greater Kansas City.
The newspapers and other media gave full support. The papers
^used much ingenuity in keeping interest aroused. They not only
reported facts; they gave editorial support. On November 3 the
Kansas City Star declared: "The only thing this community could
..get from delay is a bad reputation for fighting to keep a public health
menace." It continued: "There can be no question that the Federal
Government is committed to end pollution on the major rivers. It
is a proper responsibility of Federal Government."
There was an article by the real estate editor entitled "Key to
City's Growth Is New Sewers," and one appealing to oldtimers in the
community entitled "The River—Key to Kansas City's Past and
Future." Meantime there were a number of supporting television
programs.
When it was all over and the bond issue had been passed by a good
margin, the paper paid tribute to the citizens, saying: "Viewed by
cynics as the amazing feature of the antipollution vote is the fact
that the voters balloted in favor of an average of a 48 percent increase
in then- water bills."
I have gone into this in detail because it so well illustrates the
needed ingredients of a successful campaign. First someone to get
it started, hard work by a lot of people, effective use of facts by
organizations and the newspapers, and the cumulative building of
community understanding and support.
Hard as it is to get through a bond issue for sewage treatment, in
many ways this is easier to tackle than a problem which needs solution
on a regional level. The government, the newspapers, and the
national organizations are not set up to match a region or a river
basin. Yet, as Mr. Lynch has pointed out, much of the pollution
problem must be solved regionally.
We have found that equipping our members with a set of questions
starting with their local water supply and sewage disposal, and
ending with a whole drainage area, was a good way to get our mem-
bers together across State boundaries. We have had groups operating
in the Columbia River Basin, the Potomac, the Delaware, and more
recently in the Ohio, Missouri, and Colorado—as well as in many
small basins.
The significant result has been that women who had been really
alarmed that "upstream" would put something over on "downstream,"
or urban on rural and so on, found they were able to agree on relevant
facts and on possible solutions. We are interested to see if the
techniques we have found so successful within our own group can
now be used to set up regional citizen committees with the same
broad base that Mr. Lynch described for the local or national joint
action committee with representatives from organizations, industries,
339
-------
universities, government agencies, press, and so on. Their task
would be to assemble, supplement, and put in usable form the mass
of information already available, and apply it to the solution of a
regional problem like pollution.
A big step is being taken at this meeting. We shall leave it with
information and impetus. How can we use the findings? Do they
give the press the needed springboard? Can they be put in a form
that will reach the average citizen? How can organizations make
best use of them with their members?
Are interested agencies like ORSANCO the ones to set up regional
meetings? What of the places where there is no aggressive pollution
control agency? In such a region should citizen groups take the
initiative?
Not all these questions can be answered by one conference. I
hope that our discussion will have given us a good start. It is up
to us now to create public demand for programs which will result in
clean water in every part of the country.
DISCUSSION
DAVID B. LEE
Director, Bureau of Sanitary Engineering
Florida State Board of Health, Jacksonville, Fla.
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, it is an honor to have the
privilege of discussing the paper of Mr. Lynch and it would be very
simple to open and close my remarks by saying I agree wholeheartedly
with the context of his paper, then sit down. It has always been a
difficult problem for me to ascertain the direction a discussant should
take, whether to compliment and agree, expand or criticize, but this
paper has no criticism due it, unless one could say that time did not
permit Mr. Lynch to hit all the facets of this important subject.
So with his permission and your tolerance, I am merely going to
expand briefly on some of the points as we observe them.
Mr. Lynch has taken the title of this talk and made two subjects
out of it. I agree that most people are aware of the pollution problem
whether they appreciate the seriousness of it or merely know it exists,
is hard to determine. We personally feel that citizens' responsibility
is something that should be heavily emphasized. I had the unhappy
experience recently to talk to a professor of sanitary engineering who
was opposed to an annexation issue because it would cost him money,
although his septic tank, which does not function because of the loca-
tion of his home, has a relief pipe into a storm drain thus dumping
raw sewage into an open waterway; yet he is a good professor of
340
-------
sanitary engineering technology. This is not alone the feeling of one
individual; it is true in much of our citizenry. There have been
bond issues voted down in areas about which I am familiar where the
^people were unable to use their sanitary facilities for as long as 4 to
6 weeks due to flooding. Of course, on the other side of the ledger,
there are many towns who have carried their bond issues through
organized public awareness with the emphasis on citizens' responsi-
bility.
While we are discussing public awareness and citizens' responsi-
bilities, I think one of the greatest needs in addition to the news-
paper, radio, and television people to spread the word is to get the
Chambers of Commerce, the committees of 100 and the energetic
promoters of our communities, cities and States to actively get behind
this type of activity. These are groups as a whole which I frankly
feel, impede our progress more than they help.
As mentioned above, we are failing to convince the citizens who
resist because of their fear of higher taxes that this resistance is the
most expensive form of taxation. Many are not familiar with the
continual climbing of costs and have absolutely no appreciation or
vision of the importance and liability of degradation of our water
resources due to pollution now and in the future. They are more
interested in the cost of today than the added cost of tomorrow and
they are sort of like the old blind mule I used to plow. Then, again,
we are faced with the promoters of industry with its waste products,
who feel that if the regulatory people mention pollution and pollution
prevention and abatement, they will not be able to land the industry,
thus progress will be impeded. It is nothing new to inform people,
communities, and organizations of what will happen if this or that is
permitted and later when it smells, looks bad, creates a serious pollu-
tion problem, etc., the same people will then jump on the regulatory
people for allowing them to allow it to happen. Then, in many
instances, it is rather difficult to correct, and no answer is available.
While this appears to be a negative paper, it is not intended to be,
but I wish to point up some of the weaknesses which are now obvious
in this activity. We discuss public awareness and citizens' responsi-
bility. At the same time I think we should make a serious effort to
get professional awareness and professional responsibility. It is true
that we talk to ourselves too much but until we get our professional
people informed and agreeable in the philosophy of preventing and
abating pollution, we will continue not only to have responsible public
officials but the people confused. For example, recently an engineer,
registered under the laws of his State, made the headline in the local
press by stating, "While the town now has an estimated 16,000
people and the Chamber of Commerce estimates 80,000 by 1970,
the town would still not need sewers in 1970." It is my recommenda-
tion that serious effort be made to bring our professional people into
341
-------
a "togetherness." This includes health officers, medical officers,
engineers, chemists, biologists, attorneys, and all people in the envi-
ronmental health discipline as well as in the water resource field.
Public awareness and citizens' responsibility play another major role
in developing better planning, better zoning and better regulations
which will, in our opinion, provide an excellent tool in the prevention
and abatement of pollution, but the zoning must have political
muscle and not be for special interests.
Mr. Lynch mentioned that he had found wariness in Federal and
State people dealing with natural resources and that he felt that this
was one of the barriers to the good resource management.
"Informed men must be encouraged to speak their minds. Scien-
tific men must learn not to quibble, as physicians have learned, who
give medical testimony before juries." As a State official, I feel that
we do speak out and it takes a lot of fiber in controversial issues to do
this because just as surely as one does, he is immediately tagged with
the title of bureaucrat, empire builder, didactic regulator, etc. Then,
too, there are many who are willing and have the know-how to speak
up but are under a tent and are hindered from making this approach.
We have the information and do furnish it to the editors when
asked (and many when not asked); also to organizations and will
continue to do so. It is our feeling that if the public, and this is
everyone, will become an apostle of those who are familiar with this
problem, it will be only a short time until our political leaders and
taxpayers will support this program.
In closing, I want to reemphasize that in addition to the basic
public, we need to bring together the professional people in a common
awareness of this creeping corruption and remember that "the solution
to pollution is not dilution."
342
-------
Financing Aspects
of Water Pollution Control
FRANK E. CURLEY
Partner, Hawkins, Delafield & Wood, New York City
In his message to Congress on February 23, 1960, announcing that
he had requested Secretary Flemming to arrange this first federally
sponsored National Conference on Water Pollution, President
Eisenhower expressed the hope that it would "help local taxpayers
and business concerns to realize the obligation they have to help
prevent pollution." Even the most casual student of public-office
semantics could not have failed to detect the significance in the
President's choice of words. In the times in which we are living, a
public reference by any official to us as "taxpayers" usually has
ominous overtones. But when the President of the United States
refers in one and the same breath to both the "taxpayers" and their
"obligation," there can be no doubt whatever that what he is saying
is "How (and when) are they going to pay the bill?"
It is altogether appropriate that the President's message should
have underscored the urgency for finding a reasonable, sound, and
effective method, or combination of methods, for financing the
Nation's water pollution control program. Never has the need
seemed greater. The increase in population and industrial production
in the United States over the past 50 years has increased the volume
of municipal wastes in our waterways more than 200 percent and
industrial pollution has risen 2,900 percent. The U.S. Public Health
Service has estimated that in order to dispose of the present load of
municipal sewage being dumped into the Nation's waterways, 4,000
new sewage treatment plants should be constructed at the present
time and an additional 1,700 plants modernized. It is estimated
1 Paper was read by Senator Whitfield.
683283—161 23 343
-------
that the cost of construction and reconstruction required right
now-—the amount which has to be financed from one source or
another—is $1.9 billion. This is only the amount necessary to
eliminate the present backlog. In order to catch up with treatment,
needs by 1968, an additional estimated $1.8 billion is necessary to
provide for population growth and $900 million to replace obsolete
plants, a total of $4.6 billion over the next few years for municipal-
waste treatment alone. Industrial waste treatment is estimated to
require more than 6,000 new projects costing about $2 billion,
including in-plant changes. With some estimates of our population
as high as 235 million by 1975, long-range planning over a period of
15 or 20 years is essential in order to meet the rising costs of the
projects. The cost will obviously remain high so long as we are
trying to catch up with our requirements.
In a summary of physical facilities data based on the 1957 Inven-
tory of Sewage and Industrial Wastes Facilities, the Public Health
Service reported that there were more than 3,000 separate raw dis-
charge facilities serving nearly 22 million persons. Of these facilities,
93 percent, serving 85 percent of the population covered by the
survey, required new plants. Thirty-three States reported that over
95 percent of the facilities discharging raw sewage required new
treatment plants. Over 5,400 communities serving 48 million persons
were reported by the inventory to be discharging raw or inadequately
treated wastes into the Nation's waters.
It is significant, in considering the financing aspects of water
pollution control, to note that nearly nine-tenths of these communities
were towns of less than 10,000 population, with most of the balance
having populations ranging from 10,000 to 50,000 each. This is not
to suggest that the large cities have solved their water pollution
problems or that their contribution to the Nation's polluted water-
ways is not impressive. One-half of the 150 larger cities having a
population in excess of 50,000 still discharge raw sewage with respect
to some 12 million people. But it is still the small community which
faces the most difficult problems in finding a way to comply with the
regulatory orders from the State capital and still survive financially.
It is often the case that the cost of meeting these needs imposes a
greater financial burden upon the taxpayers of the small town than
upon their city cousins. Kecent figures of the Public Health Service
indicate that the annual per capita cost of constructing a treatment
plant for a town of 10,000 may be twice that for a city of 100,000; a
taxpayer in a town of 1,000 population may pay 3% times as much
as the city resident. The annual per capita cost of operation and
maintenance follows a similar pattern. In addition, the small town,
because of credit ratings, bond market conditions, a more limited
market, and related factors, may be obliged to pay more for borrowed
344
-------
money than the larger city; the cost may be so exorbitant that it
cannot even enter the market.
This brings us to the ways presently open to a community for
•financing its water treatment facilities. It is the declared policy of
the Congress, as set forth in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
of 1956, that the prevention and control of water pollution is the
•primary responsibility and right of the States. Therefore, in examin-
ing the various methods of financing these facilities, we commence at
the local level, where the responsibility is declared to rest. One
problem immediately becomes apparent. In addition to the financial
burden which the taxpayer of the community may be obliged to
assume, he may discover that he—and indeed perhaps his entire
community—will derive no visible benefit from this expenditure.
Rather, by building an expensive water treatment plant in his town
and refraining from unloading his raw sewage in the river, he finds
that his taxes are making life pleasanter and more healthful only for
the town downstream. This is not a new tax for school building on
the next block to which he can send his children; it is not for paving
a street on which he can ride. This new tax burden may be, in effect,
to make the river cleaner for taxpayers in the next town who are not
being asked to contribute a dime to the cost of the facility. Leth-
argy, if not outright hostility, soon sets in.
His municipality, however, may be required to abate the pollution,
whatever the cost. The water pollution control legislation of many
States expressly empowers the State regulatory board or commission,
after classifying the waterways, to issue orders to offending munici-
palities to cease contaminating the river or stream. The Federal act
has similar provisions. Failure to comply with such an order can
result in court action. A claim by the municipality that it is unable to
raise the money to pay the cost of the new facility will probably be of
little avail unless the State statute contemplates such a defense. In
a recent leading case in New York, Matter of Town of Waterford el al.
v. Water Pollution Control Board (5 N.Y. (2d) 171 (1959)), the court
of appeals held valid a classification of the Mohawk River by the
State water pollution control board which may eventually require the
Town of Waterford to construct a new sewage treatment facility,
notwithstanding the town's protest that it "would bo forced to levy a
150 percent increase in taxes and be required to forego all other civic
improvements for at least a generation." The court dismissed this
argument with the statement that it "is another way of saying that a
physician may not diagnose a serious disease as such if the patient
cannot afford the cost of cure." In the court's opinion,
* * * the legislature well knew that a comprehensive water purification program
would impose a financial burden upon the municipalities of the State, but deter-
345
-------
mined, by enacting the Pollution Control Act, that the pressing need for water
purification outweighed any financial hardships incident thereto.
The result is the same when a municipality submits a proposition
on a sewerage bond issue to its citizens and they reject it, notwith-
standing the order of the regulatory board to cease its pollution. This
has happened in several cases recently. One small town here in the
East has held five referenda in the past year and a half on a proposition"
to build a sewage treatment plant costing $600,000; four of the refer-
enda were defeated by the voters and one was passed with a maximum
interest rate that made the bonds unmarketable. The voters of
St. Joseph, Mo., have twice defeated bond issue propositions to
construct waste treatment facilities, and on September 29, 1960, the
Federal Government filed a suit against the city to force compliance
with a pollution cleanup order issued under the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act of 1956. In spite of voter resistance, the problem
still remains for the community—how can the project be financed?
The obligations which a municipality might issue to finance a
sewerage plant can be general obligations—that is, backed by a pledge
of the full faith and credit of the municipality—or (when permitted by
local law) by revenue bonds, secured by a pledge of sewer revenues or
rentals—or a combination of both.
The voter's resistance to a new tax levy to pay debt service on his
town's bonds is frequently weakened or overcome by an offer of
Federal or State aid or through joint action with other communities
in the area. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956 pro-
vides, among other things, for grants to States and interstate agencies
to assist them in meeting the costs of establishing and maintaining
adequate measures for the prevention and control of water pollution.
Allotments are made to the States on the basis of population, extent
of the water pollution problem, and financial need. In addition, the
Surgeon General is authorized to make grants to a State, municipality
or intermunicipal or interstate agency for the construction of sewage
treatment works, after approval of the project by the State control
agency, in an amount not exceeding 30 percent of the estimated cost of
the project or $250,000, whichever is smaller. At least 50 percent
of the appropriated funds for each fiscal year are required to be used
for grants for the construction of treatment works servicing munici-
palities of 125,000 population or less. Since the enactment of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Congress has appropriated
a total of §232.5 million in Federal aid to communities for the con-
struction of necessary sewage treatment works. Over 2,300 projects
have been approved to date, involving a total construction cost of
$1,120 million. The Federal grants-in-aid approved for these projects
amounted to $193.5 million, or 17 percent of the total estimated cost
of construction.
346
-------
Another method of spreading the financial burden among a larger
number of taxpayers and at the same time perhaps effecting economies
in the construction and operation of sewerage facilities is the creation
of a regional district or authority. The district may be within a town,
which will construct and finance the system and charge the cost in the
form of sewer or water charges or assessments to the residents of the
^district benefited thereby. The district may be countywide, em-
bracing a number of communities, each of which contributes to the cost
of constructing and operating the project. Subject to local law, such a
district may have both taxing powers and the power to issue revenue
bonds secured by sewer or water charges and rentals. Two or more
communities may, if authorized by local law, join forces in the financ-
ing, construction and operation of sewage treatment and disposal
facilities. In 1956, the New York State Constitution was amended to
permit such joint action by two or more municipalities, including the
power to contract joint indebtedness or to contract indebtedness for
specific proportions ol the cost. The sanitation districts of Los Angeles
County, Calif., have been effective partly because of their ability to
join with other districts in the ownership, construction, and operation
of joint facilities.
In New Jersey, a general law authorizes the creation by counties
and municipalities of sewerage authorities, including authorities estab-
lished jointly by two or more municipalities. Several of these authori-
ties, such as the Middlesex County Sewerage Authority, have success-
fully financed projects through the issuance of revenue bonds secured
by contracts with municipalities using the facilities. In the case of
the Somerset-Raritan Valley Sewerage Authority, three relatively
small municipalities, each operating its own collection system, have
been able, by means of a sewerage authority, to construct and operate
a trunk sewer and treatment plant serving all three communities at
a cost considerably lower than the combined cost if each had been
compelled to build its own plant. New Jersey also permits two or
more municipalities to create joint municipal utilities authorities
having the power both to provide and distribute an adequate supply
of water to the participating municipalities and to provide sewage
collection and disposal service. By combining not only the resources
and operations of the participating municipalities but also the revenues
from both their water and sewerage systems, the joint authority may
afford substantially better prospects for a successful financing than
would the participating municipalities acting alone.
Eegional public authorities may also provide a means of financing
the cost of constructing and operating facilities which a local com-
munity may be unable or unwilling to undertake. Such an authority
is an independent public corporation whose members are usually
appointed by the Governor, the mayor, or the governing bodies of the
347
-------
participating governmental units; it has the power to finance the con-
struction of sewerage facilities by the issuance of its revenue bonds
secured by sewer or water rents and charges; it has the power to
establish and collect sewer rents but usually not to levy taxes; its
bonded indebtedness is not the debt of the State creating the authority
and is usually not subject to the debt limitations applicable to the
State or its political subdivisions. One further development of the,
public authority concept might be an interstate compact agency with
power to construct and operate facilities to prevent pollution in waters
adjacent to cities of two or more participating States. Such an
authority, created by legislation of the participating States with the
consent of the Congress, might have much the form and powers of a
regional public authority. Joint participation at the present time
by various States in interstate commissions relating to water pollution
control is illustrated by the Interstate Sanitation Commission, the
Interstate Commission on Delaware River Basin, and similar cooper-
ative agencies.
The financing of sewerage facilities can be facilitated at the local
level by a careful review and strengthening of applicable statutes.
Constitutional or statutory restrictions which unduly inhibit the ex-
pansion of treatment and disposal facilities by municipalities should
be reexamined. As the result of extensive studies by a special legisla-
tive committee several years ago, the New York Constitution was
amended to permit a municipality, in ascertaining its debt incurring
power, to exclude certain indebtedness incurred in financing wholly
or partially self-sustaining improvements. At the same time, State
legislation relating to the fixing and collection of sewer rentals was
made more workable. Frequently existing legislation may be found
to be incomplete, inconsistent, or vague. It is important to maintain
a maximum of flexibility for the various units in the bases of charging
for the construction, maintenance and operation, and debt service of
sewer systems and disposal plants and, at the same time, maintain
uniformity in sewer rental provisions. Existing laws should be re-
viewed with respect to clarifying the meaning and extent of sewer
rents, and defining the entire principle of sewer rent usage in a
workable manner.
In addition, attention should be given to the encouragement of
private industry, through tax benefits and other concessions, to elimi-
nate or at least provide adequate means for their own waste disposal.
Many companies are meeting this problem today with a sense of
responsibility, frequently in close cooperation with the municipality.
In other areas, the matter is often still regarded by the business
executive as a responsibility of the town, in the same category as the
furnishing of adequate streets and police protection.
This discussion of proposed alternatives of financing these projects
has stressed the responsibility of the States and their subdivisions to
348
-------
take the initiative in solving the problem. This is as it should be;
the congressional declaration of intent is clear. Every effort should
be made to finance the facility out of local funds or on the strength
of local credit. But if that proves not to be sufficient, it will not do
to remain idle in the face of a continuing and increasing health and
social hazard wrought by the pollution of the Nation's waterways.
,More effective methods of financing the construction of needed sewage
projects at a national level should be explored and developed if and
to the extent that the State and its municipalities are unable to
undertake the financing.
It might be appropriate, for example, to compare the method
by which low rent housing has been financed on a large scale during
recent years. Following World War II the demand for lo\v rent
housing was critical and private enterprise was unable to supply
that demand at a fair return. A solution was worked out between
the States and the Federal Government under which State—or
municipally created public housing authorities issued bonds secured
both by the revenues from the housing project being financed and
by an agreement with the Federal Government to contribute amounts
annually to the authority sufficient and necessary to meet any de-
ficiency in the debt service on its bonds. This arrangement leaves
the construction and operation of the project in the hands of the local
authority; the financing is also by the local authority, through the
public sale of its revenue bonds, supported by the contractual com-
mitment of the United States. There is nothing that compels a
State or municipality to participate in the program; if the needed
housing can be financed without Federal assistance, either by private
enterprise or with State aid, it is free to go its own way.
Water pollution which affects the health and well-being of the
Nation's citizens may justify Federal participation with local units
in somewhat the same manner and to the same degree as low rent
housing. If a State and its municipalities, with the cooperation of
industry, can effectively protect their citizens from the hazards of
water pollution without Federal assistance beyond that afforded
under the present law, they should proceed with their own program
as promptly as possible. But for those States and communities
which are faced with the dilemma of an urgent need to eliminate a
pollution hazard and are unable to undertake the project alone or in
concert with similarly affected communities, careful thought might
be given to the development of a possible financing procedure similar
to that presently being used in connection with low rent housing.
The machinery for such a procedure—whether the program should be
administered through the Public Health Service or some other
agency—can be determined after the soundness of the procedure itself
has been carefully tested.
349
-------
As indicated in the President's message to Congress, the question
of financing the huge water pollution control program is of prime
importance. All of the technological advances and scientific knowl-
edge in this field during recent years, all of the thought and hard
work devoted to it by so many dedicated citizens, are of little avail
without the means of raising the hard cash necessary to put that
knowledge and advancement to work. It is not enough to develop,
new and effective scientific methods if we cannot or will not exert
the imagination and energy required to put those methods to work.
The existing means of financing the water pollution control program
should be most carefully examined and tested, and if those means
are found workable in any situation they should most certainly be
utilized. But if, for any reason, they are found wanting, and the
health and necessities of the public demand prompt and effective
action, then new ways to finance the projects must be constantly
explored and developed. Only when we can find the way effectively
to apply our scientific knowledge and advancement in the field of
water pollution control and make it productive can we really take
credit for that advancement.
DISCUSSION
ROBERT F. BOGER
Publisher, Engineering News-Record, New York, N.Y.
Mr. Curley's remarks are worthy of serious study, for he has
covered his subject very thoroughly and very competently. In fact,
he leaves little room for comment.
Much of the work of this Conference is devoted to measuring our
water pollution problem, both in terms of its size—that is, its
magnitude—and its urgency. I think it is safe to assume that the
consensus of this group will show that the need is very large and the
urgency is very great—just as Mr. Curley has stated.
Chances are, however, that political and economic realities will
force us to accept a minimal solution to our problem for the moment;
this, in spite of abundant evidence that present population and
pollution trends, if continued, are bound to produce an intolerable
situation—a situation that may require drastic action.
Mr. Curley has pointed out quite clearly that one of the major
obstacles to the problem of financing facilities for abating pollution
is the public's reluctance to accept the cost of such facilities and their
operation as an obligation, in the same way that the average citizen
accepts the cost of other services and utilities as a necessary part of
his living expenses. I think there has been substantial progress made
350
-------
in educating the public in this respect, and I think great progress
has been made in mobilizing public opinion to take such affirmative
action as approving bond issues to finance the construction of pollution
•control facilities. The Missouri Kiver situation, which Mr. Curley
mentioned, will be greatly relieved by the recent bond issues in the
two Kansas Citys.
But, this progress is not yet success. One thing we might do to
hasten the public's acceptance of its responsibility in this area—and,
at the same time, help solve the financing problem—would be to
require communities and industries to provide for the treatment and
the disposal of their waste water at the same time they plan for their
water supply. In other words, instead of planning systems that
merely supply water, communities and industries would be required
to plan and finance sj stems that also treat and dispose of the water
after they have used it. The city of Cleveland took a step in this
direction a few years ago when it banned new water services to
suburban developments not also served by sewerage systems and
treatment works. This caused a lot of comment at the time, but
builders and owners were quick to fall in line, and the city of
Cleveland took a large step forward in curtailing the pollution of
Lake Erie, which, as you know, is the city's water supply.
In our society our water supply systems and our waste disposal
facilities have evolved as separate entities. Perhaps it is only natu-
ral that they should have, for disposal was once solely a matter of
conveying wastes to the nearest stream. From this practice comes
that well-known maxim,"Dilution is the solution to pollution." No
longer is the answer to our problem as simple as this bit of doggerel.
We must now consider this pollution problem as an integral part of
our water supply problem.
Whenever we plan a water supply system, we should also plan
facilities for treating the water after we have used it. The whole
business should be planned and financed at the same time. When we
create a water supply system, we create the problem of disposing of
the water. This is the time then to finance the pollution abatement
facilities.
Naturally, this will not solve the problems that already exist in
our many communities. But, it will help greatly to curb the further
enlargement of our existing problems.
As I have already tried to point out, public information can do—
in fact, is already doing—a great deal to educate the public to the
necessity of spending more money to treat their communities' wastes.
Our citizens want to act responsibly when their communities face
these decisions, and I believe that helpful information on the sub-
ject of pollution control is welcome. But, there is need for something
more than public information.
351
-------
The problem as it now exists is a staggering one, and powerful
stimulants will be required if we are to realize any substantial gains in
reducing the pollution load which our streams are now carrying.
The problem is so widespread and so complex that I believe this-
stimulation must come from the Federal Government.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956 was a fine step in
this direction. The Public Health Service deserves the greatest com-*
mendation for the successful manner in which they have administered
this law. Successful as it has been, though, it is not enough; and I be-
lieve the Public Health Service would agree with this statement.
If the Federal Government, as I have suggested, is to play a larger
role in this field, then I am sure we must find a better way of financing
their participation than was proposed in House bill 3610 which Presi-
dent Eisenhower vetoed last February. In some respects, this is rem-
iniscent of experiences we had with the Federal Highway Act of 1956,
under which the Federal Government is now paying 90 percent of the
cost of our Interstate Highway System.
I am not suggesting or implying that the Federal Government
should participate in water pollution control to the same extent, or in
the same ratios, as in the highways program. I am suggesting—and
I believe it most sincerely—that the Federal Government must pro-
vide the powerful stimulant I mentioned previously if we are to make
any substantial progress in dealing with the pollution problem as it
presently exists.
As many of you know, the enactment of the Federal Highway Act
of 1956 turned on the creation of the Highway Trust Fund and the
earmarking of specific taxes for this specific purpose—no diversions to
the general fund were permitted.
I believe that the creation of a similar fund, from similarly ear-
marked taxes, is worthy of the most thoughtful consideration. To
this end, and in all humility, I suggest these as possible tax sources
(I am sure there are others):
1. Just as the Federal Government taxes our telephone bills,
let us consider the possibility of taxing water utility bills.
2. Let us consider the feasibility of a Federal license tag for all
waterborne craft now using our surface waters either for business
or pleasure. This is especially intended to include small pleasure
craft, not only as a tax source, but also as a means of uniform law
enforcement.
3. Federal gasoline and other fuel taxes, as imposed on and
collected from motor vehicles, be collected from the sale of such
fuels as are used by waterborne craft.
At this point my references to the Federal highway program seem
meaningless, for I am sure, as I know you are, that the sum total of all
such levies would amount to but a tiny fraction of the tax sums col-
352
-------
lected from highway users. Nevertheless, the tax sources I have
suggested could yield many more dollars than are presently being
appropriated by our Federal Government for pollution control pur-
poses. A most important point I wish to stress here is that such taxes
be clearly and irrevocably earmarked for pollution control purposes.
Of equal importance is the need for the Federal Government to leave
.to local government the job of eliminating their pollution hazards.
Certainly there is nothing new about the Federal Government lend-
ing financial aid to local communities for local needs. I suspect that
everyone within the hearing of my voice can think of one or more
examples. Nobody wants more Federal bureaucracy. Neither does
anybody want to see the Federal Government take over any more of
the local government's responsibilities. If this problem were strictly
a local one, as claimed by some, then it might be reasonable to expect
local government to come up with the solution. It is true that the
problem is frequently a local one, but it is not always a local one.
Moreover, some of these situations are so complex that no reasonable
combination of local and/or regional authorities could handle them.
In conclusion, I am inclined to believe that if the Federal Govern-
ment does not provide the stimulus and the push for correcting our
pollution situation, then we are left with the world's greatest buck-
passing game of the pot calling the kettle black—of each community
claiming its neighbor is to blame.
353
-------
Legal Aspects of Water Pollution Control
CHESTER S. WILSON
Stillwater, Minnesota
I. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
Appreciation
First, let me express my thanks for the help I have had in gathering
both information and ideas for this paper from Mr. Murray Stein,
Chief of the Enforcement Branch of the Division of Water Supply and
Pollution Control of the U.S. Public Health Service, and his staff,
as well as from all the State administrators and legal counsel who have
answered our questionnaire. This cooperation manifests a healthy
and widespread interest in the subject matter.
Scope of discussion—State laws relating to public interests
Every phase of the far-reaching enterprise of pollution control is
necessarily governed by law. Hence it is important not only for legal
counsel but for members of governing bodies, administrators, tech-
nicians, and others who are engaged in pollution control work or who
are affected thereby to have at least a working knowledge of the
principal provisions of laws to which they are subject.
Because of time limits, this paper will deal only with State laws on
pollution control, under which the major part of the work is done
throughout the country. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act
and the laws governing interstate compacts are also highly important
within then' respective spheres, and they will no doubt get due at-
tention elsewhere. However, we do not have time to go into them
here.
The State laws relating to pollution control fall into two general
categories:
(1) The laws governing public interests and operations;
(2) The laws governing private rights and obligations.
354
-------
Significance of laws governing private interests
Since time is limited and since the main purpose of this Conference
is the advancement of the public water pollution control program, we
-shall deal mainly with the laws in the first or public category. How-
ever, attention should be called to some aspects of the private pol-
lution laws which have an important bearing on the public program.
•
Public program aided by private action
All who are concerned with public pollution control activities should
be mindful of the laws relating to private interests involving pollution
and with actual problems arising in that respect within their juris-
dictions. The reason is that legal action taken by private interests
against pollution is often helpful to the public authorities in their
efforts to prevent or control it.
Effect of basic water laws—Common law and prior appropriation
doctrines
It is also important to remember that we have in this country two
more or less distinct bodies of law governing private interests in
connection with water pollution, corresponding with the basic doctrines
of water law prevailing in different parts of the country; namely, the
common law doctrines of riparian rights and underground water
rights prevailing in the Eastern and Central States, and the doctrine
of prior appropriation of water prevailing in the Western States.
There are also many lesser differences in water laws among the States
within each doctrinal group, depending on local statutes and court
decisions. These differences must be recognized and the pollution
control laws must be adapted to the basic water laws existing in each
State. This is especially true in cases where the use of water is a
factor in pollution control.
Significance oj objectives and interests affected
In developing and applying water pollution control statutes it is of
prime importance to fit the provisions to the objectives sought and the
interests affected.
Originally the main if not the only motive for pollution control was
public health and the protection of domestic or community water
supplies. So the first anti-pollution laws were health laws, and the
first agencies charged with the duty of combating pollution were the
State boards or departments of health.
With the march of progress many other interests involved in or
affected by water pollution entered the picture and demanded con-
sideration—notably agriculture, industry, and recreation.
And now, overshadowing all other considerations, we have at last
come to realize that water pollution control is imperative for conser-
vation of water on which our very existence depends.
355
-------
In the meantime sources and kinds of pollution have multiplied
beyond all previous estimates, outstripping efforts at prevention or
control. The whole program must be greatly intensified and speeded
up to meet the water needs of our mushrooming population.
All these conditions must be reckoned with in projecting the future
pollution control program and framing the laws for its advancement.
Development of new laws to meet changing conditions must go.
forward together with or even ahead of other phases of the program.
Otherwise, lack of legal authority may block action on urgent pollution
problems, with great harm to the public health or welfare.
II. PUBLIC POLLUTION CONTROL LAWS
We now come to the specific problems of the public pollution control
laws and what improvements are needed to make them more effective
in the foreseeable future. In the limited time available it will be
possible to cover only the main essentials and point out the most
critical places where the laws need to be strengthened.
Functional divisions
From, the functional standpoint there are two general divisions of
the public water pollution control laws:
(1) Administrative and enforcement provisions;
(2) Enabling provisions for construction, maintenance, and
operation of sewage or waste treatment and disposal facilities.
The administrative and enforcement provisions are necessarily
integrated and are usually embraced in the same legislative act or
chapter of the State statutes, although various special provisions in
these categories often appear separately. It is desirable to consolidate
such provisions, as far as possible, when revising or codifying the
applicable statutes.
Suggested Water Pollution Control Act
The main body of administrative and enforcement provisions is
illustrated by the suggested State Water Pollution Control Act pub-
lished under the direction of the U.S. Public Health Service in 1950,
with the collaboration of the Council of State Governments, in com-
pliance with a provision of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Answers to the questionnaire indicate that there has been some
misunderstanding as to the nature and purposes of this publication.
Some people have assumed that it was intended as a model or pattern
to which all States were asked to conform. Some writers seemed to
think that this was a good idea. Others sharply disagreed, asserting
that then1 present State laws were adequate, or at any rate that the
suggested act would not fit their peculiar conditions.
Any misconceptions about the suggested act will be completely set
at rest by a careful reading of the introduction and explanatory state-
ment which accompanied it. The act was never intended as a model
356
-------
to be imitated, but as a compilation of appropriate provisions on
essential points which might be helpful to the State agencies and
legislatures in framing laws suited to their needs. It consisted largely
of provisions already in force in various States, with alternative pro-
"visions where different solutions were feasible. Thus, it recognized
that absolute uniformity was not to be expected.
Uniformity of State laws is both desirable and feasible in many
fields—negotiable instruments, for example—but it is unattainable in
pollution control by reason of the diversity of basic water laws and
the wide variations in conditions among the different States.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act does not contemplate
complete uniformity of State laws in this field. What it says is that
the Surgeon General shall "encourage the enactment of improved and,
so jar as practicable, uniform State laws relating to the prevention
and control of water pollution." [Emphasis supplied.] This clearly
manifests an intent to promote not uniformity in language but uni-
formity in practical effectiveness—assuredly a desirable goal. In
compliance with this injunction of the Federal Act, the Public Health
Service has now undertaken a revision of the suggested State Act,
with the aim of improving its provisions in the light of experience
and adapting them to changing conditions.
The same procedure will be followed in this process as in framing
the original act. No specific drafts for changes or additions have yet
been made. Before submitting any such proposals we wish to digest
all the answers to the questionnaire, get the benefit of the discussions
at this Conference, and make further studies where necessary. Then
a tentative draft of the proposed revision will be circulated among
all concerned, inviting further comments, criticisms, and suggestions.
After analysis of the returns and further consultations, the final text
for a new suggested act will be written and published. In this under-
taking the cooperation of all those here present and others concerned
throughout the country is earnestly solicited.
III. ADMINISTRATIVE AND ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS
The administrative and enforcement provisions of a Water Pollu-
tion Control Act embrace four main features:
(1) Declaration of policy (optional) ;
(2) Definitions;
(3) Administrative agency—organization, functions, and
powers;
(4) Operating provisions.
Declaration of policy.
The suggested act and some of the present State acts begin with a
declaration of policy. This may be desirable but is not essential.
The purpose of a declaration of policy is twofold: first, to fortify
the law against attack on constitutional grounds; and second, to serve
.357
-------
as a guide to the courts and administrators in interpreting and apply-
ing the substantive provisions of the law.
With respect to the first purpose, declarations of policy are fre-
quently incorporated in new statutes where the State undertakes to
exercise control over a field not previously subject thereto, and where "
there is some doubt as to the constitutionality of the venture. Laws
such as these, to be valid, must be justified as an exercise of the police
power of the State in furtherance of the public health, safety, and
welfare.
There is no doubt at all about the authority of the State to regulate
or prohibit pollution which endangers public health, so no declaration
of policy is needed on that score. It was the advent of other interests,
such as agricultural, industrial, and recreational uses of water, which
prompted the framers of pollution control legislation to resort to the
use of declarations of policy. However, the courts have now gone so
far in sustaining the application of pollution control laws in situations
involving not only public health but various other interests that there
is no longer much need to incorporate a declaration of policy in order
to strengthen an act against attack.
With respect to guiding courts and administrators in construing and
applying the laws, it may be observed that the substantive provisions
should be so clearly worded that they will speak for themselves and
need no aid from explanatory declarations.
However, a declaration of policy, if properly framed, does no harm
and may do some good, not only in the respects mentioned above but
in promoting support for the law and cooperation in its observance.
The main rule to be observed in drafting a declaration of policy is to
make it broad enough to cover all possible situations to which the law
may apply at the time of enactment or in the foreseeable future, and
especially to avoid the use of any language which may restrict the
construction or application of any substantive provision of the original
act or possible future amendments within limits that might handicap
administration or enforcement. The declaration of policy should be
checked against every substantive provision, existing or prospective,
with that in mind.
Definitions
Definitions are important to clarify the meaning of terms which are
not self-explanatory and to adopt short terms or titles which may be
used in the body of the act to save language.
Definition of pollution
The cornerstone of any pollution control law is the definition of
pollution. As in the present suggested act, it should be broad enough
to cover every type of contamination or alteration of the physical,
chemical, or biological properties of water that will or may be ma-
terially harmful.
358
-------
Limitations on application of the law
In connection with the definition of pollution, a question of major
importance is sometimes raised as to limitations on the application
of the law which may be necessary to allow reasonable opportunity
' for the construction of sewage treatment plants or other pollution
control facilities and to exempt discharges authorized by official per-
mits. Efforts may be made by those concerned to have such limita-
tions incorporated as qualifying provisos in the definition of pollu-
tion—for example, that such and such a conditions shall not be deemed
pollution within the meaning of the act, or that the discharge of
sewage or industrial waste under a permit from the pollution control
agency shall not be deemed pollution. This would obviously amount
to a direct contradiction in terms. It is bad composition, both logi-
cally and legally, and should be avoided. Harmful contamination or
alteration of the properties of water is indisputably pollution, and
no evasive language can make it otherwise. Limitations on the appli-
cation of the act, so far as necessary, should be incorporated in the
operating or penal provisions, as will be illustrated later, not hi the
definition of pollution.
Definition oj waters
Next to pollution, the most important term requiring definition is
waters. This should embody a description of the different types of
waters, public or private, surface or underground, to which the
act applies.
The definition in the suggested act is about as broad as it could
be made, covering practically all types of waters on or below ground
that could be affected by materially harmful pollution. Such a
definition is desirable as a basis for a completely effective pollution
control program.
However, for strategic reasons it may be necessary in some States
(especially where the doctrine of prior appropriation is in force) to
confine the program at the outset to certain classes of waters where
pollution is worst and where the need for control is greatest.
Even so, the ultimate ami should be to take in all waters which
may be subjected to pollution of any material public consequence.
Other definitions
A number of other terms need to be defined, but time limits pre-
clude discussion of them here. Illustrations are given in the suggested
act. These will no doubt be augmented in the revised act in response
to suggestions received from different sources.
State water pollution control agency
Orgmally, pollution control was handled by the State boards or
departments of health, and that is still the case in about one-third of
the States. The other two-thirds have created special authorities for
583283—61 24 359
-------
the purpose—usually a board or commission, but sometimes a single
head.
In any case it is essential to have an executive officer, acting under
the direction of the governing body or head of the agency.
For present purposes it will be understood that the term "board"
unless otherwise expressly indicated, refers to the governing authority
of the State water pollution control agency, whether it is the State
board of health or a different body or a single head.
Position of water pollution control agency in the State government
In any case where the water pollution control agency is governed by
a special authority other than the State board of health, there is a
problem of determining its position in the State government—
whether it is to be a separate State department or an appendage or
subdivision of an existing department. This is a matter for deter-
mination by the legislature in accordance with the general plan of
organization of the State government.
However, if the water pollution control agency is attached to another
State department (such as the department of health, department of
water resources, etc.), it should have independent authority to act on
most, if not all, of the matters within the scope of its functions. If
the decisions of the water pollution control agency are made subject
to approval by some higher administrative authority, it leads to
shifting responsibility, creates bottlenecks, and delays action. Such
provisions should therefore be avoided, with possible exceptions in
the case of adoption of regulations, classification of waters, and other
actions of general application and long-range effect, which do not occur
very often and which can be made subject to approval of higher
authority without delaying action on current business.
Of course, whether the final decisions are made by the water
pollution control agency or by some higher administrative authority,
they should be subject to appeal to the courts in cases where substan-
tial rights or interests of the parties concerned are at stake. Such
right of appeal provides an adequate safeguard against unsound or
unjust action by the water pollution control agency even though
review by a higher administrative authority is not required. It is a
credit to the State agencies of the country that appeals from their
decisions have been few and far between.
Membership of governing authority
With respect to the membership of the governing authority of the
agency, there are four alternatives:
(1) A board or commission composed of the heads of existing
State departments (such as health, conservation, agriculture,
livestock, water resources, etc.) serving ex officio;
(2) A board or commission composed of citizens appointed by
360
-------
the Governor or otherwise selected but having no other official
positions in the State government;
(3) A combination of (1) and (2);
(4) A single official appointed by the Governor or otherwise
selected.
Although the State boards or departments of health still handle
pollution control in a number of States, a much larger number of
States have established separate water pollution control agencies
because it was found by experience that the boards of health have too
many irons in the fire to give proper attention to such a complex field
of operation as pollution control, especially in populous and highly
industrialized States.
Furthermore, where the functions of pollution control are directly
vested in the State board or department of health, the appropriation
for that purpose is likely to be regarded by the legislature as just
another item in the health department's budget, resulting in less
money than when there is a special agency to speak for pollution
control and impress its needs upon the legislature.
Despite these handicaps, some of the State boards of health which
still handle pollution control are doing a creditable job.
Among the different forms of special water pollution control author-
ities described above, it is hard to say which plan has been most
successful. However, the weight of opinion among administrators
in the field seems to lean in favor of a board including both ex officio
members and others from outside the State government. This pro-
vides representation for both State departments and outside groups
concerned with the pollution control program.
Representation of interests on the board
The suggested act contemplates that the appointive membership
of the board shall include a representative of municipal government
and a representative of industry—embracing the two main groups in
society that have the heaviest responsibility for both producing and
controlling pollution. This arrangement has proved to be good
strategy in States where it has been adopted. The municipal and
industrial members have usually thrown their weight behind a strong
pollution control program, and have been helpful in overcoming
resistance and securing cooperation among the groups which they
represent.
As indicated in a footnote in the suggested act, other appointive
members representing the general public as well as special groups, such
as recreational interests, resort interests, general water resource
interests, and others, may be added to the board. To these should
be added agriculture and conservation or fish and wildlife interests
unless represented by ex officio members. However, if this process
361
-------
is carried too far, it will increase the membership of the board to the
point where it will be unwieldy.
Advisory council or committee ,
Instead of increasing the membership of the board beyond workable
limits, the organization of an advisory body is suggested, as is pro-
vided in the Federal act. Such a body may be called an advisory
council or committee to distinguish it from the governing board or
commission.
The membership of the advisory council may be as large as necessary
to provide representation for all groups having any substantial interest
in pollution control one way or the other. It is of the greatest impor-
tance to have representative polluters as well as anti-polluters on such
a body. Bringing them together promotes mutual understanding and
may lead to workable solutions of difficult problems, avoiding pro-
tracted controversies.
The legal provisions for an advisory council should name or clearly
define the important known groups entitled to representation and
prescribe the manner of selection of the members. In the case of a
well-established statewide organization, it may be permitted to desig-
nate its own member on the advisory council. Otherwise, the appoint-
ments should be made from known adherents of the designated groups
by the Governor or other State authority'—preferably not by the water
pollution control agency.
An elastic provision may also be incorporated giving the Governor or
other appointing authority power to add representatives of other
groups which may from time to time demonstrate a sufficient interest
in pollution control to deserve consideration.
An advisory council has various functions, of which the most im-
portant are to make recommendations to the governing board on major
policies and problems of public interest and to promote public and
legislative support for the pollution control program.
It should be made clear that the recommendations of the advisory
council are advisory only and not binding on the governing board.
Notwithstanding the advisory council, the board should have full
authority and responsibility for making decisions, so that the existence
of the council will neither weaken the authority of the board nor give
that body an opportunity to shift responsibility to the council.
Opinions differ as to whether the governing board should ever be
affirmatively required to consult the advisory council, or should simply
be directed to receive the advice and recommendations of the council
when offered, giving such weight thereto as the board sees fit. It has
been suggested that at least on matters of far-reaching public interest
where there is no need for immediate action (such as the adoption of
policies or regulations, classification of waters, etc.) the governing
board should be required, before acting, to give the advisory council
362
-------
notice that the matter is under consideration and a reasonable oppor-
tunity, within stated time limits, to make recommendations thereon.
Failure of the council to respond to such a notice would be construed
as approval of the proposal. However, even in such cases the power
of decision should be reserved to the governing board.
At any rate, the requirement for consultation, if adopted, should not
be applied to cases where it might handicap the board in dealing with
problems demanding prompt action.
Functions of governing board
Among the most important of a wide range of functions which may
be assigned to the governing board are the following:
(1) To administer and enforce all the pollution control laws of
the State, whether previously administered by other agencies
or not;
(2) To adopt regulations;
(3) To adopt standards for sewage or waste effluents and for
the receiving waters;
(4) To classify waters with respect to applicable pollution
control standards in view of the uses for which the waters are
suitable;
(5) To issue orders for the prevention, abatement, or control
of pollution, and to require the construction of sewage or waste
treatment or disposal facilities or the adoption of other remedial
measures therefor;
(6) To require the submission of plans for such facilities and
to approve or disapprove the same;
(7) To issue or deny permits for the construction of such
facilities, when approved, and for the discharge of sewage or
waste effluents under proper conditions for prevention, abatement,
or control of pollution.
Of course, all the functions or duties of the board should be imple-
mented by the powers necessary for their performance, including the
power to modify or revoke action once taken when necessary in order
to prevent, abate, or control pollution. As will be further discussed,
the power to modify or revoke orders, permits, or water classifications
serves also to preclude claims of vested rights to discharge pollutants.
Other desirable functions of the board are indicated in the suggested
act.
Consolidation of enforcement authority—concurrent jurisdiction with
other agencies
In order to promote an effective and comprehensive pollution control
program, it is important to give the water-pollution control board
authority and responsibility for administering and enforcing all the
laws of the State relating to the prevention, abatement, or control of
363
-------
pollution, including special provisions previously administered by
other agencies, such as the health laws, livestock sanitation laws,
game and fish laws, and so forth. However, it is not usually neces-
sary or desirable to divest the other agencies concerned of their en-
forcement authority under such provisions. They may be permitted *
to retain concurrent jurisdiction with the water-pollution control
board for prosecution of violations.
Cooperation of county sheriffs, prosecuting attorneys, and other
local law enforcement officials (especially health officers) should also
be required.
All this can be done without confusion or duplication of effort
through proper coordination among the agencies concerned under the
general direction of the water-pollution control board. The result
is to marshal under a systematic program all the forces available for
combating pollution—an obviously desirable end.
To preserve concurrent jurisdiction between the water-pollution
control board and other agencies where desired, there should be in-
corporated in the law (as in the suggested act) a provision to the effect
that it shall not operate to repeal or supersede any other law on the
subject unless it is expressly so provided or unless there is a direct
conflict.
Delegation of legislative power
In connection with provisions authorizing the board to adopt regu-
lations which are to have the force of law in setting standards, classify-
ing waters, or dealing with other matters, it is essential that the law
itself should set forth the basic general principles, policies, or objectives
governing the action of the board on the subject matter. If the law
simply gives the board unlimited discretion in such matters, it may be
held invalid as an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.
Under a properly framed provision the board, strictly speaking, is not
authorized to make any law itself but simply to make investigations
and determine the circumstances under which the basic provisions of
the law shall apply to particular situations—an administrative func-
tion which the legislature cannot very well perform itself. The
original suggested act and State laws may be weak in this respect.
It would be advisable for the authorities concerned to examine the
applicable provisions and seek amendments to strengthen them
against attack, if it appears necessary.
Standards—classification of waters
A number of State laws, like the suggested act, authorize the
board to establish standards for effluents or receiving waters and to
classify such waters with respect to such standards and the uses for
which the waters may be suitable. In the suggested act and in most
364
-------
of the State laws having these provisions the authority is discretionary,
with no mandatory provision for establishing a comprehensive
system of standards and water classifications before applying the
law in particular cases. The boards have usually handled the problem
case by case, prescribing in the order or permit for each case whatever
standards seemed appropriate under all the circumstances.
However, it is taken for granted that different cases where circum-
stances are similar will get similar treatment, and this understanding
has sometimes been embodied in declarations of policy issued by the
boards for the guidance of the municipalities and industries concerned
with the treatment or disposal of sewage or waste. In some cases on
interstate waters the boards of adjacent States have concurred in
such declarations. The result has been to establish classifications
of the affected waters which are more or less informal but nevertheless
effective for the time being.
However, it is usually made clear that these declarations are subject
to change, and that orders or permits issued in connection therewith
may be modified at any time in the future to call for a higher degree
of treatment or the application of other remedial measures to prevent,
abate, or control pollution if required in the public interest on account
of changing conditions.
The rub comes when it is proposed to stabilize the standards and
classifications through systematic regulations covering all the affected
waters in advance, as is already provided by the laws of certain
populous and highly industrialized States. Such provisions are the
outcome of pressure from municipalities and industries for more
permanent specifications for their guidance in planning future devel-
opments than are embodied in informal and readily changeable
declarations of policy or intention by the water pollution control
board.
A large majority of the State agencies throughout the country are
opposed to this procedure, fearing that it will tie their hands against
the adoption of future improvements in treatment or disposal of
sewage or industrial waste, will lead to the establishment of vested
rights on the part of municipalities and industries to treat and dis-
charge sewage or waste under presently authorized methods, and
in general will tend to lower the level of pollution control. However,
as a matter of necessity or expediency, provisions for systematic
standards and classifications are already in force in some places, as
before stated.
Without taking sides in the argument over the merits of the pro-
cedure, we should call attention to some points which should be
considered by the State legislatures and all others concerned with
this problem before acting upon it. This is a situation, if there ever
was one, which calls for the old admonition, "Look before you leap."
365
-------
Systematic standards and classifications—procedure and authority for
adoption
The procedure for adoption of systematic standards and water
classifications involves two main steps:
(1) Framing specifications for the standards of effluents or
water quality and the classes of waters in which these standards .
will be applicable according to the uses for which the waters
may be suitable.
For example, class A waters would embrace those used for
human water supply, where discharge of sewage or waste effluents
would either be prohibited altogether or permitted only under
the highest possible degree of treatment. Class B waters would
embrace those suitable for less exacting uses, requiring less
complete treatment of sewage or waste, and so on down the line
to the lowest class, where little or no treatment of sewage or
waste would be required.
(2) Making investigations, holding hearings, and designating
the actual waters assigned to each class.
Obviously, this procedure will result in more or less stable if not
permanent zoning of the waters of the State for different uses.
This leads at the outset to the question whether the power of taking
action fraught with such grave consequences to present and future
generations should be vested completely in a specialized agency like a
water pollution control board, or whether it should be subject to review
and confirmation, before finally taking effect, by some higher and
broader authority—perhaps even by the legislature itself—in order
to insure full consideration for all present and future interests involved.
Standards and classifications—vested rights
Another momentous question is whether the actual use of waters for
disposal of sewage or waste by municipalities, industries, and others
under established standards and classifications will ripen into vested
rights for the continuance of such use. Under private land zoning
systems, it is usually held that the owners have vested rights in the
continuance of established uses, and that these rights cannot be modi-
fied or abrogated without compensation for any resulting losses which
the owners may suffer. Condemnation proceedings may be necessary
in such cases in order to eliminate existing uses and make way for
other or higher uses of the property.
Whether the same thing would happen under classification of waters
for pollution control purposes is a question which cannot be answered
with assurance until it has been passed upon by a court of last resort.
Water classification systems have not been in force long enough for
such a case to arise. However, the various possibilities in that con-
nection should be considered before developments under such systems
get past the point of no return.
366
-------
Municipalities, industries, and others responsible for disposal of
sewage or waste would, of course, like to obtain vested rights to con-
tinue the methods of disposal which they may be permitted to adopt
upon the initiation of the classification system, so that they could
•demand compensation if the classification should be raised and more
complete and expensive treatment should be required later. At least
up to the point where actual use of the authorized methods of disposal
" is made under the classification system, the matter of granting vested
rights is completely under the control of the legislature in the first
instance, when it enacts the law, and later of the water pollution con-
trol board so far as it may be authorized by law to deal with the prob-
lem. Hence the legislature and the board should consider whether
it is in the public interest to grant vested rights, and if they decide
that it is not, they should incorporate in the law or in the regulations
establishing the classification system or in the permits for disposal of
sewage or waste, as the case may require, express provisions forestall-
ing the acquisition of vested rights thereunder. That would settle
the question, since no claim of vested rights could be sustained in the
face of such provisions expressed before actual use of the prescribed
methods of disposal began.
On the other hand, if it should be the deliberate purpose of the legis-
lature or the board in a State where the classification system has been
adopted to grant vested rights thereunder, on the assumption that
the planning and progress of municipal, industrial, or other develop-
ments will thereby be encouraged and facilitated, they may and should
incorporate express provisions to that effect in the law, regulations, or
permits, as may be appropriate, in order to make their intention clear.
As before indicated, we are not expressing any opinion as to the
wisdom of such action one way or the other. However, it may be
observed that the inevitable result would be to put a damper on the
efforts of those responsible for the origin and disposal of sewage and
waste to improve then- water use and disposal methods. They will
naturally try to get by with the least permissible effort and expenditure
in that regard.
One of the most important factors in the advancement of the whole
pollution control and water conservation program is the possibility of
learning by research and experiment how to get along with less water
for industrial and other purposes and how to treat sewage and waste
more effectively. The incentive for such efforts will obviously be
greatly lessened if people can get vested rights to stay in the existing
rut.
The interests responsible for sewage and waste disposal have never
had any such vested rights in the past so far as the authority of the
State for dealing with pollution is concerned. Conceivably an opera-
tor, by long-continued discharge of pollutants, might get prescriptive
rights to continue such discharge against private riparian landowners
367
-------
downstream, but he could never secure any such rights against the
police power of the State to prevent, abate, or control pollution for the
sake of the public health or welfare, no matter how long the discharge
was continued. Yet vast municipal and industrial developments have
gone ahead throughout the country with no assurance whatever as to •
how long or to what extent past methods of sewage or waste disposal
would be permitted to continue. The question may well be asked
whether there is any need for providing greater assurance now by '
granting vested rights in such methods. That, of course, is a question
of public policy for consideration by the legislature and the authorities
concerned.
However, the problem involves another and deeper question as to
whether a State legislature has any power at all to grant or authorize
the granting of vested rights in derogation of the police power of the
State over water pollution. The police power is an attribute of sover-
eignty, which cannot be compromised or surrendered either by the
legislature itself or anyone acting under its authority.
This is of special significance in connection with navigable or public
waters, which are held by the State in its sovereign capacity in trust
for the people, without power of alienation. Most major pollution
problems involve such waters directly or indirectly. The legislature
may doubtless regulate the use of such waters in the public interest,
but it is debatable whether it may grant any permanent vested rights
therein which would interfere with the exercise of the police power for
protection of the waters in furtherance of the public health and
welfare.
Here again, until the matter has been passed upon by a court of last
resort, it is impossible to say whether an act of the legislature granting
vested rights in established methods of sewage or waste disposal, or
authorizing the water pollution control board to grant such rights,
would be valid. All concerned should take note of this uncertainty
and govern their acts accordingly.
Standards and Classifications—Inertia
Even if the acquisition of vested rights hi existing methods of sewage
or waste disposal under a system of standards and water classification
is ruled out, whether by law or court decisions, substantial municipal,
industrial, and other developments are bound to go forward in reliance
on the system. This will inevitably create an element of inertia in the
way of improvements. Even though the people responsible for
sewage or waste disposal have been warned by provisions in the law or
the regulations governing the system that the prescribed methods are
subject to change, they will naturally resist attempts at raising the
requirements and will try to maintain the existing provisions as long
as they can. It will be much harder to change a classification of wide-
spread application, adopted through deliberate procedure, than to
modify a permit governing a single case. This prospect should be
368
-------
taken into consideration by legislatures and others concerned, along
with other considerations on both sides of the question, in determining
whether or not to adopt a classification system.
' Operating provisions—Orders, plans, permits, and enforcement
The things we have been discussing—regulations, standards, and
, water classification—are preliminary steps to set the stage for action.
We now get down to businsss with operating provisions.
Under a State law like the suggested act, a water pollution control
board proceeds with its mission by investigating actual cases, holding
hearings thereon, issuing orders for prevention, abatement, or control
of pollution, acting on plans for sewage or waste treatment or disposal
facilities, issuing permits for approved facilities, and denying permits
for facilities where the prescribed requirements are not met. If the
board's mandates in any form are not heeded, it may invoke civil court
proceedings to compel compliance, or it may resort to criminal prose-
cutions, with penalties, to punish violations. These provisions cover
a lot of ground. We can take up only points involving legal problems
of special interest.
Orders
A board order against pollution may be negative or positive—that is,
it may direct that a polluting discharge be stopped-—commouly called
a cease-and-desist order—or it may go further and require the construc-
tion of treatment facilities or the adoption of other remedial measures.
A cease-and-desist order, without any positive requirement for
remedial measures, may be effective against a private industry or an
individual polluter. The offender may take his choice—either stop
the discharge (perhaps requiring suspension or termination of his
operations) or he may install facilities for treating the pollutant to the
satisfaction of the board. If he fails, his operations may be shut down
by a court injunction or he may be subjected to criminal penalties so
severe as to force him to comply with the order. However, established
industries are practically always allowed a reasonable time for compli-
ance, and in a great many cases they have responded with satisfactory
solutions.
A mere cease-and-desist order, however, is seldom if ever an effec-
tive move against a municipality, because the stoppage of municipal
sewers, in most cases, is unthinkable. Hence it is the practice in deal-
ing with a municipal sewage problem for the board to issue a positive
order to the municipality directing it to provide sewage treatment or
disposal facilities meeting specified requirements within a stated time
limit. This is expressly authorized under the suggested act and a
number of State acts.
In some States where the law provided only for prohibitory orders,
the courts have construed the statute by implication as authorizing
the board to issue positive orders for remedial measures, because, as
369
-------
before stated, a mere prohibitory order against the discharge of mu-
nicipal sewage would be ineffectual. However, it is not always safe
to depend on favorable judicial interpretations, so the agencies in States
where only prohibitory orders are now authorized by law would do well •
to seek amendments providing for positive orders for the adoption of
remedial measures as well.
Some further problems involving enforcement of orders will be dis- '
cussed in connection with that subject.
Plans and permits
The authority of pollution control boards to require the submission
of plans and to issue or deny permits for treatment or disposal facilities
is now well settled and widely accepted. Such requirements have
been held to be binding on municipalities to the extent that expendi-
tures for sewer extensions or other disposal facilities without approval
of plans and issuance of permits by the board would be a misuse of
public funds, subjecting the responsible officials to severe penalties—
perhaps even removal from office. This has given the boards a power-
ful leverage over municipalities where sewer extensions are needed to
serve new housing, industrial, or business developments. It has been
the practice of the boards in such cases to deny permits for sewer ex-
tensions until the municipal authorities proceed in good faith to pro-
vide for sewerage treatment plants and other necessary pollution con-
trol facilities. This procedure has brought about the construction of
such plants and other facilities in many cases without resort to en-
forcement proceedings. It has had widespread effect in the times of
booming construction which we have had since World War II. How-
ever, it would not get very far during a depression or recession, and
it gets no results in static places where there is little or no new devel-
opment or where the townspeople would rather get along without the
sewer extensions than pay for a sewage treatment plant. At best it
is a slow process. Boards must be prepared to take more vigorous
action in such cases if they expect to accomplish their mission.
Permits—Modification or revocation—Vested rights
The desirability of reserving the right to modify or revoke permits
(as well as regulations, standards, and water classifications) in order
to prevent the establishment of vested rights in presently authorized
methods of pollution control has already been pointed out. Where
the law provides for modification or revocation of permits (as in the
suggested act and similar State laws), it should be so stated clearly
in each permit, so that there will be no misunderstanding about it.
However, even without such a statement a permit would, of course,
be subject to modification or revocation if the law so provided.
Industries would naturally like to get firm or irrevocable permits.
Sometimes promoters will assert that such permits are necessary in
order to secure funds for construction. This argument is used in
370
-------
favor of systematic classification of waters. However, if industries
cannot get irrevocable permits, they will manage with changeable
permits, as they have done on a wide scale in the past.
The reasons why it may be inadvisable and perhaps constitutionally
impossible to grant vested rights in the establishment of water stand-
ards or classifications have already been pointed out. The same ob-
servations apply to permits.
At any rate, a board should never undertake to issue a firm or
irrevocable permit unless expressly authorized by law. If it did, the
permittee would be leaning on a broken reed, since the permit, if
attacked in court, would doubtless be held invalid, so far as the irrev-
ocable feature was concerned, as being beyond the legal authority
of the board.
It is unlikely that any problem will arise over the issuance of firm
or irrevocable permits to municipalities, because they are creatures
of the legislature, and their officials generally understand that laws
and orders relating to their affairs are always subject to repeal or
amendment.
Delegation of functions
To expedite business it is important to have in the law, as in the
suggested act, a provision permitting the board to delegate to its
executive officer or other agents or employees authority to act on
plans, permits, and other routine business, under conditions prescribed
by the board and regulations or delegation orders, reserving matters
of major importance for action by the board.
Enforcement by civil court action
The suggested act and similar State acts provide for enforcement of
the provisions of the law or orders of the board by injunction pro-
ceedings, as in case of abating a public nuisajice. This is a well-
recognized form of civil action.
This procedure, like a board order to cease and desist, is a negative
remedy because an injunction in the ordinary form is simply a court
writ or decree restraining one from doing something. That is effective
if the only objective is to stop a polluting discharge.
However, an ordinary injunction would not be effective if the
objective were to require the construction of a sewage treatment
plant or other pollution control works. For this a mandatory in-
junction or writ of mandamus—a command by the court to do a
certain thing—would be needed. This procedure is already expressly
authorized in some States and in others it has been sanctioned by
court decisions construing the law to that effect. State laws lacking
such provisions should be amended to incorporate them.
Disobedience of a writ of injunction or mandamus is punishable
as contempt of court by a fine or jail sentence, under the recognized
powers of courts of equity or courts of general jurisdiction. However,
371
-------
it would be well to have an express provision to that effect hi the
pollution control act to make sure of the punitive powers of the courts
and serve as a warning to offenders.
Returns to the questionnaire show that actual infliction of penalties
has rarely been necessary in pollution control cases. Polluters will
often stall action as long as they can under board orders, but when
faced with a court writ or decree that has become final after exhaustion,
of defensive remedies, they understand that it means business, and
usually comply without being forced by contempt proceedings.
Some special proposals for other enforcement measures will be
discussed later.
Enforcement by criminal prosecution and penalties
Admittedly a pollution control law must have teeth in the shape of
provisions for prosecution, with attendant penalties, in order to be
completely effective. It is no more possible to secure pollution control
on an adequate scale by voluntary action than it would be to coUect
taxes or obtain universal military service in that way. The obvious
reason is that sewage treatment plants and other pollution control
works cost money but seldom produce any direct benefits to the
owner. Doubtless such facilities result in many indirect benefits,
but direct incentives for then- construction in the shape of material
rewards are usually lacking. Many of those responsible for pollution
will voluntarily abate or control it if they are assured that all others
in the same boat must do likewise. However, they will not move
if they see other polluters continue unrestrained, escaping the cost
of remedial facilities and thereby gaining competitive or economic
advantages.
The prime requisite of good enforcement provisions in a pollution
control law is that they shall be workable, realistic, reasonable, and
effective in accomplishing the aim of preventing, abating, or con-
trolling pollution. Punishment of offenders is only an incidental
consideration. It does no good to fine a polluter or send him to jail
if it does not result in curing the pollution evil.
The problem of devising provisions to meet these requirements is
far more complicated than dealing with a common crime like theft—
which is not so simple either. There are some cardinal rules of crim-
inal prosecution (of which we speak with experience). No case
should be started unless there is a reasonable chance of conviction
both on the law and the evidence. No action should be threatened
or initiated that cannot be finished. A case that is lost for lack of
adequate grounds discredits and weakens the enforcement authority.
An unenforced or unenforceable law on the statute books creates dis-
respect for all law.
The same rules apply, so far as pertinent, to civil enforcement
actions.
372
-------
The main penal provision in the suggested act and many state
acts makes any discharge of pollution (as previously defined) unlaw-
ful and subject to punishment by fine or imprisonment, with cumu-
lative penalties for each day the offense is continued. This provision
has some serious shortcomings in comparison with the requirements
§ outlined above for a good enforcement provision.
The existing provision may be workable against specific acts, such
as deliberate or careless spillage or release into public waters of oil,
poisonois chemicals, or other particular pollutants where responsibil-
ity can be fixed on a certain individual or corporation. It is, how-
ever, utterly unworkable against a municipality, where, as before
pointed out, stoppage of the sewers is unthinkable, or against a going
industry, where stoppage of the discharge would compel the plant to
close, throwing employees out of work and perhaps forcing them on
relief at public expense.
We have heard of no State having such an enforcement provision
where the water pollution control board has set out to enforce it lit-
erally by seeking prosecution of every municipality, industry, and
private individual responsible for discharging pollution as defined by
law. If any such effort were made, the short-handed staff of the
agency would be so busy making investigations, gathering evidence,
and appearing as witnesses at the trial of cases that they would have
no time left for the performance of their other important construc-
tive duties.
The fact is that the pollution control boards of these States, with-
out exception as far as we know, being endowed with common sense,
simply do not start any such program of wholesale prosecutions.
With the aim of getting maximum results from the limited means at
their command, they devote their efforts to the orderly operating
procedures described above, and thus attain some measure of success
in controlling pollution.
Yet there is the strict penal provision in the law, sticking up like a
sore thumb, and every now and then some zealous crusader flaunts
it in the face of the board or its staff, demanding to know why it
is not enforced. This is both embarrassing and demoralizing, for
there is no answer that will satisfy the questioner.
It is time to set the sights on the main objective—prevention,
abatement, or control of pollution—and to deal with this problem
sensibly in view of that objective. To that end it has been suggested
that the penal provision in question be amended to the effect that
only such pollution is unlawful as is determined by regulation or order
of the board to be substantially injurious to the public health, safety,
or welfare, and that no discharge of sewage or waste in conformity
with a permit issued by the board shall be deemed unlawful.
Even with that qualification the provision would be stronger than
is found in some of the State acts. However, it would not be so
373
-------
extreme as the present provision in the suggested act and others
conforming therewith. It would meet the specifications for a good
enforcement provision above indicated, and it would extricate the
water pollution control boards concerned from their present dilemma.
The suggested modification of the main penal provision of the law
would not in any way impair the force of other specific statutes which.
penalize overt acts of pollution—for example, discharging or deposit-
ing contaminating substances in waters used for human or livestock
water supplies, polluting waters so as to kill fish, etc. Such provisions
can be left in full force, subject to enforcement by the agencies already
charged therewith, under concurrent jurisdiction of the water pollu-
tion control board as before suggested.
Besides the main penal provision just discussed, it is essential to
have in the law (as in the suggested act) provisions, with penalties
attached, prohibiting the construction of any sewage or waste disposal
works or parts thereof or modifications thereof or additions thereto
(as well as certain other acts) without a permit from the board and
requiring the submission of plans for such projects.
In that connection it has been suggested that the present provisions
be strengthened by requiring that plans for sewage or waste disposal
facilities be submitted and a permit obtained therefor before any
construction begins on a plant which will discharge sewage or waste
for which a permit is needed. This appears to be a salutary proposal.
It would relieve the board from pressure from industries that build
their plants first and then apply for waste disposal permits under
dubious conditions. It would also protect an industry against the
loss that would result if a plant were built first, only to discover too
late that the location or the manner of construction was such that a
permit for waste disposal was unobtainable.
With the modified penal provisions of the Water Pollution Control
Act above suggested and the other statutes dealing with overt pollu-
tion offenses, the law as a whole would be in good shape for effective
enforcement.
Grandfather clauses and exceptions
In some States enforcement of the pollution control laws is handi-
capped by provisions excepting from the operation of the law dis-
charges of sewage or industrial waste existing at a certain date, or
excepting certain types of industrial waste or certain areas altogether.
Adoption of such provisions may have been necessary to appease
influential special interests and get the law passed in the first place.
However, they are a thorn in the flesh of pollution control agencies,
because they limit the scope of operations, discriminate against other
sources of pollution, make it difficult to deal with them, and so retard
the advancement of the entire program.
374
-------
Needless to say, it will be necessary to eliminate all such restrictive
provisions in order to gain the end of complete pollution control.
Efforts should be made to get them repealed as soon as possible. It
should be possible to overcome the opposition of the industries affected
*by pointing out to them that there are a number of highly industri-
alized States where no such exceptions have been made, and by
assuring them that they will get fair treatment and a reasonable
* opportunity to provide waste control facilities if they are made sub-
ject to the law. Even if their opposition cannot be overcome, after
a good number of other polluters have provided treatment facilities,
the weight of their influence and general public opinion should be
enough to secure repeal of the objectionable provisions.
IV. ENABLING PROVISIONS
Even the most effective penal provisions will not in themselves
suffice for an adequate water pollution control program. This is
recognized by a footnote in the suggested act, pointing out that where
the water pollution control board issues an order for construction of a
sewage treatment plant by a municipality, there must be adequate
statutory provisions for financing the project and otherwise enabling
the municipal officials to complete it. Progress of the program has
been severely handicapped in many States for lack of such provisions.
On the other hand, in some States the enabling laws are quite ade-
quate. The problem is to get the least effective laws amended so that
they will be equal to the best.
Enabling law provisions presenting serious problems are of two
types—(1) financial, and (2) organizational—that is, providing for
the creation of sanitary districts or other local governmental units to
deal with sewage disposal and other pollution control problems where
existing cities, villages, or other units are inadequate, or, in some cases,
providing for joint contractual arrangements.
Financial problems
The chief stumbling blocks in financing sewage treatment plants and
related projects are bond issues and debt limits.
Bond issues—Elections
A difficult problem with respect to bonds arises in States where
bond issues must be approved by a vote of the people. Construction
of many badly needed sewage treatment plants in such States has been
repeatedly delayed and in some cases stalled for the foreseeable future
by adverse votes at bond elections.
On the other hand, a bond election has educational value. Some
authorities favor bond elections in all cases on this account, because
if people are persuaded to vote money voluntarily for a sewage treat-
ment plant, they will take pride in it as a community accomplishment,
25 375
-------
and will support its future maintenance much more willingly than if
they are compelled through legal proceedings to construct it—in which
case they are apt to look on it as a millstone around the municipal
neck.
There are some who say that despite the damaging consequences
an adverse vote at a bond election must be accepted and put up with
as the people's decision under our democratic form of government.
This view ignores the fact that the people of a community have an
obligation to remedy the pollution of which they are the source so that
it will do no injury to others—an ancient precept of the common law,
now embodied in express statutory provisions. When people by
collective action at an election can evade a positive legal obligation
of that kind, it is a mockery of the democratic process. There should
be and are effective ways to get around such an obstruction.
Bond issues without elections
The problem has been successfully solved in a number of States by
authorizing municipal councils to issue bonds for sewage treatment
plants and other disposal facilities without an election. In some
States the provisions dispensing with bond elections apply to all
sewage treatment or disposal projects. In others it applies only where
construction of the facilities has been ordered by the State water pol-
lution control board.
Sometimes a public hearing is required before a municipal council
can issue bonds without an election. Favorable public sentiment at
such a hearing can be developed by a preparatory campaign. The
whole process takes less time and is much less expensive than with
a bond election, and the results in terms of public support for the
project may be as good or better. There are cases where opposition
which might have gotten quite hot at an election campaign has cooled
off completely when a courageous council took the bull by the horns
and put through a bond issue on its own initiative.
On the other hand, there have been some cases where municipal
councils deliberately sidestepped the responsibility and put bond
issues up to the voters rather than exercise their own authority as
they might have done under the law. To meet that situation it
would be desirable for the law to provide not merely that a bond
election is not required where construction of facilities has been
ordered by the State board, but that in such a case the council must
issue the necessary bonds without an election. There are existing
precedents for such laws.
Revenue bonds versus general obligation bonds
In some States the authority to issue bonds without elections applies
only to revenue bonds, based on specific income from assessments,
sewer use charges, or other special sources, and does not extend to
general obligation bonds backed up by tax levies and by the full
376
-------
faith and credit of the municipality. Revenue bonds usually take
a higher rate of interest than general obligation bonds unless the
sources of revenue are exceptionally good. However, the difference
• is not always great, and many issues of revenue bonds at reasonable
rates of interest have been made.
It would be desirable, of course, to have the authority for issuing
bonds without elections extend to general obligation bonds as well
as revenue bonds, or a combination of the two characteristics. This
would certainly be justified in view of the critical importance of pol-
lution control. A bond issue framed so as to be amortized primarily
out of special revenue, although made a general obligation as addi-
tional security, usually will be paid off out of the designated revenue,
without resorting to a tax levy. In that event the only effect of the
general obligation feature is to get a lower rate of interest.
Debt limits
It frequently happens that a bond issue for sewage disposal facil-
ities would exceed the statutory debt limits of the municipality.
The obvious remedy for this, in force in some States, is to provide
that the debt limits do not apply to such projects. This is a fully
justifiable measure for the same reasons as in dispensing with bond
elections.
Constitutional limitations
In some States provisions requiring municipal bond elections and
setting debt limits are embraced in the State constitution. It is
admittedly difficult but not impossible to amend the State constitu-
tion. Many amendments of much less public importance have been
approved by the voters of various States.
The need for advancement of the pollution Control program is so
urgent that all possible efforts should be made to remove constitutional
obstructions wherever they stand in the way.
Compulsory bond issues, tax levies, and other measures
Judging from some of the answers to the questionnaire, the idea
of compulsory bond issues, with necessary supplementary provisions
for taxes or revenue to pay them off, strikes some people as shock-
ing if not subversive of the principles of local self-government. How-
ever, a much larger number think it is a good idea. Those who look
askance at such proposals may be surprised to know that they are
already in force in some places.
Actually there is nothing more startling or contrary to the principles
of self-government in such a provision than in the already general
practice of compelling municipal councils through court proceedings
to take the necessary steps for construction of sewage disposal facili-
ties. Issuing bonds and providing funds to meet them are usually
377
-------
necessary steps in the project. Unless those steps can be compelled,
the enforcement proceedings are futile.
Compulsory procedure would be difficult, of course, if the law
required a bond election. In that event all the court could do would*
be to compel the council to submit the proposal for a bond issue to
the voters. If it was turned down, the council could hardly be held
punishable for contempt. The responsibility would be on the voters,*
and how to reach them with contempt proceedings would be a problem.
There is a notable case where the court indicated that if a bond issue
for a project which had been ordered failed to pass at an election,
representative voters might be haled before the court and punished
for contempt. History fails to report the outcome.
Efforts should be made to remove all legal obstacles and provide
for the construction of sewage disposal facilities by some inescapable
procedure in those cases where the State pollution control board has
ordered construction and the responsible legal authorities have
refused or failed to act. Perhaps it will be sufficient if the law dis-
penses with bond elections in such cases and gives the courts power
by mandamus to compel municipal councils to go all the way with
the necessary steps, including bond issues, tax levies, and revenue
charges if required.
It would be only a short step further to authorize the court to make
orders or decrees actually putting such measures into effect if stubborn
municipal officials should persist in their refusal to act despite the
penalties imposed under contempt proceedings. This would be no
more drastic than what is commonly done already in enforcing the
payment of money judgements against municipalities by compulsory
tax levies under court orders. However, it would probably be
advisable first to strengthen the laws, wherever necessary, for enforce-
ment by injunction and mandamus, and see how that works before
seeking more drastic remedies. The point is that to be completely
effective the law should provide a sure method for securing the
construction of pollution control facilities without fail in all cases
where the water pollution control board has determined that it is
necessary in the public interest.
Special local agencies Jor sewage disposal and pollution control—sanitary
districts
In these days when population is exploding and development of
residential, business, and industrial areas is spreading rapidly beyond
present municipal limits, it is becoming increasingly necessary to
provide for the organization of sanitary districts or similar special
local governmental units to deal with sewage disposal and other
pollution control problems. There are also cases where municipalities
or parts thereof need to, join with adjacent municipalities or
outside territory in dealing with these problems, and where it is
378
-------
necessary either to organize a sanitary district or other agency for the
purpose or to handle the situation by joint contractual action.
Many States already have laws providing for formation of sanitary
.districts or similar agencies, but quite a few do not. Moreover, in
those States having such laws it may be desirable to revise and
modernize them in the light of experience to meet new problems that
"are continually arising.
Here we can do no more than call attention to the problem, which
has many angles requiring separate discussion. Two years ago, after
a study of the pertinent laws of various States, we drafted a compre-
hensive bill on the subject for consideration by the Minnesota Legis-
lature. It got stuck in the legislative jam and did not pass, but will
no doubt be introduced again at the coming session next January.
Copies of this bill were sent to the pollution control agencies of all
the other States, in recognition of their response to the questionnaire
that had previously been circulated. If anyone has any questions,
comments, or criticisms on this bill, we shall be glad to get them for
further consideration.
Joint powers law
Attention should also be called to the fact that where adjacent
municipalities have common sewage disposal or pollution control
problems that are not too complicated, they can sometimes be suc-
cessfully handled through a contractual arrangement under a joint
powers law such as is in force in California, Minnesota, and some
other States. States which do not have such a law should adopt
one.
V. CONCLUSION
Answers to some of the questionnaires indicated that the writers
thought that their existing State pollution control laws were adequate
even though they lacked some of the features essential for a fully
effective program such as we have been discussing. The inference
was that the program in the State of the writer was making satis-
factory progress and that no improvements in the laws were needed
to facilitate or accelerate it. Any State in which that happy situation
exists is indeed to be congratulated. However, the great majority of
the State agencies are evidently keenly aware of the fact that the
water pollution control program is far below par in most areas. They
realize further that it will not be up to par until it can not only meet
all present needs but also anticipate future needs, so that existing
pollution control facilities will be maintained, improved, and enlarged
under a continuous process and new facilities will be constructed in
time to handle increasing pollution loads and deal with other new
problems that are continually arising with the growth of population
before injury results from uncontrolled pollution.
A number of States can point with pride to the fact that a large
379
-------
majority of their municipalities, with an even, higher percentage of
the sewered population, are now equipped with sewage treatment
plants.
However, this does not by any means tell the whole story. A
more realistic report would include a statement on the capacity of these
plants to handle the increasing pollution loads to be expected, together
with an estimate of the work needed to bring them up to par as well
as to provide effective pollution control facilities at all other places
where needed. No progress report is ever complete without a pro-
jection of the unfinished work ahead.
The fact is that most of the past progress in pollution control, like
other human enterprises, has followed the line of least resistance. Of
course it is good strategy to follow that line as far as possible and make
the most of voluntary action. An ounce of cooperation is worth a
pound of compulsion.
However, as experience has shown in many places, the program is
now getting down to the tough nuts, some of which will have to be
cracked by force. This is indicated by the cases that have gone to
court in the last few years. It is encouraging to note that the courts
have usually sustained the pollution control laws and the acts of the
State agencies thereunder. Yet it will undoubtedly be necessary to
take further cases to court as resistance is met from time to time.
So it behooves all the agencies concerned not only to size up the
job to be done but to look to their laws and make sure that they are
in shape to see it through.
Finally, lest anyone should think that because I am a lawyer I
attach too much importance to legal provisions, let me say that for
many years I served also as an administrator in this field, and sweated
through many a battle over budgets, projects, and all the other
troublesome problems which go with that responsibility. Hence I
am heartily in accord with the comments made by many of the State
executives who answered our questionnaire, pointing to the acute
need for more administrative, technical, and legal help and for more
expense money in order to attain their goal of complete and effective
pollution control.
The people of the country and their representatives in State legisla-
tures and Congress must be aroused to the fact that skimping on
means for essential conservation work like this results in losses of vital
water resources worth many times the cost of an adequate program,
and that money spent on such a program will come back with dividends
many tunes over in the shape of a stronger and more prosperous
Nation.
We are fond of saying that we have a government of laws and not of
men. That is an utterly misleading statement. No law is self-
executing. What we have is a government of men under law, and
both are essential to the success of any public endeavor.
380
-------
DISCUSSION
RICHARD T. SANDERS
Director, Division of Legislative Drafting and Codification of
Statutes, North Carolina State Department of Justice,
Raleigh, N.C.
My task, as I understand it, is to draw highlights from Mr. Wilson's
remarks, and to provoke and stimulate the thinking and action of the
Conference—perhaps to suggest basic legal approaches upon which
the foundation of any structure of accomplishment of this Conference
is obliged to rest. I interpret Mr. Wilson to affirm that law must
effect a fundamental commitment of government to the principle and
practice of conservation of waters for best usage. In essence, he
places major emphasis upon the necessity of effective teamwork of
dedicated men working under and through an effective system of law,
for the purpose of achieving that end. With his fundamentals, I find
myself in hearty agreement. He has, as I see it, performed signal
service in suggesting a set of measuring rods, criteria, or tests which
may be used to j udge the effectiveness of water pollution control law.
Since we may all agree that State water pollution control laws are so
vital and of such paramount importance in the implementation of the
whole program, or any effective program of water pollution control;
and since the suggested or model water pollution control laws as
developed by the Public Health Service represent a truly significant
part of the Federal initiative, assistance, and leadership which has
been dramatically fruitful in this field, I deem it exceedingly ap-
propriate that Mr. Wilson has taken the suggested water pollution
control law and its variables among the several States, as the frame
of reference for his fundamental subject matter.
I should like for the Conference to confront the tremendous and
growing problem of water pollution in the exploding metropolitan
fringe areas where towns or unincorporated developments, small in
themselves—so small, in fact, that separate sewerage plants are not
economically feasible—aggregate a greater pollution threat than the
central city itself. There a multi-municipal participation is of unques-
tioned advantage, but difficulties can be envisaged in determining the
share of grant and burden for each participating municipality and
the legal responsibility where all are not equally responsible. Then,
who is to assume the financial, administrative, and legal responsibility
in the case of unincorporated metropolitan fringe areas where there
is a conflict of interest as to sanitation facilities within the county
between the urbanized fringe and the rural areas? How can a worth-
while pollution control project even get started under such circum-
stances unless provisions are made by law which meet the special
381
-------
problems presented and preserve at the same time the principle of
maintaining responsible local government?
While local political subdivisions, municipal corporations in any
form, are creatures of the State law, the States themselves are not"
creatures of the Central Government. This country fought the
bloodiest of all civil wars and has been said to have established thereby
the indivisibility of the Federal Union and the indestructibility of *
the sovereign States. The natural fact that waters are no respecters
of political boundaries is no justification for any water law approach
destructive of the integrity, the authority and the effectiveness of
local and State governments and the preservation of their sovereignty
in the Federal system.
At the same time, in the field of the law of water resources, and
particularly the pollution control aspect of that field, there is no
place for a twilight zone. There must be a full suit of legal armor.
The interrelated legal systems should be mutually supportive and
complementary, rather than mutually exclusive, inconsistent or
competitive. The integrity of the State's laws for the State itself
and its subdivisions must be respected and preserved. Laggard
States like laggard subdivisions of States may well be encouraged
to responsible and effective action by standby or emergency authority
for the preservation of the resource, as expressed in Federal and
State laws. But the exercise or assertion of authority, in the name
of paramount power, must not be permitted to preempt the field of
State and local government, bring about an ouster of such govern-
ments, encourage abandonment of local effort, or dissipate the
energies and efforts of all governments concerned in fruitless and
pointless jurisdictional controversy, to the detriment of the public
interest. At all levels of government, therefore—Federal, State,
and local—'the function of law is simply to commit to a goal, define
and allocate responsibility for the achievement of the commitment,
and provide authority commensurate with the responsibility. I am
persuaded that men of inspiration and good will can do this—and
we must.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act has served a most
excellent purpose. It recognized that proper treatment of effluent
before discharge, while primarily an act on behalf of others, is a
worthy contribution to the public interest and to the preservation
on behalf of the whole body politic of a vital resource. Federal
grants-in-aid have proved to be a most effective incentive. Local
matching funds for the construction of waste treatment plants far
in excess of the Federal grants-in-aid have been encouraged and
expanded, and the benefits of the act itself—of the principle it
embodies and the program it instituted—-to the body politic cannot
actually be expressed. They are far too great. It has not sought
382
-------
to destroy local authority or responsibility, but has, on the contrary,
encouraged local governments to shoulder broader responsibilities
and provided help and guidance. I admit that the Federal act
needs strengthening. The avenue, to pinpoint the individual sources
1 of pollution and to concentrate on elimination at the points of origin
is an approach open to criticism from the larger view of comprehensive
control, but the approach has worked well, and as helpmate to the
related conservation programs it offers a justified hope for the achieve-
ment of comprehensive pollution control and is eminently worthy,
therefore, of retention and expansion.
May I beckon you to lift your vision a little higher? Divine
Providence has provided life on this planet a few basic things—a
relatively thin crust, of cradled soils and waters, a surrounding cushion
of air, and an interchange system of moisture between to constantly
replenish and nourish the waters and soils of earth. Overall He
anoints with the warmth and light of the sun. With these things,
all human life, all endeavor, all fish, fowl and animal life, all the
vegetation for their provision, must be sustained, and I believe these
resources abundantly sufficient to the task. I am persuaded that
they are enough to support and enrich all life, all gainful endeavor, even
all beneficial growth, now and in our beckoning future. It is within
the destiny and capacity of mankind to plan, develop and deal with
these treasures comprehensively and as a unity, reflecting our realiza-
tion of the conjoint, interacting, and interrelated nature of these
resources, and our use of them. As to the legal aspects of our steward-
ship of these resources, I am persuaded that as men of law, men of
science, men of government, and plain good citizens, we will achieve
a coordinated system of laws. These laws must harmonize the
legal pattern with the laws of nature. They must reflect the distilled
best judgment of man, and their effectiveness will be limited only by
the limits of man's inspiration. Let us hope that here, at long last,
interdisciplinary cooperation and understanding between men of law
and men of science will have reached fruition. The ultimate public
weal demands no less.
But we deal with the problem of the waters of earth, and more spe-
cifically, of the waters of the United States. May I suggest that the
attack be on a broad front, rather than on a fragmented portion of the
water problem. Water quality, water quantity, water navigability,
water for the parched lands calling for reclamation—water for munic-
ipality, recreation, industry, agriculture—all cry out with equal fervor
for our attention, and if we retire within our airtight compartments of
self-centered concern, our little hegemonies of narrow responsibility
and narrow inspiration, to be sure we foreshorten ourselves on the
very threshold to fragments and fringes, rather than hear issues of the
overriding problem of water itself.
383
-------
Just a word in support of the above assertions. Without low flow
regulation of streams, where will the volume of water necessary for
carriage and natural purification of waste be obtained? No waste
treatment system or systems on earth nor their sum total can equal the
roll of water itself as the purifier of pollution nor match the built-in
treasure of the natural oxidation principle. To insure a steady flow
we must take action which supports and complements the natural
processes. No user of water—no man—is an island—but what we all
do affects each of us, and what we each do affects all of us. We must
build installations for retardation, interception and storage—even for
an occasional diversion—and here, indeed, we find ourselves in the
thicket of water law problems, and both the riparian and prior appro-
priation doctrine rear their frightening heads.
I believe water law, both public and private, should truly reflect
an abiding purpose to make an abundance of waters actually rather
than potentially available in abundantly useful quality, in abundant
quantity, and abundantly in time for beneficial use, now and in this
country's future. This, in essence, is the fundamental goal of con-
servation of waters. I do not subscribe to the belief that conservation
has been conscientiously tried and found wanting in this country, for
I rather suspect that broad and true conservation for use may have
never been, indeed, tried at all.
Accordingly, I see the main challenge to us and to law is to perfect
the posture of planning, controlling, regulating, managing and de-
veloping the resource in strength and not in weakness. Finally,
I desire to reemphasize the obligation of law and government at all
levels to undertake a fundamental commitment to a basic principle,
to assume and allocate responsibility for achieving reasonable goals
in keeping with the basic commitment, and to provide ample authority
to carry out the assigned responsibilities. Coming a little closer to
cases, I urge that we thus deal with river basin systems, watershed
systems, State river systems, and interstate river systems, with power
and authority at all levels of government—Federal, State, and local—
commensurate with the problem and the area faced, and I believe
that we cannot but succeed.
Panel III
General Discussion:
Dr. WOLMAN. Mr. Edward P. Thornton has asked to make a
statement from the floor. He is the chairman of the New England
Compact Commission.
384
-------
Mr. THORNTON. I am Edward P. Thornton, chairman of the
New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission, and
member of the New Hampshire Water Pollution Commission.
> I have asked for this opportunity to speak because I find myself
in considerable disagreement with some of the policies enunciated
both this morning and this afternoon by some of our speakers.
'. Knowing that you are going to present conclusions of this group, and
knowing that those conclusions will have considerable weight, both
tomorrow and in the future, I feel impelled to set the record straight
both for the State of New Hampshire and for the seven signatory
States of the New England Compact. We do not feel that there is
any need for any extension of the Federal jurisdiction over that
presently exercised by the Public Health Service.
We in New England are very happy with our natives. We get
along with them; we get along with the Federal Public Health Service.
The representatives who are regularly assigned to our New England
meetings and to our New England States are fine gentlemen. They
have our respect and confidence.
This noontime, I suggested to Mr. Forsythe I would be very happy
to have any case histories related by him, as to the need for Federal
enforcement authority, but he had none. We do not have any in-
stances known to any of us in New England on which there was any
conflict between States or where there was any conflict in which it is
necessary to call in even the present provisions of the Federal law.
We feel that there is a definite area in which the Federal agencies
can and should operate—the question of coordination of training, the
use and assistance that they can give us in preventing duplication of
training facilities and, most of all, of course, is the question of cash.
Every one of the speakers has pointed out that the main point of
all these pollution problems is the question of money. Who is going
to pay for abatement?
Again, to go back to New England, we have a fairly decent operating
setup there. We are getting along, not spectacularly but nevertheless,
getting along, and we are doing the job. I don't want to be smug,
but we could do better. There is no question about it. Every one
of us could do better, but we are getting along and are doing our job
in New England. And we are doing it with a minimum of difficulties
and at what we think in New England is the proper governmental
level, namely, the smallest possible local level.
We believe in town meetings in New England. We believe in
giving people a right to be heard and to make their thoughts known.
We try to govern ourselves as much as possible on that local level.
We in New England, New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont, particu-
larly, have taken full responsibility for the water pollution control
program.
385
-------
There is no question up our way of whether or not it is needed.
There is no question ahout whether it should be done. It is merely
a question of time and money. The time is the same amount that all
of us have. But as far as the money is concerned, at least three of.
the New England States have passed laws which make a cash contri-
bution. In New Hampshire, it is 20 percent, the same basis as the
Federal contribution of 30 percent is made. *
In addition, we have some other provisions that are of assistance.
One of those provisions which is extended to any municipal subdivision
of the State is a State guarantee of the bonds. And that has amounted
to as much as 1% percent difference in the rate of interest on those
bonds when they are issued, not a small saving over the life of a 20-
or 25-year bond.
We have, in addition to the State aid and the State guarantee, a
means of aiding industries. We in New Hampshire give a 25-year
tax abatement to that portion of any manufacturing or industrial
plant which is devoted to the abatement of either air or water pollu-
tion. That, you can readily see, is a very definite advantage to the
industry involved.
There are several other points I would talk of, sir. I would like
to point out that many of us in the water pollution field have other
State activities involved.
Just in reference to the suggestion that was made this afternoon
about the telephone and water taxes, I suggest that those of you who
are in the State health or water pollution agency might very well be
in a most embarrassing position if you found you were advocating
this type of action in contradiction to another State agency. And I
suggest before you take any stand in your respective States that you
do two things. Pick up your telephone, call your Governor's office
and ask what the Council of State Governors and the Governors Con-
ference is doing on it. And call up your public utilities commission
and ask them what the National Association of Railroad & Utility
Commissioners have done on this particular point.
Just to summarize it, sir, I would like to say that in New England
there is no need for any further extension of Federal jurisdiction other
than that which we now have. We feel that our people and our
industries are going to get a lot better hearing in their own State
capital. Certainly, it is a lot less costly hearing to them in their
own home State than having to come down here to Washington. We
feel that they will get a much better break on the economic aspects of
the situation from their local people than they will from the Great
White Father down in Baghdad on the Potomac.
In any event, to summarize, I would like to offer this following
motion. I don't know whether I am in order or not. I offer for
adoption this resolution, sir:
386
-------
That this panel go on record as being opposed to any further
extension of Federal jurisdiction other than that presently being
exercised.
. Mr. MIKELK. I am Stanley F. Mikelk, member of the Massa-
chusetts Fish and Game Board. Also I am the Izaak Walton League
delegate to the Conference. We in Massachusetts have a program
1 that will seek all Federal aid, following the principles of some of the
enlightened members who are on the panel today and have spoken.
I think Mr. Thornton has gone far afield. We are satisfied in Massa-
chusetts with what the compact is doing.
I was instrumental with a number of other conservationists in
drawing up a conservation platform which was presented to our
candidates for Governor of both parties. Both candidates campaigned
on the platform, and they made promises that would appear to be
inconsistent with the resolve presented by the gentleman from New
Hampshire.
The gentleman from New Hampshire has told you of an enabling
law in three Northern States of Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.
But I do think he is quite unfamiliar with the scene in Massachusetts.
We definitely are not satisfied with the progress in Massachusetts,
and we do know we can make more progress if we get more Federal
help and the help in the various new fields needing research. That will
certainly be of help to us in the future. I hope that the Blatnik bill
will pass. We in Massachusetts are more concerned with the passage
of the Blatnik bill than with the passage of the resolution proposed by
the gentleman of New Hampshire.
Dr. WOLMAN. I thank you very much.
I suppose the chairman must make a ruling as to whether or not
this discussion should be resolved in the form of any motions of ap-
proval here today. I believe that in general our purpose has been to
hear as many viewpoints as we can during the sessions without formal
resolutions today, regardless of the direction or their jiature, or even
then- popularity.
I think I might say that for the sake of the audience in this last,
a little bit more heated discussion, which I for one happen to like
because I think we were getting a little too quiescent during the day,
we were getting almost to the point where there seems to be unanimity
of opinion, even though I wasn't too sure what that unanimity was.
But just for the assurance of the audience, I do want to say that all
guns have been removed at the entrance to this assembly so that the
motions are both temporary and not dangerous to your lives.
I hope that the Conference will agree with me that we are not yet
ready for resolutions of approval or disapproval. This, I place on the
basis that we have a working session of a small group this evening with
387
-------
the idea of trying to formulate something which will be more than a
series of pious declarations in favor of virtue and against sin and bring
them back to you tomorrow so that you may have an opportunity to
determine whether in an audience such as this, which is bound to have
some differences of opinion, we are in agreement on certain general
principles. At least, let's make a try at it.
Is that agreeable to you, Mr. Thornton? You made the motion,
and I am trying to steer it away for the moment.
Mr. THORNTON. I stand by your ruling, so long as we have the
opportunity to be heard on the question of these final findings.
Dr. WOLMAN. I give the audience, of course, no feeling that we
have any great optimism as to how we are going to reconcile the types
of differences that you promptly point out. We are going to make a
try at it. We may end up, as so often is the case, with certain agreed
principles which we hope will be useful and point out, in fact, where
there are significant departures in the panel from such principles, if
there are such departures.
I recognize next Mr. Robert W. A. Rodger (New England Interstate
Water Pollution Commission).
Mr. RODGER. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of Panel
III, ladies and gentlemen. I regard it as not only a great privilege but
as an even greater opportunity to call the attention of this group of
outstanding experts on the problems of pollution control, to a well
seasoned financial mechanism which can be used successfully in the
financing of bond issues by municipalities and States for sanitary
facilities. As we all agree, money is the root of the sewage problem,
and the principle of Federal and State insurance should take a promi-
nent place in all our thinking and discussions on that problem.
The New Frontier of the Democratic Party is visualized as a nation
of unpolluted rivers, with an abundance of clean, usable water, our
most used raw material. It is estimated that the cost of this blessed
state will be frdm $12 to $15 billions. This is a massive sum of
money. The question arises as to who will pay the bill, the munici-
palities, the States or the Federal Government? The trend of public
opinion appears to be in the direction of a division of the responsibility
between the three parties concerned.
Until the early 1930's, when the New Deal made a few grants-in-aid
on municipal projects providing sanitary facilities, the financial re-
sponsibility had always been viewed solely as a community respon-
sibility. However, the trend ever since the New Deal grants were
made, has been to regard it as a joint responsibility of the municipal,
State, and Federal Governments. In my own State of Vermont, the
costs are divided unevenly in three ways—50 percent community, 20
percent State, and 30 percent Federal.
388
-------
Many factors are responsible for the development of a policy of
joint responsibility. One is the realization that the problem is no
longer local, as it was in the horse and buggy days, but national in its
scope and effects. Another factor has been the success attending the
Federal grants-in-aid policy. Still another is the knowledge that for
every $1 expended by the Federal Government, the States and
municipalities have expended more than $4. Cooperation between
the three parties concerned has paid off handsomely, and there is no
great movement for its discontinuance. In my opinion, the day will
soon come when each party will be held responsible for one-third of a
project's cost.
We have seen that under the best of auspices, because of the tre-
mendous demands on the Federal purse, Federal cash grants-in-aid
must be limited despite the merits of a project. Even big spenders in
Congress are well aware of this fact. If the Federal Government is
to bear its full share of responsibility, its income must be augmented
by either an increase in taxes, or by the creation of some new financial
mechanism capable of caring for the demands.
This is no new dilemma which will face President Kennedy and the
87th Congress. President Roosevelt faced an identical problem in
1934 when there was a dearth of Federal income for financing his vast
housing plans. But he found a way around that impasse by using a
then new and unique financial mechanism, namely, Federal insurance
of mortgages and bond issues on housing loans. The principle involved
was the acceptance by the Federal Government of a contingent
liability on sound loans. The history of the FHA proves that it was
a sound policy. Indeed, the FHA has never cost the taxpayer a nickel,
and it now has on hand from earnings the sum of nearly $700 millions.
It can be applied with equal success and security in the case of bond
issues on projects providing sanitary facilities.
Federal insurance of bond issues lulled the fears of investment
bankers and induced them to release a veritable flood of gold for new
construction. It also enabled projects to obtain minimum rates of
interest and long terms for amortization, resulting in tremendous
savings. I wonder how many people here today realize that a saving
of 1 percent interest over a 30-year period is nearly the equivalent of
a 30 percent Federal cash grant-in-aid.
Additional proof of the merits of the insurance principle is the
tremendous savings created by State insurance of bond issues for
sanitary purposes. For example, the State of New Hampshire
guarantees all bond issues on sewage projects. Consequently, projects
built in New Hampshire pay from one-half to one percent less interest
than do similar projects built just over the State line in Vermont,
where the State advances only 20 percent of a project cost.
Not all States have the high financial rating of New Hampshire and
Vermont, and the value of State insurance would vary with the credit
389
-------
rating of any particular State. Furthermore, it would take a long
time to persuade each and every State to provide insurance legislation.
Therefore, I favor Federal insurance for quick results and uniform
values.
Another factor favoring the choice of Federal insurance is the fact
that a large percentage of the towns needing sewage works are very
small villages. Approximately 75 percent of the communities requir-
ing sewage works in the Nation have populations of less than 2,500
inhabitants. Almost without exception they are poor and in need of
financial assistance in the execution of big projects. In many cases
new legislation will be necessary to enable them to build. Not many
States have enabling acts such as we have in Vermont, which permit
towns to finance projects outside the limits of their bonded inbebted-
ness with revenue bonds, in the same way in which all public utilities
are financed, using the plant and service charges as security for
the loan.
In conclusion, while the grants-in-aid policy would appear to be
firmly fixed, it is quite possible that when the superior advantages,
to all concerned, of Federal insurance becomes apparent, it will
gradually phase out the grants policy. This thought is based on the
conviction that self-sustaining, self-liquidating projects need no help
from the Federal Government, other than the bond guarantee. When
Congress becomes convinced of this, it will quickly relieve the Govern-
ment of this massive financial burden.
Since my allotted time has expired, for the benefit of anyone inter-
ested in this subject, I am attaching for the record a more detailed
statement which I delivered at the hearings of the Senate Select
Committee on National Water Eesources, held in Boston on December
8, 1959. You will also find attached for the record, a copy of Con-
gressman Broomfield's bill, H.R. 2733, which provides for Federal
insurance of bond issues by States and municipalities for water and
sanitary facilities. Congressman Broomfield believes that a Federal
guarantee of municipal and State bond issues for sanitary purposes
will galvanize the flow of money from investment banking sources
into that field.
With every municipality, State and pressure group in the Nation
running to Washington for loans and grants-in-aid, the financial
resources of the Federal Government are being strained to the utmost
to meet these demands for help. Most of the requests for aid are of
the type formerly satisfied by investment banking institutions. But
the substitution of Federal spending for private investment has had
the bad effect of driving private credit from many areas where it is
urgently needed and suitable.
Many economists predict that unless all Federal spending for
massive domestic projects is restricted to those for which no suitable
machinery can be developed for private investment, this Nation will
390
-------
soon be operating under a form of Federal capitalism, typical of the
welfare state or the system in Russia, where allocations of capital for
all projects are made by the Central Planning Board.
Therefore, it is welcome news that a bill was recently introduced in
Congress which provides machinery well calculated to relieve the
Federal Government of the necessity of making any greater cash
outlays for the construction of sewage treatment projects than it is
now providing.
The bill, H.R. 2733, was sponsored by Congressman William S.
Broomfield, of Michigan. It provides for a financial mechanism
whereby the Housing and Home Finance Administrator may guarantee
(insure) bond issues made by municipalities and States for water
supply systems and all types of sanitary facilities, including sewer
systems and sewage treatment plants.
The principle involved in the bill is not new. The substitution of
a Federal guarantee of bond issues for outright Federal grants was
first tested by the Federal Housing Authority in the 1930's and
utilized ever since. In practice, it proved to be a far more effective
instrument for the revival of the building industry than had all the
loans and grants made for that purpose by Washington prior to its
adoption.
The long history of the FHA has demonstrated that the Govern-
ment assumes practically no risk when it guarantees loans made
subject to the highest standards of investment and construction. It
is carrying out a safe policy—assuming a contingent liability on a
sound loan.
Probably the most important deduction to be drawn from the
FHA experience with insured loans is the lesson that Federal financial
assistance is not limited to outright cash handouts. It has demon-
strated beyond question that massive domestic projects, when capable
of operating successfully on the revenue they collect on a quid pro
quo basis for services rendered for goods provided, can be financed
by private credit when suitable machinery is developed. Sewage
treatment plants are typical of the sort of projects we have in mind.
Our experience with guaranteed FHA mortgage loans has direct
bearing on what may be expected in the case of guaranteed bond issues
for sanitary purposes.
Although sewage works are not housing, in many ways they fit the
same category. Each typifies a capital investment which is self-
sustaining and self-liquidating from the revenues derived from the
sale of services rendered—sewer service charges or rentals. Sewage
works are a form of public utility which is financed, owned and
operated by municipalities, and occasionally by private investors.
If there are still some who harbor any lingering doubts about the
advisability of the Federal Government assuming so vast a contingent
liability, they may find assurance in the following facts.
583283—61 26 391
-------
Sewage works provide a much safer investment than the most con-
servatively financed housing loans insured by the FHA because no
promotion fees and excessive builders' profits are included in the
cost. Absent too are the customary bonuses, discounts, and sub-
ordination features connected with housing projects. Furthermore*
the revenues from sewage projects are always based on minimum esti-
mates sufficient only to carry the fixed charges, cost of operation anda
maintenance, and set up adequate reserves for depreciation and
obsolescence. In other words, they are rigged to meet every storm
of financial adversity.
Additional security is afforded by making the bonds an obligation of
the municipal corporation and/or a mortgage on the treatment plant,
sewer service charges, and sewer lines. Also, from 30 to 50 percent of
the total cost of projects is written off at once by the Federal and
State grants-in-aid. Great security for earnings is gained by the
practice of including the sewer service charges in the water bill,
which must be paid or the utility can enforce collection by shutting
off the water.
When to all these valuable considerations we add the Federal guaran-
tee, a powerful inducement is provided to attract private credit into
this field of investment. Just how great and immediate will be this
response we have no way of knowing until it is tried out. It could
very well be a slow process because conditions are much different
today than in the 1930's when the guarantee principle was first
introduced.
We were then at the bottom of a great depression. Federal income
had reached its lowest point. The building industry was gasping for
life. The investment banking institutions were bulging at the seams
with idle gold. It presented a combination of forces which proved
ideal for the successful trial of the guarantee principle.
In contrast, today, Federal revenues from taxes are the highest in
our history. But to offset this favorable factor, demands on the
Federal purse have reached an all-time peak because of the cold war
and liabilities for past commitments and going expense. In conse-
quence, there is little money available in Washington with which to
finance the massive domestic projects on the national agenda.
There is still a large area of this sewage program not covered by
Federal grants to which the insurance principle is applicable. For
example, there is the 70 percent balance (50 percent in some States
which grant 20 percent) above the 30 percent Federal grant-in-aid.
The municipalities are responsible for this amount and Federal insur-
ance of their bond issues should prove most helpful by way of lower
rates of interest and longer terms for amortization. Another area is
the sewer systems of municipalities. Many of them are very old and
need replacing. Many of the towns needing disposal plants have no
sewer system—only cesspools and septic tanks. The Federal grant-
392
-------
in-aid for sewage treatment plants does not cover this expensive
problem. It must be financed with a separate bond issue, which will
be helped by a Federal guarantee.
* The Broomfield bill, H.R. 2733, was introduced in Congress on
January 19, 1959. Since that date it has been held without action
by the House Committee on Banking and Currency. Anyone inter-
ested in a good, sound piece of legislation, which will benefit the
development and conservation of our natural resources without
making a cash drain on the Federal Treasury should write at once to
his Representative in Washington in its favor.
[H.R. 2733, 86th Cong., 1st sess.]
A BILL To provide for a program whereby the Federal Government may guarantee bonds issued by States
and municipalities in carrying out construction programs for certain public sanitary facilities
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That as used in this Act—
(1) The term "public sanitary facilities" means—
(A) water supply systems, including all plants, works, instrumentalities,
and properties, used or useful in connection with obtaining a water supply,
and the treatment or distribution of water;
(B) sewage disposal systems, including sanitary sewers, combined sanitary
and storm sewers, plants, works, instrumentalities, and properties, used or
useful in connection with the collection, treatment, or disposal of sewage,
storm water from combined systems, sanitary sewage, or industrial wastes;
and
(C) garbage and refuse disposal systems, including all plants, works,
instrumentalities, and properties, used or useful in connection with the collec-
tion and disposal of garbage or refuse.
(2) The term "State" includes a State, the District of Columbia, Hawaii,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands;
(3) The term "municipality" includes a city, town, borough, county, parish,
district, or other public body created by or pursuant to State law and having
jurisdiction over any public sanitary facilities, as defined in paragraph (1) of this
section; and
(4) The term "Administrator" means the Housing and Home Finance Ad-
ministrator.
SBC. 2. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to recognize,
preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of the States in pre-
venting and controlling water pollution and in providing public sanitary facilities
for the health and welfare of their citizens. It is the purpose of this Act to assist
the States in carrying out such activities through the establishment of an adequate
Federal support program for bonds issued by States or municipalities. To this
end the Housing and Home Finance Administrator shall, under regulations pre-
scribed by him, guarantee certain bonds issued by any State or municipality for
the construction of public sanitary facilities.
SEC. 3. Any State or municipality desiring to avail itself of the benefits of this
Act shall make application in writing to the Administrator stating—
(1) that the State or municipality desires to issue bonds to obtain funds
for the construction of public sanitary facilities;
(2) a description of the proposed public sanitary facilities containing such
information with respect to construction plans and costs as the Administrator
may prescribe;
393
-------
(3) population figures indicating, with respect to such State or municipal-
ity, the population for ten years preceding the date of such application, the
population on the date of such application, and reliable projected population
figures for twenty years after the date of such application;
(4) taxable property valuation figures indicating, with respect to such State
or municipality, the total taxable property values for ten years preceding the
date of such application, on the date of such application, and reliable esti-
mates of such values for twenty years after the date of such application;
(5) the total outstanding per capita indebtedness (exclusive of any in-
debtedness for school purposes) of such State or municipality applicable to
the district or area to be served by the proposed public sanitary facilities;
(6) such other data as the State or municipality may deem pertinent to
indicate future ability to meet its obligations; and
(7) such other information as the Administrator may deem appropriate to
enable him to carry out the provisions of this Act.
SEC. 4. The Administrator may, after reviewing the information contained in
any application submitted under section 3, approve any such application, except
that he shall not approve any such application—
(1) unless the bonds described therein are to be issued within three years
after the approval of such application and will mature not more than fifty
years from the date of issue;
(2) unless the State or municipality concerned agrees to pay the United
States an amount equal to one-fourth of one per centum of the total maturity
value of such bond issue to defray Federal administrative costs of the bond
guarantee program provided by this Act;
(3) if, in the opinion of the Administrator, the State or municipality con-
cerned will be unable, within the ten-year period beginning on the date of issue
of the bonds involved, to meet at least 60 per centum of its financial obliga-
tions on such bonds; and
(4) unless the State or municipality concerned agrees to repay to the
United States any amount paid by the United States on account of a default
on the part of such State or municipality with respect to any payment of
principal or interest, on bonds guaranteed by the Administrator, during the
ten-year period beginning on the date of the issue of such bonds, plus interest
at the rate of 6 per centum per annum from the date of the payment of any
such amount by the United States to the date of repayment by such State or
municipality within the twenty-year period beginning on the date of issue of
such bonds.
SEC. 5. The Administrator shall, with respect to each application approved by
him under this Act, guarantee the bonds issued by the State or municipality in
accordance with such approved application and, as evidence of such guarantee,
the Administrator shall issue to the State or municipality concerned a certificate
pledging the full faith and credit of the United States for the payment of the
principal and interest on the bonds described in such certificate, during the ten-
year period beginning on the date of issue of such bonds, and specifying the total
value of the bonds, and the maximum interest rate thereon, included within the
terms of such certificate.
Dr. WOLMAN. It is interesting, I think, that Vermont in this case
is not debating very much with the gentlemen from Massachusetts
on this question of jurisdiction. This is particularly interesting to
an observer or listener here that the individual States and localities
edge into the Federal Treasury by various routes and in various
amounts. And I suppose if I were objective about this, this is a
394
-------
very interesting commentary on the whole situation we are trying to
resolve. Where the argument begins, apparently, or ends, is how
much you edge in and, in turn, of course, what price you pay for edging
in on its fiscal resources. And I assure you that you have to pay a price
• to any banker upon whom you call for additional amounts of money.
This is not taking sides. I have not said that 30 percent is virtuous
and 35 percent to the Federal Government is sinful. I am merely
' pointing out what I am listening to during today's conversation.
I rather suspect that the State and local groups will have to make
up their minds as to how less than virtuous they want to remain.
This is an observation which crops out of almost all of the discus-
sions. I pointed it out in my opening remarks. One of the problems
you are going to be confronted with is where you are going to get
painless abstraction of money from some of the bodies. I recall
again, since this morning is a long time away, that all of these moneys
of which we are talking come out of the same pockets. There are
no substitutes for those.
The allocation of them is where the machinery becomes a little
smoother in one direction or another. And this is what I suppose
every advocate of State and local and Federal responsibility is talking
about—how easily and how smoothly can he get the money without
anybody being aware that he is giving up either local or Federal
responsibility. I am being as realistic as I know how.
I want to call on Mr. Charles H. Callison now who has also requested
to be heard from the floor. He represents the National Audubon
Society, New York.
Mr. CALLISON. I wish to comment on the point of view expressed
in this Conference by such able spokesmen as Mr. Leonard Pasek, in
this panel, and Mr. Albert Forster, in the opening plenary session,
and by others, that waste disposal is a proper use, and even properly
the exclusive use, of certain rivers, and that this "principle" should be
recognized in our national policy on pollution.
May I point out the fatal danger, as well as the basic fallacy, in
this contention? To assert that a given stream should be dedicated
to use as a cesspool is to say that we recognize as correct and proper
the polluted condition of many streams today. If it has been proper,
as well as convenient, to permit one municipality and its community
of industry to dump their untreated wastes into the river in the past,
there is no logical way we can say that another growing city and new
industrial plants in another location should not likewise use the
stream that flows by them—particularly if the relationship between
cities and their industries is a competitive one. It is a policy of
defeat and retreat which the public cannot accept and the Nation
cannot afford.
395
-------
There is another reason why the industrial firm that builds its
future plans on this policy is merely hiding its head in the sand. The
use of streams for waste disposal—if this can be called a use—is
now in violent collision with other public needs, needs growing out
of our population explosion, our growing economy, and increasing"
urbanization. The harsh fact is there are not enough streams now
to go around. The river now being polluted is needed, and needed
badly, for other industrial uses requiring clean water, for recreation,*
for agriculture, for fish and wildlife production. Your own commu-
nity needs the flood plain and the river banks for parks and new
housing sites—and to so use the flood plain requires cleaning up the
stench and eyesores of pollution.
The point is simply this: The people of America will no longer look
upon a polluted river as well used. When they look at the river they
see boating and swimming and fishing and streamside picnicking
opportunities—if only the pollution were cleaned up.
And the people know it can be cleaned up—greatly improved, if
not completely cleaned up. The public cannot believe that America's
industrial technology, which has performed miracles in production,
cannot also solve the problems of waste treatment. The public is
not likely to settle for less.
In conclusion I should like to subscribe to and endorse the closing
remarks of Mr. Robert F. Boger in which he asserted the futility
and the risks of trying to solve certain not so local aspects of water
pollution in any way except by dealing the Federal Government a
strong regulatory and enforcement hand in the national effort. A
strong Federal hand is absolutely essential to progress in cleaning
up what has been correctly referred to in this Conference as this
"national disgrace."
We also believe that most of the States need stronger regulatory
and enforcement powers than they now possess to deal with water
pollution.
Dr. WOLMAN. I don't know whether Mr. Pasek wants a minute
to remind Mr. Callison or anyone else in the audience as to what
you actually said about the use of streams for waste disposal.
Mr. PASEK. I would only suggest that a clear reading of my
paper does not indicate that industry advocates streams be used
solely as carriers of pollutants. This is only a comment that was
made about one river and one community's decision or one area of
that decision, and this was not a promulgation to be considered for
all of our streams.
Mr. ADAMS. This question is for Mr. Lynch and was asked by
Mr. Jack T. Garrett, of Monsanto Chemical Co.: "How does indus-
try get the press to report positive progress in pollution abatement?
396
-------
We have been told by reputable newspaper people that this is not
news and seldom is any mention made of such accomplishments."
Mr. LYNCH. I can only speak for one newspaper, and that is the
one I work for and I do not have to speak for it myself because there
are representatives here of the pulp and paper industry, which prob-
ably empties into the waters of Wisconsin in total quantity more pol-
luting material than any other industry. They will tell you that while
we have put pressure on them over the years to clean up, we have
regularly published their efforts to do so. You are at liberty to ask
one of them to stand up, and they will tell you the same thing.
I would like to say one thing. That is something that newspapers
should do generally, because when they take upon themselves the right
to criticize they should also recognize for themselves the duty of
publicizing the remedies.
Mr. ADAMS. Mrs. Whittemore, to you is put this question by Mr.
C. E. Walbridge, of the Allied Chemical Corp.: "Does the League of
Women Voters of the United States favor greater Federal control in
the water pollution field than is provided in Public Law 660?"
Mrs. WHITTEMORE. What the League of Women Voters is after
as a citizens' group is pollution abatement. It has been our observa-
tion that municipalities do not clean up, do not vote the treatment
plants, without the State breathing pretty heavily down their necks.
It has also been our observation that the State, not all States, do not
have in order their organization for pollution control for the enforce-
ment of pollution abatement. We believe that they will be more
likely to put their State houses in order (the State legislature will be
more likely to do this) if the Federal Government is known to be in
the background with more power, more clearly defined power of
enforcement.
Mr. ADAMS. This is a question for Mr. Curley, but in his absence
I will direct it to Senator Whitfield.
Mr. R. D. Kogler, of the Chamber of Commerce and Lions Club
of Moundsville, W. Va., wants to know: "Since water pollution
control equipment is considered by many State and Federal
officials as necessary for new and existing industries, why then
does not the Bureau of Internal Revenue allow such expenditures
as necessary business expenses and not as currently done by capi-
talization over an extended time period?"
SENATOR WHITFIELD. I, of course, am not an internal revenue
agent representative, but I approach it this way, briefly.
You heard me say this morning that our most precious commodity
is water. Well, I want to probably surprise some of the business
people, particularly big business, by saying our second most precious
397
-------
commodity is industry. That is why we have to protect industry
sometimes from its folly.
Therefore, I am all in favor when you reach a marginal city or a
marginal industry that they should be helped. When it comes to the *
cities, the ratio of course is open to discussion, and you have heard
this here this afternoon.
I think a national policy is in reality a National, State, and munici- »
pal policy. Therefore, I do not think it is socialism to help a marginal
municipality nor even to help a marginal industry. There are some
industries that if we tried to enforce even a reasonable pollution law on
them they could not stand it. Therefore, I think we should help
them.
We think nothing of letting our big industries write off a munitions
plant in time of war in short order. Let us take it in those terms. I
do not know why this is not done, but I certainly have no objection to
helping those who need help, because this is war that we are con-
stantly carrying on. Let us carry that away from here with us. Pol-
lution and fighting pollution is war, a war against unseen things,
against bacilli.
Mr. ADAMS. Now, we have a question for Mr. Boger from Edward
J. Cleary of ORSANCO: "You suggest the earmarking of specific
taxes, notably from Federal licensing of pleasure boats and sale
of fuel to all waterborne craft, for pollution control purposes.
Whom do you propose should receive these earmarked funds,
Federal, State, or municipal agencies, and for what purpose would
the money be used—construction, research, or enforcement?"
Mr. BOGER. I would like to reverse the question, that is to say,
I would like to answer the second part of it first.
I think the money should be spent for construction. Money needed
for research and enforcement I think should come from the general
fund.
Now, who should receive these earmarked taxes? I am not certain
it makes a great deal of difference. Various Federal taxes are col-
lected in various ways. I am inclined to believe, pending any expert
analysis of the situation, that such taxes should be received by the
States much the same way as Federal estate taxes.
Mr. ADAMS. I have a short statement by Charles B. Kaiser, Jr.,
general counsel, Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District. He would
like to recommend that "this Conference examine the Federal grants-
in-aid to municipalities and proposes that these grants-in-aid be based
on the flat percent of construction cost, or at least pay the standard
engineering fees for the project."
Mr. Chairman, I should think that should go to the Congressional
committee later on.
398
-------
Now, we have a question for Mr. Wilson: "Doesn't the fact that,
as you state, water pollution control has gone far beyond the
question of public health and has involved the interests of agri-
^ culture, industry, and recreation, suggest that at the Federal
level the joint judgments of the Soil Conservation Service, the
Commerce Department, U.S. Geological Survey, and so forth, be
sought?"
Mr. WILSON. All I have to say is that I think it is a good idea,
and I wonder if it hasn't already been recognized by the present
Water Pollution Control Advisory Board. I do not know just exactly
to what extent they consult all the other agencies involved, but I
believe that they do try to get in touch with all those that are men-
tioned and others that may be concerned. Certainly it is a good
idea.
Mr. ADAMS. This is a question for Mr. Sanders submitted by
J. H. Cornell on behalf of the International Association of Game, Fish,
and Conservation Commissioners: "What is the practical danger of
total surrender of Federal authority to the 50 States in the field
of pollution control?"
Mr. SANDERS. In the first place, let me say that I do not believe
that there is any danger of the surrender of the problem to the 50
States—nor that we will actually come to face this danger in the next
4 years. We have not faced it in fact to my knowledge since 1948.
The surrender of any degree of Federal responsibility with respect to
the laggard States has very little likelihood of development, and I
am not so sure it would be a good idea in the first place. I recall very
distinctly when Senator Whitfield and I served together in the North
Carolina Legislature that the primary reason our State Stream Sani-
tation Act passed in 1951 was the fear of the wrath to come or that
would otherwise come. And the wrath that legislators were speaking
about was the Federal Government's total occupation of the particu-
lar field.
There are local presentations, or aspects, or particular water prob-
lems, but when you endeavor to surrender the entire resource, if you
please, to any particular segment of government, rather than placing
responsibility and authority and making a commitment at all levels,
you ignore the overriding reality that the problem of water presents
itself as a trinity to all three, Federal, State, and local governments,
and should be met accordingly.
When you break away, therefore, and give up a field—-this is a
strange suggestion, that the Federal Government give up a field be-
cause ordinarily, they take over a field and the States immediately
vacate it—but this will not work here. If you will permit me to quote
a little loosely from St. Paul, I think here we must take on the whole
399
-------
armor of God. I believe that is it. I do not think we get anywhere
when we bog down in jurisdictional controversies between Federal,
State, and local governments. I think the job is too big for any one
of the three. I am convinced the job is not too big for all three, with
the support of an enlightened industry, with the support and enthu-
siasm of an enlightened citizenry.
Mr. ADAMS. Jack T. Garrett of the National Technical Task'
Committee on Industrial Wastes has asked that this 10-page descrip-
tion of the organization and their activities be made a part of the
record of this conference. We would recommend that it be included
unless there is serious objection.
Where Does Industry Stand in Water Pollution Control?
By A. J. STBCTBN
Director of Sanitary Engineering, Wilson & Co., Chicago, 111., and Chairman, National Technical Tasi
Committee on Industrial Wastes (presented at 33d Annual Meeting of Water Pollution Control Federal
lion, October 3,1980, Phildelpbla, Pa.)
The question posed in the title of this paper can best be answered by evaluttog the past, determining
industry's position in the present, and pointing up trends that are shaping the future. This Is an ambitious
task, especially to a field so lacking to accurate basic data.
In dealing with this subject, I shall speak about Industry, but not for It. It would be presumptuous for
anyone to speak for all o! Industry on this broad and somewhat controversial question. However, sanitary
engineers In industry as well as many officials of State water-pollution control agencies have helped develop
this discussion by providing valuable background data.
Evaluation of Pollution
Dr. Kiehard D. Hoak (/) presents a clear-cut definition of pollution: "Pollution Is the discharge of material
that unreasonably impairs the quality of water for maximum beneficial use In the overall public interest."
However, Dr. Hoak hastens to add, "The difficulty with the simple definition of pollution just given lies
in our Inability to assign a quantitative meaning to unreasonable impairment of water quality.
The stream sanitation picture is made up of many individual mosaics—Individual reaches of streams where
municipal and industrial effluents are discharged. The determination that any effluents are polluting the
stream depends upon whether the stream can accept such effluents without impairing the quality of the
water for maximum beneficial use in the public Interest. Regulatory agencies must determine the quality
limits for the effluents in question, based upon the needs demonstrated by the various competing uses of the
stream.
In 1933, Streeter (f) set down the principles of evaluation of stream quality ha these words: "To solve
this problem (of evaluating pollution) rationally, it is necessary to analyze It from the standpoint of the
relative effects of various up-stream population groups on conditions of pollution at the particular point of
Interest downstream." Note that we must deal with the effect of the effluent upon the stream, not the
effluent Itself.
This principle seems relatively elementary, but It warrants reemphasls, since some analysts have, In recent
years, attempted to evaluate our national progress in pollution control by citing totals of biological chemical
oxygen demand or population equivalent discharge. This approach does not measure pollution. It meas-
ures effluents rather than their effect on the stream, and it classifies as pollution Increments the thousands
of municipal and Industrial effluents discharged in full compliance with all regulatory requirement?.
In assigning a quantitative meaning to Impairment of water quality In a specific reach of stream, the
economic value of each use of the stream water is an important, but often neglected ingredient. In an
evaluation of costs versus benefits in stream pollution control, the Food Research Institute (-5) of Stanford
University under contract with the U.S. Public Health Service concludes that the pollution control admin-
istrator should "study and reflect upon each individual case, hi the light of such general guidance as the
economist can offer, and such factual information as he himself can muster." Edward J. Cleary, executive
director and chief engineer of Orsanco, expressed this philosophy more directly a few years ago when, in dis-
cussing the substantial cost o! waste control in Industry, he stated, "I display the dollar sign simply as a
reminder that pollution control is a costly proposition and that no one can benefit from unnecessary restric-
tion of waste discharge. Thus, I plead that we embrace the concept that the quality conditions to be main-
400
-------
talned in a stream should be related to use requirements. On that basis we have tie opportunity to develop
a pollution control program that Is practicable, reasonable, and rational."
Development of Basic Data on Industrial Waste and Water Use
Basic data on the effects of industrial wastes on water pollution for any period—past, present, and future—
•are very limited. A survey made in 1950 by the Conservation Foundation and the National Association of
Manufacturers, published under the title "Water in Industry," presents a substantial amount of data for
that year, but the survey was centered around industrial water supplies with relatively limited information
on waste disposal.
* Currently, a survey is underway known as the industrial water use questionnaire sponsored by the Con-
servation Foundation, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Chamber of Commerce of the United
States, and the National Technical Task Committee on Industrial Wastes, to obtain information on indus-
trial wastes and industrial water use. This survey has been launched concurrently with the 1960Census
of Manufacturers, and augments the data to be obtained in the latter. Associations represented in the task
committee are cooperating by clearing the questionnaires through their offices to their membership. A
report based on the results will be published in 1961, and is expected to yield meaningful data on industrial
water use, conservation, and disposal, and with the information obtained in the 1950 survey, will tell some
thing about the past decade and Indicate trends and needs for the future.
An Estimate of the Situation
The report on the industrial water use questionnaire will supply some of the answers a year from now
but how shall we estimate progress hi pollution control now?
A State director of pollution control suggested that industry's position could be explored by considering
the number of cases corrected and the number of cases or treatment needs pending in any selected repre-
sentative area. Since a case or problem (be it of municipal or industrial origin) is a problem because of its
effect upon a stream, it is an element in pollution control and can reflect stream improvement far better than
effluent data. Using this approach, a questionnaire was developed (fig. 1), limited to three questions, for
distribution to a few State stream pollution control administrators. Beginning with this modest approach,
the evaluation finally covered the entire United States with the exception of eight States: Alaska, Arizona,
Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, and Wyoming. Of the 42 questionnaires sent out, 38 sets
of data and questionnaires were returned with sufficient information to be tabulated (table 1). (See p. 405.)
It was emphasized to the respondents that where accurate data were not available, an estimate would be
satisfactory, since the estimate of the State administrator and his staff would be an authoiitative evaluation.
The total data from 26 States were summarized. All other replies omitted some data or deviated from the
pattern of one or more of the questions. Respondents were encouraged to submit data in any form they
wished if their records were not in such form as to facilitate answers to the questions as stated. This yielded
an extensive bibliography which aided materially in developing background information for this study.
Since a large portion of the tabulated data is based on estimates, the summarized statistics are presented
only as guidelines. However, recognizing that an estimate would tend to be uniformly high or low, it is
reasonable to expect percentages calculated from the data to be fairly representative of actual conditions.
An analysis of the totals for the 26 States indicates a 74.5-percent increase in municipal treatment facilities
and a 64-percent increase in industrial waste treatment in the past decade. During the same period there
was a decrease in needs of 36.5 percent among municipalities and 44 percent among industries Recognizing
that a portion of the municipal gain is also a gain in industrial waste control for those industries discharging
into municipal sewers, it is evident that there has been substantial progress in the control of industrial wastes
by treatment. It will be noted that industries show less increase in waste treatment, but a greater decrease
in needs. This reflects a trend toward consolidation of small plants and a movement of industries into
cities, trends that reduce needs in industrial waste treatment without building separate Industrial waste
treatment plants.
The proportion of treatment facilities as against the total requirements (i.e., col. 1 divided by (col. 1
plus col. 2)) presents some interesting figures. In 1950, 48.5 percent of the municipalities and 46.5 percent
of the industries that needed treatment had treatment facilities. In 1960 these figures rose to 72.2 percent
of the municipalities and 71.7 percent of the industries. Similar data for the Orsanco Drainage District
show 48.4 percent of the municipalities, and 87.9 percent of the industries with waste control facilities in
1959. Just 7 years earlier Orsanco reported that oniy 26.5 percent of the municipalities and 54.5 percent of
the industries had facilities in operation. Although many of the problems remaining after the first years
of effort in Orsanco and other postwar stream improvement programs are especially difficult to solve, the
administrators of these programs can point to the record with justifiable pride.
Progress in Industrial Wastes Conservation
The record that no survey can show is the amount of water pollution control effected by waste conserva-
tion within industry. Waste conservation data are difficult to collect and are not readily summarized,
but many examples can be cited.
There is the oft-repeated success story of the Fontana, Calif., steel plant which uses 1,300 gallons of water
per ton of steel produced, while some of the older eastern mills are using 65,000 gallons per ton. The average
fuel electric powerplant uses 40 percent less water per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced than in 1940,
even without reclrculatlon. I have seen a meatpacking plant reduce its waste flow by 20 percent during
401
-------
a period of Increasing kill. A week's work In a cheese plant and several thousand dollars of waste-saving
equipment reduced the b.o.d. of the total plant wastes by 60 percent. A manufacturer (4) of penicillin
reports a b.o.d. reduction from 9.1 pounds per pound of product without recovery down to 1.4 pounds with
in-plant recovery. A distillery (4) reports over 50-percent reduction in b.o.d. by in-plant waste saving
over an 8-year period.
Waste conservation takes many forms and is as complex as Industry Itself. It may involve a change in a
process to eliminate a troublesome waste; it may mean developing new products to utilize a waste; it may
mean incineration of wastes with heat recovered as a byproduct; it may be recirculation of the water, or
reuse after treatment. According to the 1954 U.S. Census of Manufacturers, industrial water requirements
would have doubled if none had been recirculated or reused.
This part of industry's water-pollution control program begins by Installing a consciousness for waste
conservation in management and supervisory personnel at all levels. The sanitary engineer in industry
has a selling job to do and his approach is often unique. He uses motion picture and slide presentations,
chalk talks, and group discussions, progress contests between plants, in-plant conservation committees,
individual merit awards—one firm distributed pencils with waste conservation slogans on them. While
selling waste conservation, the engineer must implement the effort by providing background information,
waste surveys, and specific answers. He must furnish information on everything from self-closing valves for
drinking fountains to entrainment separators on vacuum pans. Much has been done in waste conservation
much is being done, and more needs to be done.
Industrial Wastes Research
Millions of dollars are being spent by Industry in industrial waste research, much of it on utilization and
conservation of wastes. This cost rarely appears in the records as research in pollution control because It
is usually classified as product research.
In waste treatment, research industry has certain inherent advantages over the municipal sewage field.
For example, industrial waste treatment studies can be conducted on a semiplant scale, and, if need be on
a full-scale trial and error basis—procedures generally not adaptable to municipal financing. Such studies
have been stimulated in the postwar years by the work of industrial chemists and process engineers who
have infiltered the sanitary engineering field. They tackle each problem as a process problem, often break-
Ing away from conventional treatment practices to develop entirely new processes.
These methods have led to significant breakthroughs in industrial waste treatment—microbiological
oxidation, disposal by Irrigation, development of synthetic trickling filter media, the anaerobic contact
process, air flotation, the use of ion exchange for removing dissolved Ingredients, and disposal of sludge by
wet oxidation, to name a few. Some of these processes, developed in the industrial field, have been adapted
to the treatment of municipal sewage, notably microbiological oxidation and sludge disposal by wet com-
bustion.
In the past, many of these discoveries went unheralded because they were developed for a specific problem
at a specified plant. In recent years, however, the National Technical Task Committee on Industrial
Wastes has served as a center for an exchange of information, principally through annual progress reports
developed by each industry segment prior to every annual meeting. Through this channel, new develop-
ments in one industry have found applications in other industries.
Trends Shaping the Future
Now that we have looked at the past and seen progress and positioned ourselves in the present, what
about the future?
The limited basic data on industrial waste control and the many variables that influence changes hi the
Industrial complex do not permit a statistical evaluation of the future. However, In an unpublished survey
among representatives of industry conducted in 1959 by George E. Symons, 23 respondents predicted an
average of 100-percent growth in industrial waste treatment by 1975, using 1958 as a base. Whereas this is
obviously not a statistical projection, It is an estimate of the situation by men who know the field and so
sheds light on the future.
We can also learn something about the future by observing the trends that are shaping it. Let us examine
a few:
(1) Integration of industrial waste management with production
The brightest star on the horizon is the increasing recognition among industrial leadership, that disposing
of the waste is part of the production job. No longer is the wastes management engineer an unwanted
bystander when new plants and new processes are developed. Now he is a full partner In planning for
process changes, lu new products development, and in new plant design. TMs is a trend shaping the future.
(2) National technical task committee on industrial wastes
This group was organized in 1950 as an arm of the President's Water Pollution Control Advisory Board
to assist the Public Health Service on industrial waste matters, and to facilitate an exchange of information
in this field. It now consists of 65 members and alternates representing 34 industries. Membership is
diversified to Include a broad range of specialists to implement the committee's program. Currently, some
of the activities are:
(«) Conducting the industrial waste and water use survey previously mentioned.
(6) Developing industrial waste guides to provide information to operators and managers of industrial
plants, to consulting engineers, to personnel of regulatory agencies, and to superintendents of municipal
402
-------
treatment plants concerning the sources, characteristics, conservation procedures, and the treatment of
specialized Industrial wastes. In this effort the leaders in industrial waste management are pooling
their Information in the Interests ot the entire industry. Guides hare been completed for the milk
industry, commercial laundering, cotton textile, meat, cane sugar, byproduct coke, and wood naval
stores. A guide for the potato chip industry is in print, and guides for general canning, citrus canning,
fruit canning, synthetic textile, and textile printing industries are in process. These guides are pub-
lished by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and are distributed by the Public
Health Service and the Superintendent of Documents. The task committee also publishes a News
Quarterly financed by its membership for free distribution to industry and to all regulatory and
educational agencies concerned with this field,
(c) Industry Education and Public Awareness Program: A separate subcommittee is preparing
educational brochures and a TV packet, and is stimulating the development of training films.
(<0 Research priority recommendations: A subcommittee prepares priority recommendations, out-
lining research projects of special interest to industry, based on an opinion poll conducted during the
year.
(e) Manpower needs: The committee ts stimulating interest and encouraging training of competent
personnel for meeting needs in the industrial wastes field. In-service training programs are also devel-
oped by industries within NTTOIW and attendance at State and Federal in-service training schools is
encouraged.
(/) Preparation of an annual progress report by each industry group: In the 10 years of the com-
mittee's life, these reports show consistent gains in the control of industrial wastes. They are published
In the report of the annual meeting and are released to all interested news channels.
The aggressive work of this Task Committee is a trend that is shaping the future.
(3) Changes in the industrial complex
The hard facts of economics are In themselves operating to solve some industrial waste problems. In-
dustrial plants are being outmoded at a faster rate. The average industrial plant was 27 years old 15 years
ago. Today it is only 24 years old. This accelerated obsolescence offers opportunities for the introduction
of modern waste conservation measures and provision of waste treatment facilities in the new plants.
The consolidation of small plants in some industries (notably the dairy and canning industries) is also a
trend that is bringing with it modern waste saving features in new plants. In most cases, the consolidated
plants are served by city sewers.
These changes, motivated by economics, have eliminated many potential and actual pollution problems,
and will continue to do so in the years ahead.
(4) Progress through constructive water pollution control programs
This list would not be complete without a recognition of the progress in stream sanitation and Industrial
waste control that has been brought about by water pollution control administrators operating under
reasonable and constructive regulations.
In most States stream pollution control is based upon surveys of drainage basin areas. The Delaware
Water Pollution Control Policy outlines in a few concise sentences a procedure that has been found work-
able in many States: "The waters of the State are studied and surveyed by drainage basin areas. These
investigations show the current stream condition, the wastes being discharged, the effects of these wastes,
and the best uses of the streams in the various areas. Basad on the best uses in the various stretches of the
streams, the Commission agrees concerning the degree of treatment that is needed for each waste being
discharged." The requirements are subject to review U the stream's assimilative capacity is approached
or exceeded.
Industrial organizations have been actively supporting realistic practicable stream Improvement pro-
grams based upon accurate appraisals of stream use. In California, for example, Mr. Eod T. Antrim,
appearing In behalf of the California Conference of Industrial Associations, the California Council on Air
and Water Waste Control, and the California Manufacturers Association, at a hearing In support of the
State Water Pollution Control Act, stated that under this act, adopted in 1950, "the greatest progress in the
history of the State has been made towards controlling water pollution." He also stated that, wnereas
about $300 million bad been invested in municipal facilities during the 7J£ years of the life of the act, industry
had invested about $250 million in its own facilities. This is in addition to paying a substantial portion of
the $300 million invested in municipal facilities. The 1958 Progress Report of the California Water Pollution
Control Board includes a statement typical of the situation in many States:
"When the Water Pollution Control Board began operating early in 1950, many communities throughout
the State were discharging untreated or inadequately treated sewage. Today, with few exceptions, the
adverse conditions existing in 1950 have been satisfactorily corrected. Of even greater significance is the
fact that in the past 8 years every new major sewerage or industrial waste system has heen provided with adequate
treatment or disposal facilities."
It is also refreshing to note that a number of State Pollution Control administrators, commenting on the
questionnaire, pointed out, as did F. H. Waring, State sanitary engineer of the Ohio Department of Health,
that they "have accomplished the desired results by in-piant changes and changes In processes, with a mini-
mum of waste treatment plants." Such results require a mutual understanding between Industrial manage-
ment and regulatory officials, an understanding that must be further strengthened for continued progress
In the years ahead.
403
-------
(5) Legislation for rapid amortization of industrial waste treatment costs
Increasing interest is developing in proposed legislation, on Federal and State levels, to encourage develop-
ment of industrial waste treatment works by allowing rapid amortization of such expenditures for income
tax purposes. This would allow an industry to write ofl a nonprofit waste treatment facility to obtain some
tax relief during a period of high corporate income tax. Passage ot such legislation -would be a definite
forward trend in shaping the future.
A
(6) Progress in industrial waste research
"With increasing labor and material costs, research in waste conservation has become more attractive.
Recent breakthroughs in waste treatment at radically lower costs than previous conventional methods arc
stimulating further waste treatment research. Many unsolved problems beset the research worker today,fc
and many knotty ones will come up tomorrow. Kapid acceleration of these research efforts is essential if
industry is to continue to grow to meet the needs of our increasing population and rising standard of living.
The wastes research worker in industry, aided by other scientific disciplines available in his industry, and
working closely with his counterparts in university and governmental research organizations, is today
recognized as an important part of the industrial research team. This recognition in itself will lend impetus
to industrial waste research in the years ahead.
(7) Improvements in stream quality measurement
The quality and the quantity of data on the chemical, biological and hydraulic characteristics of our
streams have improved significantly during the past decade. Expanding on the studies conducted by
State, local, and industrial organizations, the Water Quality Network organized by the U.S. Public Health
Service to monitor stream conditions is rapidly becoming a valuable source of information in determining
whether stretches of streams are improving or regressing, and may also become a source of information for
determining cause and effect relationships in stream quality. Concerning such cause and effect relation-
ships, Daniel J. Enright (5), superintendent of water purification, Cincinnati, reporting on break-point
chlorination experiences, states that "when the first of these six periods (of high break-point chlorination)
struck (November 1951), we thought of industrial wastes. Others along the Ohio pursued the same thought
We had then about 2H years of experience with the Ohio and its chlorine demand characteristics, ana be-
lieved we knew something of them. Now, after 10 years, we are more cautious, but do believe that these
peeks are due principally to normal degradation products of nature with strearoflows governing the intensity
and duration." Accurate, meaningful stream quality measurements have been and will continue to be
essential to sound progress in stream quality improvement.
(8) Municipal treatment of industrial wastes
There has been a growing sense of joint responsibility in the handling of industrial waste waters within
municipalities. This was brought out In a study conducted by the Subcommittee on Combined Treat-
ment of Industrial and Municipal Wastes of the Chemical Industry Advisory Committee of ORSANC 0 (8).
Based upon replies to a questionnaire concerning handling of industrial wastes, the committee came to the
following conclusions: "Although impossible of reduction to a table or number, there was evident in the
tone of the overwhelming majority of replies, a spirit of cooperation between municipality and industry In
solving the industrial waste treatment problem. This might be considered the most important conclusion
of the survey. Most of the municipalities surveyed accepted industrial wastes either without reservation
or with only general prohibitions against materials harmful to tho system or its function. Only 11 percent
of the respondents established flxed numerical limits on specific materials. Industry likewise was reported
as generally willing to study and take care of real offenders. The two—municipality and industry—ap
preached waste treatment as a common problem which they must both work to solve."
As both industries and municipalities are becoming more aware of their joint dependency, some unusual
but altogether practical joint ventures are coming into being. A unique case is cited by Schrader (7) in
which the city of South Charleston built a joint municipal-industrial waste water treatment plant, designed
by Union Carbide Chemicals Co. and operated by a treatment company set up as a subsidiary of Union
Carbide. This and many other, perhaps less unique, cases of successful municipal-Industrial regotiatious
indicate a promising trend shaping the future.
Summary
Where does industry stand in water pollution control? In evaluating the past, industry can stand on the
record—a record that shows substantial progress.
The greatest protnistj of the future is the increasing recognition of the need to integrate industrial waste
management with production, with waste research a partner of process development.
The exchange of Information and coordination of effort made possible through the National Technical
Task Committee on Industrial Wastes, has and will continue to stimulate effort in industrial wastes man-
agement. Since so much industrial wastes control involves inplant waste conservation measures, progress
must necessarily come from within the industrial framework, stimulated by careful, realistic evaluations
of stream quality and water uses developed by stream pollution control administrators.
Industry is responsive to the public interest as demonstrated by the accelerated progress in industrial
wastes control during the past decade. The trends shaping the future indicate that responsible industrial
management will continue to recognize the part it must play in stream quality improvement.
404
-------
References
1. HOAK, R. D., "Significance of Industrial Wastes." Reprint from Transactions
of 19th Annual Meeting of Industrial Hygiene Foundation, Pittsburgh, Pa.,
November 17-18, 1954.
2. STEEBTER, H. W., "Natural Stream Purification as Applied to Practical
Measures of Stream Pollution Control." Sewage Works Journal, 10, 4,
747 (July 1938).
•3. HAMMOND, R. J., "Benefit-Cost Analysis and Water Pollution Control."
Food Research Inst., Stanford University, Miscellaneous Publication 13
(1960).
4. BORUPF, C. S., "Byproduct Recovery, Pollution Control Measure in the
Fermentation Industry." Chem. Engineering Prog., 55, 11, 82 (November
1959).
5. ENRIQHT, D. J., "Operating Experience with Activated Carbon and Chlorine
for Taste and Odor Control." Taste and Odor Control Journal (Published
by Ind. Chem. Sales Division, West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co., 230 Park
Avenue, New York 17, N.Y.) SB, 10, 1 (October 1959).
6. SUBCOMMITTEE on Combined Treatment of Municipal and Industrial Wastes
of the Chem., Ind. Adv. Comm. of ORSANCO, "Current Practices in
Municipal Treatment of Industrial Wastes." Sewage and Industrial
Wastes, 89, 6, 672 (June 1957).
7. SCHBADEB, G. P., "Joint Industry and City Waste Treatment: Combined
Approach as Viewed by Industry." Journal W.P.C.F., S2, 2, 157 (Feb-
ruary 1960).
FIGURE 1
QUESTIONNAIRE USED IN SURVEY
YOUR ESTIMATE OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL SITUATION
State
1. What is your estimate of the number of municipalities and industries that—
(a) Were providing (6) Are providing
treatment In 19501 treatment nowl
Municipalities (Col. 1) (Col. 3)
Industries (Col. 6) (Col. 8)
2. What is your estimate of the number of municipalities and industries that—
(a) Needed treatment
in 19601 (6) Need treatment nowl
Municipalities (Col. 2) (Col. 4)
Industries (Col. 7) (Col. 9)
3. What is your estimate of the number of municipalities and industries cur-
rently in need of additions or improvements to existing facilities?
Municipalities (Col. 5)
Industries (Col. 10)
405
-------
s«
M O
B
>o ^t »o to to oo i
I
QOQOQQWOOO
COi-*«5eO«S«5Ot-O5 i-s CO
0
S
K
«j
g
i—
-
^'
O CO « <» »Q « C* "O t> OO CO
.
00 S l>- i-l e
2 Q
a - -
ls
05
S'«'s^
t». * 3 ca
•R^OO
1'Sd ^
S>£-3 •§
OS'S
11
^a
2 d
o-y
i!
406
-------
PANEL IV
4
Tuesday, December 23
* Research and Training
Critical Needs for Research
Resources, and Training
Chairman
DR. GORDON M. FAIR
Professor of Sanitary Engineering
Harvard University,
Cambridge., Mass.
Co-Chairman
DR. CHARLES A. BISHOP
Director, Chemical Process Development
U. S. Steel Corf oration,
Pittsburgh, Pa.
Public Health Service
Resource Personnel
B. B. BERGER
H. A. FABER
Morning Session
Dr. Charles A. Bishop, Presiding
I am glad to welcome you this morning to Panel IV of this Con-
ference. Our first speaker will be Dr. Erman A. Pearson.
Critical Research Needs—
Environmental Aspects
DR. ERMAN A. PEARSON
Associate Professor of Sanitary Engineering
University of California
It might be well at the outset to ease the mind of the reader relative
to the implications of the title of this paper. While one might infer
that a detailed discussion of a large number of research problems
will follow, this is not the case. Instead, the writer has chosen to
examine the general role and stature of research in water pollution
control and to consider only two specific but typical problem areas to
illustrate the inadequacies of research effort in this field.
General Considerations
Research, both basic and applied, is a fundamental building block
in the structure of modern society, especially in this era of rapidly
expanding technology. The importance of research in modern
technological development is well recognized. In fact, Ewell (1} and
583283—61 27 407
-------
others have correlated national research and development expenditures
with the Gross National Product and have concluded that the economic
return on research investment is in the order of 100 to 200 percent
per year. Indeed, a very high rate of return compared with other ,
investment opportunities. Moreover, these rates of return on research
investment are comparable with those estimated by several large
industrial concerns for their own research programs.
It may be well to define at the outset the meaning of the terms
basic and applied research. The definitions, while not precise, have
been widely accepted and are adequate for this discussion, as follows:
(a) Basic research is investigation or study solely for the
purpose of knowing better or understanding the confusing phe-
nomena of nature—the law or order that underlies them.
(National Science Foundation defines basic research as that in
which "the primary aim of the investigator is a fuller knowledge
or understanding of the subject under study, rather than a
practical application thereof.")
(b) Applied research is that investigation or study directed
toward specific problem solving or application of the findings.
Research Expenditures
National research effort: What is the magnitude of the total
national research effort, what fraction of that effort is allocated to
basic research, and under whose sponsorship? These appear to be
key questions. Table 1 reports the annual national expenditures for
research, the fraction of the total represented by basic research and
its sponsorship, for the years 1953, 1958, and 1960 as reported by the
National Science Foundation. It is noted that the total research
effort increased from $6 billion in 1953 to $12 billion in 1960—a
100 percent increase in 7 years. The increase in basic research was
even greater, from $432 million in 1953 to $1 billion in 1960. Today,
basic research constitutes about 8 percent of the total research effort.
Also, it appears that Federal sponsorship of basic research is increasing
with industrial sponsorship decreasing.
TABLE 1.—National research expenditures
Category
Industrial sponsorship percent--
1953
$6 500 000 000
$432 000 000
34
45
Year
1958
$7 000 000 000
$835 000 000
30
61
1960
$12 000 000 000
$1 000 000 000
' (?)
(?)
Source: National Science Foundation.
Table 2 summarizes the relative proportion of industrial sponsored
research expressed in percent of gross sales for representative years
408
-------
in the fifties. Data are given for all industry as well as for two specific
areas, the chemical process industries and the extractive and mining
industries. For industry generally there has been an increasing trend
in research expenditures with an estimated 2.0 to 3.0 percent for re-
search to sales in 1960. While there has been a slight decreasing trend
in research to sales in the chemical process industries, it remains about
2.0 percent. However, there has been a marked trend in increased
research expenditures in the extractive and mining industries, a
national resource.
Water pollution: Where does the water-pollution control industry
stand with respect to research effort compared to other areas of
technology? Some criticism may be leveled at comparisons between
a nonprofit industry concerned with the overall public welfare and
segments of society dominated by the profit motive; nevertheless,
TABLE 2.—Magnitude of industrial research
Industry classification
All Industry - - -
Total research (R. & D.) expenditures-
percent of gross sales
1951
1.3
2.9
.9
1955
2.8
2.5
1.5
1958
2.0
2.1
3.0
1960
1 2. 0-3 0
m
«
1 Estimate.
' Data not available.
Source: National Science Foundation.
there is justification for such a comparison. First, all segments of
the water pollution control industry, except those in regulatory
agencies, are responsive directly to profit stimuli. Second, the
justification of expenditures in this area must be on the basis of
common good and will rarely if ever yield a profit. Third, the total
cost is paid ultimately by the taxpayer; consequently, the public as
a group should be more concerned about the magnitude of a nonprofit
expenditure than that of a profitmaking investment.
It is necessary to define arbitrarily the character of the water
pollution industry to develop realistic estimates of its relative research
effort. Certainly this industry encompasses some fraction of the
water-supply-treatment activity as well as the waste treatment field
because of the influence water-supply considerations have on water-
pollution control expenditures. Conceivably, there would be mini-
mal water-treatment requirements if there was no water pollution.
However, for purposes of this paper and in the interest of conserva-
tism, consideration will be given to that industry concerned only
with waste treatment or direct water-pollution control.
Since it is common in industry to compare relative research em-
phasis on the basis of the ratio of research to sales, the question
409
-------
exists for the water-pollution control industry, what constitutes gross
sales? One index of the magnitude of sales might be annual waste
treatment construction expenditures since this parameter represents
a composite of direct "sales" for water pollution control. ,
Table 3 presents a summary of sewage treatment facility construc-
tion costs for biennial intervals since 1950 as reported in the PHS
Sewage and Water Works Construction Summary Eeport (2). It»
should be pointed out that these data do not include industrial waste
treatment expenditures which would add significantly to the figures
shown. Also included in Table 3 are liberal estimates of total national
research and development expenditures and the ratio in percent of
research to sales for each year. Of particular interest is the very
low ratio of research to sales ranging from a minimum of 0.07 percent,
in 1956 to the present level of 0.6 percent. The tenfold increase in
the ratio of research to sales occurred during a period with a fourfold
increase in sewage treatment expenditures; $137 million in 1952 to
$500 million in 1960. The thirtyfold increase in research expendi-
tures was based on a minimum of $100,000 in 1952 to about $3
million in 1960. However, if this industry was to just meet the
national average in research to sales (~2.0 percent) it would require
tripling the $3 million plus research budget for 1960 to a total of
about $10 million.
To those familiar with current water-pollution control research
efforts this would constitute a gigantic undertaking both with respect
to available physical facilities and competent manpower. However,
such expansion in research effort would meet only the present day
requirements and would in no way suffice for future needs. It has
been reported by McCallum (4) and others (5) that a minimum
annual expenditure of about $500 million a year is needed just to
maintain present levels of B.O.D. discharge with respect to the increase
in population which is expected to reach 230 million in 1985. This
does not consider the impact of new and exotic water pollution
problems, including increasing radiation levels induced by expanding
community and industrial complexes.
TABLE 3.—Sewage treatment plant construction costs and estimated research
expenditures
Category
Treatment plant construction
cost-. ... - _
Water pollution research
Research to sales percent-.
1952
$137, 000, 000
$100, 000
0.07
1954
$229, 000, 000
$500, 000
0.2
Year
1956
$354, 000, 000
$1, 500, 000
0.4
1958
$389, 000, 000
$2, 000, 000
0.5
1960
~$500, 000, 000
$3, 000, 000
0.6
Source material: PHS "Sewage and Water Works Construction Summary Eeport 1959" (2) PHS
"Water Supply and Pollution Control Research Inventory 1958" (3) and personal data on research
programs.
410
-------
As much as one might want to avoid the thought and consequences,
there is little doubt but that the most critical research need is develop-
ment of financial support for a greatly expanded research effort.
.Expanded financial support would permit development of adequate
research facilities and the education of competent engineers, scientists,
and engineer-scientists for careers in research and development.
' Certainly the current health research facilities development program
is a step, but a very modest one, in the right direction.
Research Concepts
Several aspects of the total research problem, including the attitude
of the practitioner (in the broadest sense) toward research activity and
the selection of research problems, warrant special consideration.
Kesearch and the practitioner: One of the appalling conditions cur-
rently extant is the generally negative attitude of practitioners at
almost all levels toward water pollution research. This attitude
appears to have a wide variety of origins, some of which can be de-
scribed as follows:
1. The waste discharger is against applied research because the
findings may provide a basis for more stringent control of waste
discharge.
2. The regulatory official opposes research in areas where the
findings might provide a basis for relaxing popular or established
waste discharge controls. However, it should be noted that this
group generally endorses research in areas where dramatic but
practically remote hazards or risks might be found.
3. The designer may consider research unnecessary for at least
two reasons:
(a) It is often said that even unique problems are similar
to ones that have boon solved previously and hence only
minor adjustments in design are needed to solve the problem
at hand.
(6) Kesearch or investigative work has at best a low profit
margin, and moreover, such work may result in a smaller
plant and/or fee.
4. The general public is frequently opposed to research on an
economy basis—research costs money.
5. Sometimes the attitude of dischargers, regulators, designers,
and the general public against research may be the result of
fruitless experiences where applied research or development had
been supported without significant benefits or results.
Having cited some apparent motivation for negative attitudes
toward research, it is only proper to cite some motivations for positive
attitudes. A list of such motivations follows:
1. Recognition by representatives of all groups of the need for—
(a) Protection of the Nation's water resources.
411
-------
(6) Scientific bases for selection of the kind of treatment
required as well as specific process design criteria for treat-
ment facilities.
(c) Economy and increased benefit in the problem solution .
that may result from well-directed and well-executed research
effort.
2. The attitude of the "educator-promoter" who envisions the
increasing emphasis on research as an opportunity to create
a large "research empire" with less concern for quality of research
than for the magnitude of research budget.
While the above comments may appear cynical, since the motiva-
tion for research by sincere, conscientious, and dedicated individuals
from all areas has not been stressed, it is recognized that such persons
do exist. However, in the writer's experience these individuals con-
stitute a minority.
Additional evidence that research in this area has not kept pace with.
that of industry or in other areas of engineering was reflected in recent
remarks of a former president and now chairman of the corporation
of MIT. In the banquet address before a national meeting of the engi-
neering society most closely associated with water pollution control,
Dr. Killian stated, "More than any other branch of engineering, civil
engineering needs to strengthen its foundations through research * * *
especially * * * that kind of research which will generate the civil
engineering of the future" (6).
Certainly greater interest in and support for research, both basic and
applied, should be forthcoming from all levels of practitioners in the
water pollution field.
Problem selection: As an educator facing continually the problem of
selection of research areas or providing counsel to graduate students
in such selection, the analytical basis for making selections warrants
serious consideration. Practitioners, researchers, and educators
active in the water pollution control field represent the following
educational disciplines, approximately in order of their relative num-
bers in the field—
(a) civil engineers
(6) sanitary engineers (primarily civil) plus chemical and me-
chanical engineers with varying degrees of "educational retread-
ing" in the biochemical-public health engineering areas
(c) chemists
(d) biologists (mimarily bacteriologists)
(e) others
Individuals evaluating research performance tend to be critical of
engineers and scientists working in an area other than that of their
basic discipline. However, such multidisciplinary approach in
research may not be optimum in efficiency but it is frequently neces-
sary. This is because the paucity of scientific information in the
412
-------
water pollution field prevents a sophisticated engineering analysis
and solution. Consequently workers in the field are forced to pinch-
hit in disciplines other than their specialty, that is, occasionally engi-
neers work in the role of a pseudoscientist if problems are to be solved.
By the same reasoning, scientists often find themselves confronted
with problems deeply involved in engineering. Nevertheless such
an engineering-scientific dilemma should not affect the free choice
of research problem areas.
To date the great majority of water pollution research is being
conducted in or associated with engineering organizations, be it uni-
versity, government, or private industry. Considering such relation-
ship, one might expect criticism of the research leveled at its engi-
neering or applied orientation. However, to some observers, including
the writer, such criticism may not be necessarily valid. In fact,
many engineering researchers with educational "retreading" in the
basic sciences feel the urge to become "scientists" and believe that
they can achieve this distinction by selecting research areas only on
the basis of their interest or their curiosity. This, of course, is justi-
fied on the basis of "pure" or "basic" research and thus immune to
critical appraisal or any kind of benefit analysis. Certainly a signifi-
cant fraction of the research in the water pollution area should fall
within the realm of basic research—but the question is, how much?
The overall national research effort indicates that about 10 percent
of the total research and development effort goes into basic research.
Such a genera) division of effort in the water pollution field appears
appropriate. Yet, there is a real danger in engineers attempting to
conduct basic research. Because of the engineer's limited back-
ground in the sciences, he is not generally qualified for fundamental
scientific research. While such research attempts may be educational
and informative to the engineer-researcher, they are likely to yield
relatively little benefit from the standpoint of basic science. The
engineer-scientist should devote the major portion of his effort to
application research because it is only he who appreciates the intri-
cacies of engineering problem analysis and who shoulders the respon-
sibility of coming forward with a working yet economic solution.
Obviously a thorough background in the sciences should permit the
development of more analytical engineering solutions.
It appears that the appropriate plea in this area would be for
researchers to select problems in the specific area of their competence—
for engineers and engineer-scientists to recognize their responsibili-
ties as engineers and problem solvers—utilizing the scientific process
to effect better solutions. Consequently, a minor but significant
effort would be devoted to basic research. However, in all areas of
research, the approach must be analytic, rational, adequate and
specific to achieve the desired objectives. It is well to remember
that the ideas for research work are almost infinite, but the capacity
413
-------
or financial ability to work on them is not. Consequently, consider-
able attention should be given not only to selection of the best research
ideas, but also to the emphasis they should receive, as well as period-
ic reassessment of results and new research leads. »
Typical Problem Areas
»
The scope of research needs in the field of water pollution has been
the subject of many papers and discussions. Thomas (7), on behalf
of the Committee on Sanitary Engineering and Environment of the
National Research Council, prepared in 1953 a list of research problem
areas in waste treatment and disposal. Heukelekian and Wisely (5)
published in 1954 the results of an extensive survey of workers in the
field wherein a list of 87 research problems in need of solution was
compiled. Similarly the National Technical Task Committee on
Industrial Wastes (9) reported in 1956 a list of urgent research prob-
lems in need of study ranked in order of priority. McKee (10)
summarized the above papers and included additional research sug-
gestions in a paper presented at the 1958 conference on "Man Versus
Environment." Eecently Pearson, Pomeroy and McKee (11) pre-
pared a summary-report on "Marine Waste Disposal Research in
California" (1960) wherein a chapter was devoted to major research
needs in the waste disposal area and 23 specific research areas were
outlined.
It is believed that little could be added to the aforementioned
"laundry lists" of research problem areas without going into a detailed
technical discussion of each. Rather, two of the typical research
areas will be examined to indicate the level of current research and
practice in water pollution.
Health aspects: One of the areas of major technical as well as
popular concern is the effect of water pollution upon man's health.
Yet available scientific evidence does not permit a quantitative ap-
praisal of the risk of infection from age-old enteric diseases that are
associated with present bacteriological standards for drinking or
bathing waters. There appears to be general agreement that the
level of health risk associated with present acceptable levels of tracer
(coliform) organisms is very, very low. Still the important point is
that we don't know how low—even within orders of magnitude.
It is recognized that when the present bacteriological standards for
drinking water were established, a rational attempt was made to
consider the risk of infection and the probability of pathogen exposure.
On this basis allowable tracer (coliform) organism concentrations
were established. Also, there is'little doubt but that the ratio of
tracer organism concentration to pathogen concentration has changed
markedly over the years, not only in the raw wastes but also in the
environment—but how much? No one can give a specific answer
414
-------
for current conditions, and, of course, it is variable, but certainly such
information should be available, at least to indicate order of magni-
tude changes.
Another example of the dilemma is the basis for selection of bac-
teriological standards for bathing waters. This is stated frankly in
the California Health Department Report on a Pollution Survey of
Santa Monica Bay (12), that the so-called "standard" of 10 E. coli
(coliforms) per cc was set arbitrarily many years ago based upon
California experience. Several supporting statements for the stand-
ard were cited, among which was the following:
* * * any less severe standard as applied to disposal of raw or screened sewage
in salt water would often show "approved areas" to lie within visible sleek fields
of sewage and hance judgment would probably appear to a layman as lacking in
commonsense and decency.
In spite of the bases or adequacy of the aforementioned standards
in current practice, they are widely used and have become almost
legendary. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent annually
assessing compliance to these "standards." Yet, there have been
only token efforts during the past decade to substantiate or evaluate
the significance of these standards.
The common response to queries in this vein is that it is recognized
that the standards are conservative—but who wants to drink or
recreate in higher concentrations of sewage? That is another question,
but first it is the engineer-scientists' responsibility to be able to esti-
mate the relative risk associated with any sewage concentration of
choice. The fact remains that we must live in an environment con-
taining man's wastes—at least until the rocketeers can develop missiles
to shoot waste off into outer space economically! But even then
such practices may be subject to control.
Until data are available on the relative risk of enteric disease
associated with defined exposure to known concentrations of tracer
organisms (coliforms) and pathogen concentration, how can enlight-
ened technical counsel be given regarding the safety of waters in
countries where the ratio of tracer organism concentration to patho-
gens in the sewage is orders of magnitude lower than in the United
States? Certainly our bacteriological standards based on tracer
organism concentration cannot be transposed directly to situations in
foreign countries.
The foregoing comments bear only on our know enteric disease and
bacterial standards. Until we can cope with these problems effectively
and rationally, what hope is there to be able to estimate risk or hazard
associated with the known presence of viruses, toxic agents, carcino-
gens, and the like? Just the fact that they may be present is not
particularly enlightening without information about the relative risk
or hazard associated with defined exposure to such substances.
415
-------
Perhaps radioactive contamination of waters is a good example in this
respect. It is generally accepted that even the smallest increase in
radiation exposure is harmful to man. But the question must be
answered, how harmful, or what is the increase in hazard associated
with a given increase in a specific kind of radiation? Such analytical
methodology must be applied to all possible aspects of water pollution
effects. Only research will provide the answers to such vital questions.
Considering the apparent apathy for scientific fact relating to waste
discharge and man's health, compare this with a recent development
in California. Because of sportsman and conservationist concern
about the effect of sewage discharge upon the giant kelp, Macrocystis
pyrifera, the California Legislature has appropriated more than
$205,000 for research on the ecology of the organism as well as the
effect of waste discharge. It is believed that this expenditure for
research on waste discharge and kelp is substantially greater than the
funding of any single research investigation on the effect of sewage
discharge upon man's health.
Effects on the biota: Evaluation of the effect of waste discharge
upon the flora and fauna of receiving waters has received even less
attention than health effects. Again the popular impression and
generally that of the regulatory agency is that waste discharge like
sin is all bad, varying only in degree. It is the writer's conviction that
fundamentally oriented, applied research on quantitative assessment
of the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of receiving
waters and sediments will show that properly controlled organic waste
discharge can on occasion be very beneficial—even from the standpoint
of productivity of the economic fishery.
However, let us examine the basis for assessment of possible adverse
effects of waste discharge, especially as related to the discharge of
known toxic materials. Conventional determination of the so-called
"safe" concentration of toxic agent in the environment first entails
determination by laboratory assays of the concentration of agent that
will kill one-half of the test organisms (appropriate species of fish)
in 48 hours. (48 hour TLm). Generally the so-called "safe" con-
centration is taken arbitrarily to be one-tenth the 48 hour TLm as
recommended by the ORSANCO Aquatic Biology Advisory Com-
mittee (13}. Recognizing the inherent limitations in estimating long-
term "safe" concentrations from acute toxicity assays; nevertheless,
the bland application of an arbitrary factor of one-tenth to the 48
Hr TLm is something less than scientific sophistication.
Since toxic response is a time-concentration phenomenon; that is,
the response of an organism is a function of the concentration of agent
and time of exposure, it should be possible to evaluate this function,
albeit crudely, and thereby permit estimation of some lesser and
"tolerable" degree of response for a specific organism, agent concen-
tration, and duration of exposure.
416
-------
Kesearchers in the University of California Sanitary Engineering
Research Laboratory have been developing and evaluating live
response type assay methodology with a variety of test animals,
. including fish, molluscs, annelids and crustaceans. Preliminary
findings indicate that the concentration of an agent producing a 10
percent change in response (respiration or ventilation) rate in test
1 organisms varies from a maximum of 5 times the so-called "safe"
(48-Hr TLm-Fish) . ,
concentration to less than 2 ten-thousandths ol
the "safe" concentration, depending upon the agent and organism
employed. Certainly the long-term significance of an induced 10
percent change in respiration rate of an organism can be debated.
However, such gross variation in significant live response concentra-
tion levels as compared to those determined by mortality response
should warrant much more research to determine the time-concentra-
tion-toxicity function for common and significant agents and
organisms.
Conclusions
It appears that the following conclusions can be drawn and should
be implemented if orderly progress is to be made in the pollution
control "industry":
1. A much greater research effort is needed to provide a scientific
basis for technological progress in water pollution control. In fact,
to establish research in this area on a basis comparable to all industry,
a threefold increase in research effort and an annual national expendi-
ture of about $10 million appears warranted.
2. If a $10 million research program is to be achieved, a corre-
sponding increase in research facilities and competent personnel will
be required.
3. A greater awareness of and appreciation for research is needed by
the practitioners—dischargers, regulators, designers and educators
alike, as well as the general public. This must go beyond "lip-service"
and include support, financial and other, when appropriate.
4. Of the total research and development expenditures in water
pollution, it would appear that an expenditure of about 10 percent of
the total on so-called basic research is reasonable.
5. The critical nature of many of the complex water pollution
problems provides an incentive for the engineer and scientist to
conduct applied research in specific problem areas. For optimum
progress in water pollution abatement, the researcher should consider
both his competence in specific areas as well as the relative need
for specific research within that area. The researcher should be
very cautious in embarking upon research outside his specific area of
competence.
417
-------
6. A variety of source material is available providing detailed lists
of critical research problems in the field of water pollution control.
References to these source materials are included in the paper.
7. Of the numerous critical research needs, the following areas
appear to be of major importance:
(a) Evaluation of the health hazard or risk associated with
conventional tracer bacteria concentrations, as well as for*
concentrations of other contaminants including viruses, toxic
agents, and radiation.
(6) Development of adequate methodology for quantitating
physical, chemical, and biological effects of waste discharge upon
receiving waters and sediments.
(c) Definition of the response-toxic agent concentration—time
of exposure functions for common and significant organisms and
agents to permit more realistic estimates of the so-called "safe
concentrations" of wastes in the environment.
References
1. EWBLL, RAYMOND H. "Role of Research in Economic Growth". An
address before the 43rd Annual Meeting of American Drug Manufacturers
(April 14, 1955).
2. GHEEN, R. S. and D. A. E. BEER. "Sewage and Water Works Construction
1959". U.S. Public Health Service Publication No. 758 (1960).
3. BUTBICO, F. A., H. A. FABBB and K. TAYLOR. "Water Supply and Pollution
Control Research Inventory 1958". U.S. Public Health Service Pub-
lication No. 768 (1960).
4. McCALLUM, GORDON E. "Water Pollution Control—A National Must".
U.S. Public Health Service Newsletter (1956).
5. LUDWIG, JOHN H. "PHS Draws New Picture of Pollution Problems".
Engineering News Record, pp. 29-30 (September 22, 1955).
6. KILLIAN, JAMES R. Speech before National Meeting. American Society of
Civil Engineers, Boston, Mass. (October 1960)
7. THOMAS, H. A. "Productive Research in Waste Treatment and Disposal".
Sewage and Industrial Wastes SB, p. 121 (1954).
8. HEUKELEKIAN, H. and W. H. WISELY. "Research Problems in Need of
Study". Sewage and Industrial Wastes 86, p. 1155 (1954)
9. TASK GEOTJP. "Research Priority Selections". Proceedings Dec. 13-14,
1956 meeting of National Technical Task Committee on Industrial
Wastes.
10. McKEE, J. E. "Water Pollution—The Scope of Research Needs". Pro-
ceedings Conf. Man Versus Environment, pp. 31-48 (May 1958)
11. PEABSON, E. A., POMEBOY R. D. and J. E. McKEE. "Summary of Marine
Waste Disposal Research Program in California". Publication No. 22,
77 pages, California State Water Pollution Control Board (1960).
12. "Report on a Pollution Survey of Santa Monica Bay Beaches in 1942".
Bureau of Sanitary Engineering, California Dept. of Public Health (June
1943).
13. ORSANCO. "Aquatic Life Water Criteria". Sewage and Industrial
Wastes 27, p. 321 (1955).
418
-------
DISCUSSION
Dr. CLAIR S. BORUFF
« Technical Director, Hiram Walker & Sons, Inc.
A word of encouragement might be offered to Professor Pearson
• and the rest of this group. The news of water pollution research is
not all bad. In fact, many significant accomplishments have come
from the pollution abatement research programs over the last few
years, although the advances have not been well publicized. How-
ever, as Professor Pearson pointed out, the programs for pollution
research do have some shortcomings. Considering the intent of this
National Conference on Water Pollution, this seems to be the time
and place to critically inspect these research programs and to suggest
improvements.
Professor Pearson has compared the estimated annual expenditures
for pollution abatement research with the expenditures for construc-
tion of municipal waste treatment plants. This type of ratio is often
used in industry for assuring the propriety of research budgets.
However, this ratio varies widely from industry to industry. For
example, the expenditure for research and development in the aircraft
industry is almost 18 percent of sales, while the average for all indus-
tries is about 3 percent. The chemical industry ratio is at about
the average, 3 percent; the petroleum industry ratio is 0.75 percent;
and the food industry, 0.25 percent. While these ratios illustrate
current practices, certain further fundamentals determine research
appropriations in industry. The final decisions on how much research
should be done are based on need for the research and the ability to
finance the research and its commercialization.
Why More Research?
One of the questions before this conference is, "Do we need more
research on pollution control?" I believe increased research effort is
warranted, especially in the practical and applied research phases, and
Professor Pearson has pointed out references and fields in which more
and prompt research is needed.
As an industrial research man, interested for the past 35 years in
water management problems, I should like to cite an area for which
research attention seems imperative. I am concerned because of
the staggering cost of waste treatment facilities of present standard
design needed to reduce current pollution loads and loads of the
foreseeable future. Research seeking more efficient treatment
methods must be advanced to bring this cost down to a manageable
level. Forecasts, based on present designs, estimate that more than
$1 billion in construction will be required per year to completely meet
municipal and industrial waste treatment needs.
419
-------
Financing of Government Water Pollution. Research
To study the Government pollution control programs, it must be
made clear, as Professor Pearson cited, that the $200 million in
Federal grants over the past 4 years, which were matched with
State funds to total over a billion dollars worth of construction, are
construction grants. None of this money is available for research.
Only $3 million per year in Federal matching funds has been appro- .
priated for stimulation of State and interstate programs for engineer-
ing and research on pollution abatement.
An additional amount of somewhat over $1 million has been
appropriated for research grants to universities for basic research in
water pollution control.
The Federal facilities and scientists at Tatt Center are assigned
fundamental research problems of general national interest. Their
appropriations are a part of the direct operating budget. The Taft
Center men could serve as research coordinators to develop and
coordinate the many State agency applied research programs, if such
coordinating work were to be authorized and budgeted.
Responsibility for Water Pollution Research
I believe firmly in the wisdom set forth in Public Law 660, whereby
the prime responsibility for pollution is assigned to the polluting unit,
be that an industry, municipality, or surburban subdivision; also,
that the responsibility for applied research begins with these local
units proximate to the pollution site. Pollution research of specific
industrial interest should continue to be scheduled and accomplished
by industry. The Federal program grants have successfully advanced
pollution surveys and applied research by local and State government
agencies, insofar as the grants have been available and insofar as the
various programs have been coordinated.
Need for Public Awareness of the Research Program
As Professor Pearson implied, research workers are quite normal.
They, like everyone else, draw incentives not only from salary, but
they also appreciate acknowledgment of their work and like to see
the results of their research put to use. Here an improvement could
be made in the management of pollution control research at no
additional cost. Regardless of which agency accomplishes a research
goal, the workers or their group agency should receive justifiable
and complimentary publicity. Too often a significant waste research
breakthrough, or even the abatement of a heavy pollution load, is
judged as not as newsworthy as instances of needed pollution
abatement.
Examples of Current Water Pollution Research Accomplishment
Mention of a few current pollution research projects will illustrate
what is being accomplished by the various agencies under the present
appropriations and authority.
420
-------
Projects of Industrial Research Laboratories
Extensive industrial waste research programs are being conducted
and financed by individual industries and by associations of cooper-
ating industries. They do not draw on Government grants, but many
of the programs would benefit from better coordination with Gov-
ernment-sponsored research.
The distilling industry, for example, is continuing to devise more
efficient in-plant recovery methods. In another branch of the fermen-
tation field, the antibiotic manufacturers have developed in-plant re-
covery and treatment methods for their potentially potent wastes.
The soap industry has gone so far as to seek development of com-
pletely different detergent compounds to replace the present syn-
thetic detergents, portions of which pass through conventional sewage
treatment plants into the streams.
The Advisory Board's National Technical Task Committee on
Industrial Wastes has screened and recommended research to extend
the usefulness of waste stabilization ponds and activated sludge
processes. As an example of how the above-mentioned correlating
of research activity works, the Task Committee suggested that Gov-
ernment laboratories take care of accumulating the research data on
these projects, also that interested industries be invited to operate
treatment units of specified types. It was also suggested that pro-
gram grants be sought so that a few qualified municipal treatment
plants might gather applicable operating data.
Projects of University Laboratories l
Two individual grants made under the university grants program
may be cited for illustration of the type of research which is assigned
to universities. A $13,800 grant has been issued to determine the
"Bole of Fecal Flora in Stream Pollution," and a $23,000 grant to
investigate "Enteric Pathogens and Viruses in Irrigation Waters."
Both of these projects further the knowledge on tracer organisms
which Professor Pearson outlined.
Projects at Federal Taft Center Laboratories 2
The carbon filter technique for concentrating trace pollutants and
its adaptation for stream monitoring was developed by Taft Center
in cooperation with local and State agencies. By using this tech-
nique a chemical waste was found to persist all the way down the
Mississippi from St. Louis to New Orleans. Discovery of this situa-
1 Public Health Service Research Grants in Water Pollution, Grants Awarded
Fiscal Year 1960, List No. 2.
2 Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center Technical Report No. W-59-3:
"Research in Water Supply and Water Pollution at the Robert A. Taft Sanitary
Engineering Center."
421
-------
tion led to complete elimination of the discharge by the industry
involved. The carbon filter monitoring network will also be used to
assay the concentration in streams of the runoff of chemicals from
farms. This is an example of one of the problems of "new wastes"
which confront pollution control workers and which demand prompt '
research. In addition to manure and farm composts, attention must
now be given to the stream damage sustained from the use of millions
of tons per year of agricultural chemicals in the form of insecticides,
herbicides, and fungicides. Substantial amounts of this tonnage wash
to the streams, and not enough is known of the toxicity and persist-
ence of the compounds.
Extensive lists of unsolved pollution abatement problems which
need prompt research attention were cited by Professor Pearson.
These include such things as continuing investigations of the health
hazards from viruses in streams and determining the permissible limits
of the new exotic chemicals, which will involve toxicity and persistence
studies, and the development of new microanalytical techniques.
The unsolved projects fall into three groups: first, those which are
on the active schedules of the various Government research agencies;
second, those which the agencies are holding as backlog projects,
awaiting necessary funds and staff time; third, those projects which are
in the developing and screening stages. In general, the active and
backlog projects seem well screened. The development of new
projects should continue with careful screening. As a suggestion, the
research projects development and screening technique developed
within the Industrial Wastes Task Committee might be more widely
applied for project development by other agencies.
Conclusions
1. Considering the extent of unsolved problems in water pollution
technology, and considering the amount of waste treatment construc-
tion needed, Professor Pearson's conclusions warrant development
and implementation.
2. Better coordination should be sought for the applied research
conducted under the Federal program grants to local and State agen-
cies. Similarly, coordination is needed to stimulate and to avoid
unwarranted duplication of pollution control research programs con-
ducted by industrial and agricultural research groups. Taft Center
scientists are a qualified and logical group to accomplish this coordi-
nation. It is suggested that budget allowances be made to enable
Taft Sanitary Engineering Center to accept this assignment as a
further implementation of Section 5, Public Law 660.
3. Local and State units have proved efficient agencies for accom-
plishment of applied research and survey work. Therefore, the
Federal program grants for this work should be substantially increased
and extended to fully implement Section 5 of Public Law 660. The
422
-------
present appropriation expires in 1961. This is an important State-
Federal cooperative link. Needed research projects awaiting at-
tention, which are suggested for this program include:
(a) Definition of the toxicity and persistence in streams of
certain new chemicals;
(6) Determination of the dangers from widespread use of the
newer agricultural chemicals;
(c) Development of more efficient waste treatment methods
so as to reduce construction and operating costs.
4. The current research programs at Taft Sanitary Engineering
Center and those projects which have been screened, evaluated, and
planned for future program entry, appear well directed and efficiently
conducted.
5. The current university grant projects in sanitary engineering,
administered through the National Institutes of Health, appear of
good potential value.
6. In your writer's opinion, it is a correct policy to assume that basic
and applied research on specific industrial wastes is primarily the obli-
gation of industry. Although many industries are commendably
accomplishing abatement of their wastes, certain difficult or costly
waste abatement problems should have prompt and positive attention.
7. A greater public awareness of waste abatement accomplishments
as well as pollution control needs should be fostered. Complimentary
publicity for water pollution research accomplishments is warranted.
Your writer acknowledges the aid of Mr. Russell Blaine, Sanitary
Engineer, Eesearch Department, Hiram Walker & Sons, Inc., in
reviewing Professor Pearson's paper and preparing these comments.
583283-61 28 423
-------
Critical Research Needs—Medical Aspects
DR. JOHN A. ZAPP, Jr.
Baskell Laboratory for Toxicology and Industrial Medicine
E. /. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
The fact that we are attending this conference on water pollution
is evidence of concern about a number of aspects of our water supply—
both present and future. We want not only an abundant and in-
expensive water supply but above all a safe water supply from the
point of view of human health. But questions have been raised about
the safety of our present supply, and even more serious doubts about
its safety in years to come. We are to discuss the means of resolving
these questions and doubts insofar as research can do so.
In Abraham Lincoln's famous "House Divided" speech of June 16,
1858, he said: "If we could first know where we are, and whither we are
tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it." Lincoln's
words of 102 years ago apply to my problem this morning as they do
to a great many other and unrelated problems. Before we know wiiat
research to recommend, we must first know where we are and whither
we are tending.
We know, of course, that man cannot live witbmit water any more
than he can live without food or air. He must ingest a certain amount
of water each day or perish. He need not necessarily take this water
in its pure form since the body will accept it and use it even when
diluted with other materials like tea, coffee, alcohol, milk solids, cola
extract, etc., provided that these additives to water are not present in
too high concentration. This is, perhaps, expressed in a French proverb
to the effect that water is only for bathing, while wine is for drinking.
Man does not burn water for energy as he does food, nor does he
change it chemically as he does the oxygen of the air. Man only bor-
rows water for a short time since normally over the long run his daily
input of water is equaled by his daily output. What does he do with
this short-term loan?
424
-------
The human organism has been aptly described as essentially an
aqueous solution in which are spread out colloidal substances of vast
complexity. The essential reactions of life, by which matter and
energy are exchanged with the environment, take place in an aqueous
medium. Food is brought from the gastrointestinal tract into the
bloodstream in water. It is transported by the bloodstream to various
parts of the body dissolved or suspended in water. And when the food
is burned for energy or converted to flesh and blood for maintenance
and repair, the unusable parts and waste products are transported in
water to the channels of excretion.
Some of the water used in transporting waste materials to the
channels of excretion can be "reclaimed" by the body with the result
that the waste products are excreted in a more concentrated solution
than that in which they were transported around the body. There is,
however, a limit to the reclamation process and some water must be
lost from the body each day and replaced by the ingestion of new
water.
Water also serves man in an entirely different manner. As you
know, the temperature of the healthy body is maintained rather pre-
cisely in both summer and winter. When it is necessary for the body
to lose heat, the evaporation of abundant perspiration provides a
great deal of the necessary cooling. When it is necessary for the body
to retain heat, perspiration is greatly reduced. This thermoregulating
function of water is related to its latent heat of evaporation rather than
to its solvent power.
Man uses water, therefore, as a transport medium for getting things
into and out of the body; as a reaction medium in which the chemical
reactions of metabolism are carried out; and as a heat transfer agent.
As noted earlier, chemically pure water is not necessary for the
performance of these functions. In fact water as pure as the distilled
water used in automobile batteries not only tastes flat and uninterest-
ing but is probably not as good for us as the water we draw fiom our
taps, which contains small amounts of useful minerals.
How then do we define good water? A British source (1) defined
it recently in the following terms:
As a chemically or physically pure water cannot occur in nature, purity implies
pleasing to the senses, that is, absence of visible particles, turbidity, colour, taste
and odour, and freedom from excessive amounts of substances in solution not
normally detectable by the unaided senses. Potability, therefore, implies physical
attractiveness as well as safety.
The U.S. Public Health Service Standards of 1946 (#) says of potable
water, "The turbidity shall not exceed 10 p.p.m., color 10 p.p.m., total
solids 1,000 p.p.m., and odor and taste shall be absent." The USPHS
standard sets mandatory maximum limits on lead, fluoride, arsenic,
selenium, and hexavalent chromium; and recommends maximum
425
-------
limits on phenolic compounds, iron and manganese, copper, zinc,
magnesium, chloride, and sulfate.
By both British and American standards, good drinking water is
not pure water, but it is rather a very dilute solution attractive in
appearance, pleasant in taste, and noninjurious.
Good water in the above sense is often found free in nature. Or
putting it the other way around natural water as found in springs,
wells, lakes and streams can be good water, and good or bad, natural
water was until about a century ago man's only source of drinking
water. It is probably still the source of drinking water for the
majority of our population, since in 1940 only 38 percent of the
population used treated water (3).
However, natural water can also be bad water so far as purity and
wholesomeness is concerned. As it comes in contact with rock and
soil, and living and dead organic matter, it picks up many substances.
It may be turbid, colored, and have an unpleasant odor and taste.
It may be safe to drink in spite of these properties, or it may be
attractive in appearance and unsafe because of the chemicals it con-
tains or because it may contain living organisms such as bacteria and
parasites which are harmful to man.
Our greatest problem in the past has been with the biological con-
taminants of water rather than with the chemical contaminants. To
be sure some natural waters were found to be unfit to drink because of
their chemical composition, but these were in the minority and could
usually be recognized because of the prompt and consistent ill effects
which followed their ingestion.
It is difficult for us in this day, however, to appreciate what a
mystery the infectious diseases posed just a century ago. Before
the work of Pasteur, Lister, Koch, and others in the second half of the
19th century, the role of germs in causing disease was unrecognized.
And, of course, the role of water as a carrier of germs was also un-
recognized. Since germs are invisible to the eye and do not alter
the taste or appearance of water and since they could be present in
water at one time and not at another, it is easy to see how difficult
it was for our ancestors to associate water with epidemics of disease.
To be sure, the authorities of London in 1854 did suspect that cases
of cholera were in some way associated with the use of a public pump
and they closed it down with good results, but they didn't understand
why or how the pump was at fault. In Old Testament times the
Philistines reasoned that an epidemic of tumors was in some way
associated with an infestation of mice, and they too were probably
correct without understanding why (4).
By the 1870's the germ theory of disease was established, and only
then could the role of water as a carrier of pathogenic organisms be
understood and appreciated. The public health authorities of the
426
-------
late 19th and early 20th centuries were challenged to discover, through
research, methods for rendering water bacteriologically safe. And
they met the challenge with success. We need no longer fear
major epidemics of such waterborne bacterial diseases as typhoid or
paratyphoid fever, dysentery, and cholera—if we put into practice
the knowledge available to us.
The principles involved in the modern supply of good drinking
water are these: (1) keep the sources of such water as free as pos-
sible from contamination by chemicals and bacteria; and (2) treat
the water supplies by such measures as sedimentation, filtration,
aeration, chlorination, etc., before consumption, thus making assurance
doubly sure.
This is where we are today. But this Conference bears witness to
the fact that we are not satisfied with our position today and that we
look with some concern to our present and future position. Why?
A part of our problem is associated with our rapidly growing pop-
ulation. Both man and the industries, including agriculture, which
support him are pouring out ever-increasing amounts of waste prod-
ucts per square mile per day. Some of these are deliberately removed
via water, as with sewage and some industrial wastes. Some migrate
indirectly into water as they are washed out of the air by rain or
leached from the soil. The total burden of waste disposal is bound
to increase with increasing population, and water will share some of
that burden. This means that we might anticipate an increase in
the contaminant burden of the natural waters used as sources of
public supplies. It is legitimate to ask whether present methods of
treating such sources will continue to be adequate for the production
of reasonably pure and certainly wholesome water. It has been
noted, for example, that present treatment methods do not always
remove traces of detergents from water.
Secondly, we are concerned about viral diseases because viruses
may not be destroyed by present methods of water treatment, such
as chlorination. We were concerned about the role of water in the
transmission of poliomyelitis. We are concerned that it might have
some role in the transmission of viral hepatitis or perhaps be implicated
in viral diseases not yet recognized.
Thirdly, we must be alert to the role of certain bacterial and virus
carriers in water. The U.S. Public Health Service has reported (5)
that nematodes, tiny worms which are often found in water can pass
through water treatment plants and survive chlorination. These
nematodes might be carriers of harmful bacteria or viruses and could,
in effect, smuggle them through the water purification plants.
Finally, we must give attention to the pollution of water with new
chemicals. Our advancing technology has created a great many new
compositions of matter, literally thousands of new compounds which
427
-------
have filled some need. Some of these or their waste products are
discarded into sewers and effluents after they have served their pur-
pose. Some, like radioactive fallout, are washed from the atmosphere
by rain, or fall as particulates to the earth's surface. Some, like
agricultural chemicals, may be washed from crops or leached from
the soil by rainfall and irrigation. Some of these, in minute amounts,
may find their way through the purification plants and into the
water supply.
The synthetic detergents offer a case in point. After being used
by the housewife to wash dishes, clothes, and the like, they go into
the sewer or wherever else waste water is discarded. Certain of the
most popular of these, the alkyl-benzene-sulfonate detergents, are
not as easily destroyed as soap. Some of them get through the sew-
age treatment plants and water purification plants or seep through
the soil into wells. If the final water contains about 0.75 p.p.m. or
more of the detergent it will foam when shaken or drawn from the
tap. The effect is startling and it has occurred in many areas. Is
it harmful? Is the water unwholesome? This is the kind of question
asked about all the new chemicals.
Note, however, that it is a different kind of question about whole-
someness than that which has been asked heretofore. We know that
the ingestion of these waters produces no immediate harmful effects.
But what of the long run? What about 20 or 30 years from now?
Will the continued ingestion of these waters over the years lead to some
cumulative effects which eventually produce disaster? The horizon
of our concern has been pushed further into the future in these last
decades.
Whither are we tending? We have an increasing population and
an increasing amount of waterborne waste to dispose of. As we relax
our concern about waterborne bacterial diseases, we begin to worry
more about the viral diseases. As we create new chemicals and use
them, we become concerned about the possible long-term effects of
traces of these new chemicals in our water supply. And, of course,
we will need increasing quantities of wholesome water to meet the
needs of our growing population.
These, as I see it, are the problems that affect human health.
Opinions differ as to whether they are serious problems today, but
they are real problems and must be evaluated both for today and the
future.
Of the total 240.5 billion gallons of water per day withdrawn
by the United States in 1955, 3.6 percent went for domestic resi-
dential use and 96.4 percent went for other uses, industrial, munici-
pal, and agricultural (6). And practically all of this water is returned
to the earth and its natural water reserves in one way or another.
If contamination of waste water is to be a matter for concern, it would
appear that uses other than domestic residential are the mam concern.
428
-------
In particular, the increasing trend toward atomic powerplants or
nuclear processes in general poses a great problem of radioactive
waste disposal. It has been calculated that all of the earth's waters
would be unable to receive safely the bulk of the wastes of this in-
dustry (6).
Because of these problems, a recent article (7) stated: "That day
is dead when it seemed only natural and logical for Americans to
discharge raw industrial wastes to the most convenient stream."
The Du Pont Co. alone has invested some $56 million to date on
the control of air and water pollution from its plants, and I believe
that we are representatives of industry rather than the exception.
Now I do not believe that absolute prohibiton of the discharge of
wastes into natural waters is either necessary or desirable. Water,
like air, should be used to serve man but it should be used intelligently.
We have a problem with many of our streets and highways because
useful traffic lanes are often blocked with parked cars. It is an old
problem which antedates the automobile, for the old English common
law contains the dictum that "the King's highway is not a common
stable yard." In the same sense our rivers and streams are for use,
but not as a common sewer.
It seems to me, therefore, that we need research on the limits to
which water can be safely used for the disposal of waste. These
limits will obviously be affected by our ability to reclaim contaminated
water for reuse. The two go hand in hand. And I might add here,
that we do know how to reclaim even highly contaminated water,
such as sea water, but at a price which we do not want to pay today.
Perhaps in the future we may have to reconcile ourselves to this kind of
solution to the water problem. We can have good water if we pay
the price. According to a recent report (8) there has been constructed
for the Air Force's School of Aviation Medicine a 7-ton space simu-
lator in which urine and all other waste waters are recovered and puri-
fied by chemical treatment, filtration, superheating, freezing, and
final passage through activated carbon, with resulting drinking water
of good quality. But for the time being we should seek, I believe, to
restrict the contamination of raw water supplies to the point where
reasonably inexpensive treatment can reclaim it for drinking and
other usage.
One of the rather amazing and fantastic developments in the treat-
ment of wastes has been the development of microbial systems which
can be bred to destroy a wide variety of chemical wastes. Thus, by
treating wastes with activated sludges before discharging them into
public waters, important contaminants may often be removed.
This procedure deserves and is receiving continued attention in
research.
As for the role of water as a carrier for viral diseases, I can only say
that this, too, is a critical research area. Progress is being made as the
429
-------
whole science of virology progresses, and I don't think that the problem
of water will be overlooked.
So far as public reaction is concerned, I believe that the greatest
concern is with the safety of water from the point of view of chronic .
toxicity. It is easy to show that one can drink a given water without
any immediate observable ill effects, but one can always add the "Yes,
but * * * ." But what will happen if I keep on drinking this water
day after day, year after year? Can I sustain some injury that will
only be manifested two or three decades from now?
The question arises from the fact that the water we drink is not
pure H2O. As we have seen, it does contain trace amounts of dis-
solved chemicals, both inorganic and organic. Some of these are not
only harmless but beneficial like chlorine residues of 0.1 or 0.2 p.p.m.,
or like fluoride ion at a concentration of about 1 p.p.m. But what
about the rest?
In my opinion the toxicity problem of trace contaminants of water
is exactly the same as that of trace contaminants of food which are
subject to regulation under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as
amended. Under that Act it is accepted that safe levels of contamina-
tion in food can be specified for all classes of chemicals except those
found to induce cancer when ingested by man or animal. These
latter, by law, are not to be permitted in food in any concentration
other than zero.
On principle, if we can establish safe levels of ingestion for con-
taminants of food, we can establish them for contaminants of water-—
or of air, for that matter.
The reasoning back of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as amended
is this. First, the science of experimental toxicology has demon-
strated that for each toxic material there is a necessary and sufficient
amount which must enter the body before the toxic effect appears.
If this amount is small, we call the material "highly toxic"; if large,
we call it "slightly toxic" or "practically nontoxic." But if the dose
were large enough, we could kill with common table salt or baking
soda.
Second, the toxic effect of a given material diminishes with decreas-
ing dose and eventually disappears. In every experimental study of
toxicity it has been possible to select doses so small that the character-
istic toxic effect of the material does not appear within the normal
lifespan of the test animals even when the material is administered over
that entire lifespan. This includes even the chemical carcinogens.
Perhaps these concepts can be illustrated by analogy to the action
of a common drug. If we have a simple headache, which we know
from past experience is amenable to aspirin, we can expect relief by
taking aspirin. Usually, one or two 5-grain tablets will suffice.
Few people, however, would expect a tenth or a hundredth of an aspirin
tablet to cure a headache, and if they did they would be disappointed.
430
-------
In other words, the therapeutic effect of a drug diminishes and dis-
appears with decreasing dose. As a matter of fact, aspirin has both
therapeutic and toxic effects. About 150 5-grain tablets would kill
the average man or woman and we count on the fact that this lethal
effect has disappeared when we take one or two tablets for the thera-
peutic effect.
If it were not true that the human body can cope with sufficiently
small doses of toxic chemicals, the human race would, of necessity,
have perished long ago since almost all food and water as well as the
air we breathe contain and have contained small amounts of materi-
als which, in larger doses, would produce definite toxic effects.
The important question with respect to contaminants of food or
water is whether they are present in the range of concentrations that
the body can cope with or whether they are in the range which would
produce even minimal cumulative toxic effects. And since I used
them as an example I might add that the evidence suggests that the
reported concentration of detergents in drinking water are in the safe
range.
The safety problem with respect to food and water is then twofold:
we must be able to recognize safe levels of contamination with respect
to given materials; and we must then be able to control the contamina-
tion within the safe levels.
In the past, safe levels have sometimes evolved from the observa-
tion of effects or lack of effects on man himself. The maximum
amount of quartz dust in the air that one can tolerate without devel-
oping silicosis was arrived at years ago by observing the actual concen-
trations in various industries and correlating the levels with the
occurrence or nonoccurrence of silicosis among the workmen. The
safe level for quartz dust established by this procedure has turned out
to be satisfactory. But we are interested in the establishment of
safe levels before rather than after anyone is injured.
The most satisfactory procedure for the evaluation of safe levels of
chemicals in food or water is currently the long-term feeding test with
animals. By feeding graded doses, we can establish the maximum
level which produces no adverse effects. With some species, such as
the rat, the lifespan of approximately 2 years is short enough so that
it is practical to feed the test materials from infancy through old age.
The 2-year rat-feeding study is consequently one of the most com-
monly used tests for evaluating no-effect levels of ingestion of food
or water contaminants. It is reinforced by also feeding the same
material to another, nonrodent, species such as the dog for 1 or 2
years. By a no-effect level of ingestion we mean that no effect is
produced on growth rate, behavior, the length of the lifespan, or re-
productive capacity; no detectable biochemical or hematological
changes occur; and there are no gross or microscopic pathological
changes evident after sacrifice of the animals.
431
-------
We can, therefore, determine no-effect levels of ingestion for ani-
mals. But we must extrapolate these levels to man. It is generally
agreed that we ought to provide some margin of safety in the extra-
polation to allow for the fact that man may be inherently more sus-
ceptible than our test species. There is no exact scientific basis for*
attaching a numerical value to such a margin of safety, but the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration has ruled ($):
•
Except where evidence is submitted which justifies the use of a different safety
factor, a safety factor in applying animal experimentation data to man of 100 to
1 will be used; that is, a food additive for use by man will not be granted a toler-
ance that will exceed one one-hundredth of the maximum amount demonstrated
to be without harm to experimental animals.
It is believed by most toxicologists that the 100-to-l margin of
safety is more than ample.
Experience has shown that the 2-year feeding study approach plus
a margin of safety does provide a sound and workable basis for estab-
lishing tolerances for chemicals in food. There have been no notable
failures in using this method. It should work as well for water addi-
tives as for food additives, for the principles involved are identical.
The 2-year feeding study, however, is cumbersome, time consuming,
and expensive. Certainly we need research which will lead us to
more rapid and less expensive tests that would give the same assurance
of safety. In view of the tremendous number of materials that might
require evaluation as food and water additives or contaminants in our
expanding technology, the need for these more rapid and less expensive
methods is indeed, in my opinion, a critical research need. Physio-
logical and biochemical approaches offer some hope of meeting the
need, and work in the field is going on. Meanwhile, I believe that we
can consider our present tools to be adequate despite their other
drawbacks. If we are to continue to rely on them, however, we will
need many more toxicologists and facilities, and some way of justifying
the expenditure of largo sums of money on the toxicity investigations
of materials of minor economic importance.
We need, therefore, methods for establishing safe levels of ingestion
of contaminants which are better in the sense of more rapid and less
expensive; methods which are less demanding on manpower and
facilities than our present ones.
When we have a valid estimate of a safe level of ingestion of a given
contaminant, the next step is to control the concentration of that
contaminant within the safe limit. This requires accurate and sensi-
tive analytical methods, and much progress has been made in recent
years toward their development. We may hope, however, that the
limits of detection will be pushed even closer toward zero through
advances in analytical techniques.
Knowing a safe limit, and being able to determine the material
analytically with adequate sensitivity we still may have the problem
432
-------
of reducing the concentration of a given contaminant to its safe level
by some form of water treatment. This problem is not insoluble, but
the price tag may be too high for our present taste. Here again is
an area of research needs—better inexpensive ways to purify water.
I am not an expert in this field, but I note that no cationic coagulant
aid is currently approved by the U.S. Public Health Service for the
treatment of water supplies. I should think that cationic coagulant
aids would be useful and should be developed.
To summarize our problem, we are going to have an increasing
amount of waste to dispose of. We cannot recklessly discharge it
into the nearest stream. The problem of water pollution begins with
the discharge of wastes and the solution should begin there also. The
available methods of controlling the discharge of contaminants into
public waters are fairly good and are being applied but improvements
are undoubtedly possible.
Secondly, there is every reason to expect that there will be some
contamination of natural water no matter what measures we adopt.
We must be alert to the possible role of water as a carrier of viral as
well as of bacterial diseases.
Thirdly, we will have to evaluate the toxicity of those contaminants
of water which evade our purification procedures. We have adequate
but cumbersome and expensive procedures for this evaluation, but
we badly need rapid and less expensive procedures of equal validity.
Finally, we must control the level of contaminants in water within
the safe limits. This requires good analytical control as well as
inexpensive and efficient purification procedures.
On the whole, I am inclined to feel optimistic about our problem.
From the medical point of view there appears to be no necessity to
eliminate all contaminants from water to insure its wholesomeness.
We do require assurance with reasonable certainty that no harm will
result from those contaminants which remain in water—or in food or
air. We have recognized our problem; we know what we should do
about it; and we are working on it. Our critical research needs are in
the area of finding better, quicker, and less expensive procedures than
are now available so that good quality water may remain a cheap and
abundant commodity in spite of our increasing population and ad-
vancing technology.
Bibliography
1. TAYLOR, E. W. and BTJRMAN, N. P., "Potable Water," J. Pharm. & Pharmacol.
8, 817-831, 1956.
2. "Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards 1946," Public Health
Reports 61, 371-384, 1946.
3. WEIBEL, S. R., "Summary of Census Data on Water-Treatment Plants in the
United States," Public Health Reports 57, 1679-1694, 1942.
4. I. SAMUEL, 6.
433
-------
5. CHANG, S. L., BEBG, G., CLABKE, N. A., and KABLEB, P. W., "Survival and
Protection Against Chlorination of Human Enteric Pathogens in Free-Living
Nematodes Isolated from Water Supplies," Am. J. Trop. Med. 9, 136-142,
1960.
6. Cited in HIBSHLEIFEB, V., DEHAVEN, J. C., and MILLIMAN, J. W., "Water
Supply—Economics, Technology, and Policy," U. Chicago Press, 1960.
7. INGRAM, M. W. and TOWNS, W. W., "Stream Life Below Industrial Outfalls,"
Public Health Reports 74, 1059-1070, 1959.
8. Aviation Week, August 17, 1959, p. 59.
9. "Food Additives—Definitions and Procedural and Interpretative Regulations,"
Federal Register, March 28, 1959, pp. 2434-2440.
DISCUSSION
Dr. CHAUNCEY D. LEAKE
Dean and Professor of Pharmacology
College of Medicine, Ohio State University
No matter how well we may be trying to control water pollution, as
indicated in the detailed reports of Hirshleif er and his associates, and
in the review by John A. Zapp, Jr., we continue to face real health
hazards from contaminated lakes, rivers, harbors, and beaches. As
our populations and industries grow, this health danger from polluted
waters will grow also. Vigorous research is essential to control the
situation. Much of this research may be health oriented.
Actually whatever will succeed in controlling or preventing water
pollution will result in better health potential in the use of water, not
only for drinking or household washing, but also for industrial pur-
poses. No matter how we may get in contact with polluted water,
we may thereby run a risk to our health. Even a look at some of our
filthy harbor or river waters near a city can be disturbing to our men-
tal health.
The current situation and the inevitable future in regard to water
pollution calls for specific health aspects of the research indications
for the control of water pollution: (1) continued awareness of, and
vigilance regarding the varying extent of water pollution and effective
ways for its control, on the part of governmental regulating agencies,
industrial concerns, and community leaders; (2) long-range study of
the best ways of controlling organic pollution, whether from excreta
and garbage, with the ever-present danger of health hazards from
microbiological organisms, from organic chemicals, or from oils;
(3) continued investigation of safe limits of pollution with inorganic
materials, with study or methods of estimation, long-range toxicity
data, and effective methods of settling; (4) continued effort at the
safe disposal of radioactive wastes; and (5) appropriate communication
434
-------
with the public, so that there may be public understanding of the need
for continuing research on water pollution and its control.
From antiquity the tremendous buffering capacity of our airs
and waters has successfully handled, without much danger to us,
the appalling amount of pollution which we ourselves and our in-
dustries produce. Only recently are we becoming aware that the
buffering ability of our airs and waters is reaching a limit. There
are just too many of us, and too much pollution from our industries.
Not only is this constituting a severe danger to our long-range health,
but it is also slowly destroying all those esthetic values of the natural
loveliness of waterways that should remain a source of joy and in-
spiration to the teeming millions that crowd our cities.
The important volume on "Water Supply: Economics, Technology
and Policy," written by Hirshleifer and his associates and pub-
lished this year by the University of Chicago Press, deserves wide
attention and extended local comment and discussion. Similarly,
the review by Dr. John A. Zapp, Jr., on the medical aspects of critical
research needs on water pollution should get wide public interest.
These important contributions must be followed up. We must in-
creasingly be vigilant to the dangers which have been pointed out, and
to the possible dangers that may come along as more water pollution
occurs.
Perhaps the greatest danger to our health in regard to water pol-
lution is in connection with organic contamination. Mainly this
comes from the possibility of infectious disorders occasioned by worms,
bacteria, or viruses, which get into water and which can grow there,
as a result of pollution with animal or human excreta, and with gar-
bage of all sorts. While we have found that sunlight and aeration
can reduce the growth of most pathogenic microorganisms in running
water or in ocean water, this may be a dangerous assumption. We
have increasing evidence of balancing forces in ecology, but the
pathogens remain. We need to get the facts.
We need to know also the extent to which our methods of purify-
ing water for drinking purposes do actually remove danger from in-
fectious organisms. Viruses may give us the most difficulty. Are
the methods that we use for examination of drinking water, with
respect to the potability and safety, adequate in the face of ever-in-
creasing contamination?
Actually we haven't progressed very far in principle from the meth-
ods of water purification used by the old Romans, and as described
so well by the water-commissioner, Frontinus, who served under
Augustus. The drinking water in the fountains of ancient Rome
was aerated in the aqueducts, and passed every 100 yards through
filter chambers containing sand, which were regularly cleaned and
filled with fresh sand. More importantly, the sources of the water
435
-------
for drinking were carefully protected against contamination by ani-
mals or humans. Perhaps we must reexamine some of the prin-
ciples suggested by Frontinus. Certainly our technology would sug-
gest ways of improving on them.
Characteristic of our heavy industrial development has been the
increasing pollution of our waters with organic chemicals. Of par-
ticular interest are the household detergents. We simply don't know,
what overall effect these kinds of compounds may have on the safety
of water, either for drinking, for household uses, or for industry.
Usually organic chemicals are destroyed by buffering effects in water,
and usually they may be coagulated out of water by appropriate
treatment with cations or by other methods. However, we require
continual vigilance in studying thoroughly all the new kinds of or-
ganic chemicals that are dumped into our waterways, and in devising
ways of destroying or removing them.
Most disturbing is contamination of water by oils. This is com-
monplace outside our great harbors. It constitutes a fire hazard, a
health menace, and an esthetic nuisance. In the tremendous expanse
of our oceans, oilslicks are considered of negligible significance. Nev-
ertheless, the oils continue to accumulate. In our fresh waters, the
oils may cause all kinds of difficulties in purification, and they may
in themselves cause serious disturbance in the general natural ecolog-
ical balance toward which our waters tend. The oils destroy micro-
organisms, plants, fish, birds, and animals. The result can be a most
serious health hazard.
Inorganic pollution is potentially the most hazardous long-range
type of pollution, with respect to health, since the salts of the heavy
metals are not readily destroyed. It is true that they may be precip-
itated out. Many, however, remain for a long while in solution, and
unless specific precipitating treatment is used, they may constitute
an accumulating menace.
Fortunately, the degree of inorganic pollution can be accurately
estimated, and control measures can be instituted whenever the
content of inorganic pollution exceeds agreed-upon limits. The U.S.
Public Health Service limits for inorganic pollution were established
in 1946. Perhaps they need restudy. Perhaps they need revision
and extension, particularly from the standpoint of pollution with
compounds of some of the rarer elements which are beginning to be
used industrially.
Of paramount importance in water pollution are compounds of lead.
Although present in water in very small traces, lead may gradually
accumulate in our bodies if we drink such water. The ubiquity of
lead in our industries, and as a result, in our environment, always
should suggest to an alert physician that there may be a possibility
of chronic lead poisoning whenever a diagnosis is difficult to establish
in an obscure ailment.
436
-------
It would seem that it would be wise for us to make every possible
effort to remove all traces of heavy metal compounds from our potable
waters. Indeed we should do everything we can to prevent the pollu-
'tion of our waters with compounds of this type. Copper salts may
rapidly destroy the ecological balance of ponds and waterways, and
compounds of mercury, lead, arsenic and selenium may do likewise.
By far the most serious potential danger to our long-range health
as far as water polution is concerned is in regard to radioactive wastes.
The disposal of radiation wastes by sealing in concrete containers and
dumping far out to sea may seem safe enough. However, we don't
know the details as to how rapidly concrete may go to pieces in sea-
water, iior do we know the extent to which radiation may be distributed
as a result of water currents. "Out of sight, out of mind," is not a very
satisfactory way with which to handle this problem. We need to get
just as much information as we can regarding the potential dangers
from radioactive waste materials which may be dumped into our
waters.
Fortunately, most of the research problems involving health aspects
of water are capable of systematic chemical or biological investigation.
The long-range potential toxicity of various pollutants can be studied
even in minimum concentrations on small animals such as mice.
With appropriate safety factors, the results can reasonably be extra-
polated to humans. Data of this sort may be used to establish
permissible limits of pollution. .Nevertheless, the data should be re-
examined from time to time and the limits reevaluated, as experience
and information accumulates.
In this whole matter it will be wise for scientists, government
agencies, and industries to take the public into their confidence—to
make their findings known, and to enlist the informed support of
people generally in protecting what is essential for us all. There is a
tremendous stake in our water supplies, not only with regard to the
health of us all, but also in the ever-growing industrialization upon
which our standard of living depends.
Panel IV
General Discussion
Dr. BISHOP. We have with us today two gentlemen from the
Public Health Service whom I have asked to relay your questions to
the speakers. First, I would like to call on Mr. Harry Faber, of the
Public Health Service.
437
-------
Mr. FABER. There are two questions that are rather similar, and
I think we might as well ask them both of Dr. Pearson. Dr. Gus
Condo, of the Izaak Walton League of America, has this question to
ask of Dr. Pearson: "Your analysis showing desirability of tripling.
research is good, but this proposal seems to be oriented entirely
toward seeing how much waste can be discharged without affect-
ing receiving waters. This approach is causing much criticism *
that existing discharges are selfishly using all the dilution capacity
now. Why wouldn't a proportionate 'inplant* research effort to
reduce waste loads and water use pay bigger dividends to in-
dustry?"
The second question is from Dr. Richard D. Hoak, Mellon
Institute: "To obtain the fullest beneficial use of streams, effective
regulatory bodies have adopted the practice that discharge into a
stream should be governed by the full assimilative capacity as
measured at the point of use. What is your thinking on this?"
Both of these questions relate to the assimilative capacity of
streams and the discharge load being reduced by in-plant treatment
of waste.
Dr. PEARSON. First, relative to the first question and the magnitude
of the estimated research needs, I would like to state that these
estimates are not based on the assumption of making full assimilative
use of the receiving waters. That is a separate policy question.
The figures that I came up with were based upon what might be
prudent for research expenditures in an industry, the water pollution
control industry, comparable to those that have been pretty well
established and recognized by profitmaking industry. This, of
course, indicates nothing about the need for research in this field.
I might comment further. I don't think that the water pollution
control industry is as advanced as any of the profitmaking industries
relative to a scientific or technical base for operations. My plea
was, then, that there obviously is a need proportionately greater than
for industry generally; correspondingly, the least that should be done
would be to spend a comparable amount.
Now, it is presumed that some of this research would define effects
of waste discharge, good, bad, or indifferent, but how can we
realistically deal with waste discharge unless we know what the effects
are? Obviously, one of the hopeful benefits of the research would
be to define these effects with far greater accuracy and precision than
we have been able to do to date.
With respect to in-plant industrial research effort, the figures that
I have used have been based upon only construction costs of municipal
treatment plants. The research expenditures cited are not just, as
may have been inferred by some, governmental research expenditures
to date, but also include what I term "published industry research"
438
-------
expenditures. This means money that industry has put forward even
by outside sponsorship to research institutions or research expendi-
tures that they identify as a water pollution effort and have so included
i in their correspondence with the National Technical Task Committee
on water pollution research.
Obviously, my figures do not include a whole host of industry
"bottling-up" type research or in-plant waste conservation investiga-
tions that I am sure goes on and probably should go on, even at a
greater rate than in the past. I think industry recognizes, or at least
they should, that when it comes to reducing waste discharge, probably
the most prudent expenditures are going to be made inside the estab-
lishment rather than in construction of a monument alongside the
receiving waters.
Now, getting to the question of assimilative capacity of the receiving
waters and whether or not regulatory action should be based upon
full assimilative capacity. Personally, I think this should not be the
case. Kecognition should be made of the full assimilative capacity
in the analysis of effects of any potential waste discharge but provi-
sion for unknowns and future development should allow assimilative
capacity in reserve. Nevertheless, we must recognize, whether we
like it or not, that the streams just like our atmosphere must be used
as the ultimate assimilating mechanism for wastes in our environment.
What we must do is to insure that conditions developed by this
assimilation are favorable or at least tolerable and in the best interest
of the general public.
Dr. BISHOP. Mr. Berger, of the Public Health Service, will ask the
next question.
Mr. BERGER. This question is for Dr. Zapp, and was asked by
Patrick R. Dugan, Syracuse University Research Corp.: "You have
drawn an analogy between trace contamination in water and
food. Under the existing food laws, the burden of proof of safety
is on industry. Would you suggest that municipalities, indus-
tries, et cetera, assume the burden of proving that any effluent is
free from trace contaminants which could be considered toxic?
''Secondly, which ivould you suggest be the regulatory agency?
Surveillance agency?"
Dr. ZAPP. Going back to the food law, the Act of 1938 did not
put the burden of proof of safety on industry, but rather put it on
the Government. The amendment of 1958 to the food law and
cosmetic law shifted the burden of proof from the Government to
industry. Industry did not oppose this shift. I feel that industry
is in a better position to determine the safety of its effluent than
municipalities or government, and that it has a moral obligation to
determine whether or not it is putting something into a public water
683283—61 29 439
-------
or food which is unsafe. So I would agree, or at least say that I
think that industry should assume this burden rather than the
municipality.
As for which would be the regulatory agency, I think this is outside
the scope of my talents. I prefer to leave that to someone else.
Mr. BERGER. The second question is from O. C. Thompson,
Manufacturing Chemists' Association, and is addressed to Dr. Zapp
and Dr. Leake: "It seems generally agreed that more publicity
with respect to water pollution control is necessary. How do you
think this publicity can be made effective without permitting this
publicity to become exaggerated in the popular press to a dan-
gerous degree?"
Dr. ZAPP. I can only say I wish I knew the answer to this question.
Last March I participated in the President's Conference on Occupa-
tional Safety and the only digest of my remarks that appeared in any
press was a horribly distorted version, in my opinion. I was disap-
pointed.
I tried to do then what I tried to do today, to get across what I
think is a balanced point of view, and it seems that the public com-
munications media are not particularly interested in this kind of
approach. They seem to be interested only in something which has
a sensational news value. And as long as this is the case, I don't think
we are going to be able to communicate effectively with the public. I
believe that what we really need is, as Dr. Leake said, some better tie-
up with communications agencies, so that we can get the message we
are trying to get across to the public and get it to them in its proportion
and balance, not in relation to one or two sensational items that attract
attention.
Dr. LEAKE. Yes. There have been several recent conferences on
this matter and I think that the responsible mass media directors are
alert to the necessity of getting away from sensational spot news
reporting of scientific affairs.
Two of these Conferences, one held under the auspices of Carleton
College in Minnesota, brought together the leading editors of the
major newspapers and magazine chains of this country, together with
responsible scientists. The whole point of these Conferences was to
explore ways by which there could be better understanding of science.
It is the concept of science that is important also. Personally, I have
been extremely interested in this matter for a long time. Recently, in
connection with the efforts of the American Association for the Ad-
vancement of Science, we explored ways to get better public under-
standing of science and always directed for purposes that are agree-
able. All of us believe that our scientific knowledge does give us the
440
-------
ways by which we can control ourselves and our environment for our
individual and social welfare.
Another recent conference, held under the auspices of the National
Science Foundation here in Washington, explored this matter further
with representatives from all the major mass media.
Now, the net result here is suggestions along these lines. First, to
encourage the scientific experts themselves to learn to write, and I
submit that this morning we had two admirable examples of what can
be done. These discussions were presented in such a way as to give
information which would be of interest to the public. One of the major
ways of doing this is by serializing. Instead of the spot news story,
you serialize the story. The mass media are becoming interested in
this attempt.
In the second place, we have to remember always something of our
own psychology. We think that when we have discussed a problem
as here, and come to some sort of reasonable agreement upon it, that
is it, at least for our lifetime or our generation. That is a lot of non-
sense. With the rapid growth of our public, you have to repeat the
stories every 5 years or so, if you are going to be effective. Gradually,
it gets into the picture in the schools and gradually, our youngsters
come along and understand what it is about.
I think we need research on research. We have to make sure that,
first, we keep our purposes clear and agreed upon, and, second, that we
do our best to promote the sense of individual responsibility. This is
essential in our democracy, and every once in a while we lose sight of it
and have to be reminded.
In the third place, we have to obtain honest motivation, if we
can. That follows from the others. These points apply, it seems to
me, to all our major social problems which have resulted, in large part,
from the headlong and headstrong application of scientific knowledge
to profitmaking rather than to public welfare.
Dr. BISHOP. I am glad to have a chance to call on a fellow Kansan,
Dr. G. M. Martin, from the State Health Department, who would
like to make a statement.
Dr. MARTIN. I must apologize to the company for having to make
a statement. One should be able to say anything he wants to say in
the form of a neatly worded question.
I wanted to say how grateful I was to Dr. Zapp and Dr. Leake for
making a bridge between the contamination of water with chemicals
and such, and the similar contamination of food and milk. This
gives opportunity to relate the research in and attitudes toward
pollution of water, with the body of research in and attitudes toward
the pollution of food and milk, or if you wish, the contamination of
food and milk, a thing we have been working on since 1900 or
thereabouts.
441
-------
One can come up with some ideas that are somewhat different from
those expressed by Dr. Zapp.
You are probably aware that the original pure food laws, as estab-
lished by Dr. Harvey Wiley, contained the thesis that if a substance
was noxious to human beings, it shouldn't be allowed in food at all
unless it was absolutely necessary to the production process. This
so-called per se doctrine has practically disappeared under a variety
of onslaughts, and we are now proceeding on the theory that every
noxious substance has some minimum limits of toxicity, and below
these limits it is not toxic to human beings. This introduces the
interesting question of whether control of the contamination of food—
or water—is a scientific matter or a social one. It is perfectly possible,
for example, for an industrial plant to determine scientifically that
one of its pollutants was theoretically safe in the drinking water
supply of a downstream community, in the concentrations which
might be expected, and with the definition of safety prevailing at
that particular time. It is nearly impossible, however, for that plant
to determine what other industries are adding what other contaminants
in what concentrations, and whether these contaminants add to or
potentiate the toxicity of the first contaminant, and so forth. Social
processes become necessary. Choices have to be made. The needs
of the industry must be balanced against the moderate wish of the
public to have wholly unpolluted water and not to have to take risks
with any unpleasant substance. Controls have to be imposed.
If Manufacturer A is to put this in the water, and Manufacturer B
this, and Manufacturer C this, the detoxifying mechanisms of the body
may be overwhelmed. It may be necessary to lower all three outputs
of contaminant, or to strictly control two and let the third proceed
as before. The choices, the balances, the controls, all call for ad-
ministrative machinery, and the public, which bears the cost of the
machinery, is entitled to ask what value it is getting for the expense.
What is involved is, in effect, a conflict between physiological man
and economic man and social man, and I don't think such conflicts
can be resolved by scientific means whether they deal with food or
water or anything else. They can only be resolved by unscientific
social processes.
Even when science can be applied, scientific knowledge refuses to
stand still. We have recently had a good illustration of this in some-
thing that followed the new legislation on artificial colors. The
compound known as FDC Ked No. 1 has been used more or less in
its present form for a long time. In 1938, when the Food and Drug
Act was amended, it was considered perfectly harmless and therefore
a proper subject for certification of purity. It has been certified by
the Food and Drug Administration, and therefore by implication
considered harmless for 22 years, until 1960. Recently many colors
have been getting a bad name, and doubts began to be entertained
442
-------
about this particular one. Long-term feeding studies were carried
out, and behold, FDC Red No. 1 wasn't harmless at all but toxic to
the point that its use must be discontinued! It seems reasonable to
believe that many other substances which are harmless by the feeding
tests and other gross studies of the present, will not be harmless in
terms of the tissue cultures and other more delicate tests in the future.
Obviously there is need for a vast amount of research. As a physi-
cian, I, for one, would hope that this research will not be directed at the
maximum amounts of toxic substances that the assimilative mecha-
nisms—your bodies and mine—can withstand, but rather would attack
the basic aspects of this matter, how these toxic substances produce
harm, and how harmful substances can be eliminated from the human
environment.
Dr. BISHOP. I will read a statement submitted by Raymond L.
Jewett, Precision Chemical Pump Corp.:
Interest growing out of my business affiliation impels me to assert what I
believe is a need for research attention in an area generally ignored in our present
discussion. This area is that of the very small water supply and waste systems.
It has been estimated that the United States has 6 million individual water
systems and probably more individual waste treatment systems. Despite the
existence of such systems in these numbers, research on their treatment needs and
techniques has been left largely to interested industries. It is my contention
that this is not proper, that the millions of people who depend upon such supplies
have a valid claim on a share of the research activities of the nonpartisan univer-
sity and governmental agencies and that this Conference should specifically
recognize the existence and validity of this claim.
Mr. FABER. The question has been asked of Dr. Pearson by A. J.
Wiley, Sulphite Pulp Manufacturers' Research League, as follows:
"Do you hnow of any research now underway to apply the new
process being developed by the Office of Saline Water to waste
treatment problems? We are thinking especially of the mem-
brane processes such as electrodialysis."
Dr. PEARSON. I know very little about research that is being
done in this area.
I have read in the literature of at least two applications in industry
of at least pilot scale use of electrodialysis for waste treatment.
One is associated with the purification of spent solutions in the photo-
graphic industries, essentially the developing solutions, the resto-
ration of them from contamination by film contact. How widescale
this is in terms of application, I don't know. But at least, it has
has been investigated.
The second was the possible use of electrodialysis systems for
recovering acid and iron from spent pickling liquors in the iron in-
dustry. I know in the latter case, this has proved to be impractical
and extremely complex, because of many of the physical problems
associated with the properties of the ion-exchange membranes as
well as with clogging of the membrane effects.
443
-------
In order for electrodialysis to be practical, you have to have a
pretty pure solution, and then you have both physical deterioration
and biological clogging of the membrane. Electrodialysis has been
applied, as most of you know, to reducing the salinity of brackish
waters in many areas around the world. In California, the city of
Coalinga is using an electrodialysis installation for full-scale municipal
water supply.
In this instance when you compare the economy of electrodialysis
with importing water by tank truck, of course it is economically
feasible.
Mr. FABER. Since electrodialysis is of interest in connection with
the research work at the Sanitary Engineering Center, Mr. Bernard
Berger might wish to make a brief comment on this question.
Mr. BERGER. I hate to intrude this way. However, the question
is a very intriguing one, and I would like to take a minute to tell you
that we at the Sanitary Engineering Center are doing some work in
this field.
About a year and a half ago Gordon McCallum in a keynote paper
at the Purdue conference called attention to the need for waste
treatment beyond conventional secondary treatment. A year ago
we convened a group of consultant physical chemists, including
Carroll Morris of Harvard, Prof. Victor La Mer of Columbia, and
Lou Koenig of San Antonio. We asked them to give us a hand in
identifying new methods of approach to this matter of advanced
treatment of waste.
Separation of impurities by electrodialysis was one method re-
viewed. Others were absorption, freezing, hydration, and additional
methods that were new to our staff. Work on this program is under-
way. It is based essentially on contract research.
I would like to say that physical chemists and research chemical
engineers are showing considerable interest in this program. I think
we will see contributions from them in the application of these tech-
niques to advanced waste treatment.
Mr. FABER. One question addressed to Dr. Boruff is somewhat
similar to the statement which was read concerning small municipal
water supplies. The question is from Dr. Glair N. Sawyer, Metcalf
& Eddy, Engineers, Boston, Mass.: "Would you care to comment
on the problem of small industries with respect to ways and means
of solving their own problems in line with your comments relative
to the responsibilities of industry?"
Dr. BORUFF. For the small company having industrial wastes
problems, first, I would suggest the use of outside consultants, well
versed in the field. Second, I would suggest use of your specific
444
-------
trade association in your industry; undoubtedly, it has a waste
committee. Third, refer to and ask for suggestions from the Public
Health Service.
Mr. BERGER. I have a question for Dr. Zapp, asked by Dr. Eyck-
man of Washington University: "Should unpleasant taste, odors
and color in waters be considered as producing possible direct phy-
siological, or even toxic effects to those drinking or using water?"
Dr. ZAPP. I think we have to divide this question and answer
into two parts. Unpleasant taste, odor and color may produce a
water which is esthetically unpleasant, without being harmful. I
think I said this in almost those words in my talk, and although we
here are apt to reject such waters for drinking because of the esthetics,
there are many parts of the world in which they are not rejected where
people actually drink water that we would not drink unless we were
dying of thirst. These waters are not necessarily toxic. If other
people accept what we consider unpleasant color, odor and taste,
it will not necessarily produce a toxic effect.
If, on the other hand, water is unpleasant esthetically, I think
we may anticipate some physiological effects of the kind produced
by many things that upset us, for example when we smell certain
odors that are unpleasant to us, our stomachs get upset, and so forth,
and we may even imagine or be led to develop some sort of psychoso-
matic type of disturbance.
Toxicity is not necessarily associated with taste, appearance or
color. The unpleasant looking, tasting, and smelling water may be
toxicologically safe, and the water which looks crystal clear and clean
may be dangerous. You just have to make a disassociation between
odor, appearance and taste, and actual toxicity.
May I have a couple of minutes to respond to a couple of things
that Dr. Martin has said?
Mr. BERGER. Yes.
Dr. ZAPP. Dr. Wiley was instrumental in getting the first Pure
Food and Drug Act passed. He was dealing at that tune with a
situation quite different than that which exists today. If you will go
back and look at the record, he was protesting against lead chromate
in curry powder and mustard powder, red lead in pepper, against
opium in soothing syrups. These were the problems that he faced,
and he was thinking, and quite rightly, I believe, in terms of the com-
plete elimination of these materials from articles of food and from
drugs. The 1938 act continued this same per se concept of toxicity
with respect to foods. It was dropped in the 1958 act, not because
of pressure on the part of industry to put across something which was
less safe, but rather because the toxicologists all over the country, in-
445
-------
eluding those in Government, recognized that the per se concept could
not be depended on, on scientific grounds; therefore it was agreed on
all sides that it was proper for the Government agencies to accept
tolerances where they could be set with safety.
There is a parallel between the methods we use to determine the
safety of a food additive and the methods we use to determine the
safety of a water contaminant, but there is a different problem in the
food field. There are certain things that are added deliberately to
foods. These are called intentional additives. They are very easy
to control and, believe me, it is almost impossible for one to get
approval from the Food and Drug Administration to put an intentional
additive into an article of food today, unless it serves a useful function
and is safe in the amount used.
The big problem with food additives, however, concerns the unin-
tentional additives, materials that are not deliberately added to food,
but get there by migration from things which come in contact with
food.
Let me take as one example food packaging. We are accustomed
to getting most of our food today either in cans or in paper or card-
board, which I will lump together, or in plastic films. These con-
tainers serve a very useful function in keeping our food clean and
bacteriologically safe.
Now, to make a container of metal, paper, or plastic, you have to
do certain things, to get a technologically acceptable product. In
other words, you want a piece of paper that will hold together and
not spill the contents while you are carrying them home. In making
these containers, there are certain chemicals that are used, and some
of these in very small amounts migrate from the container to the food.
These are called unintentional additives and I daresay that 90 percent
of the problems brought to the Food and Drug Administration have
to do with the unintentional additives rather than the intentional ones.
It is these problem areas of unintentional additives in which the con-
cept of tolerances has proved to be both necessary and desirable.
I think water pollution is more in the category of the unintentional
additive than, say, the intentional food additive. No industry puts
something in the water deliberately unless it is a part of water treat-
ment or fluoridation. Rather, industry is putting things in the
water unintentionally. The technological use of the water is one
thing, and in the course of that use there have been materials added to
the water. This is a problem of probably unintentional additives. I
doubt very much whether one could completely exclude all such waste
products from the waters, waste waters, at a cost that we would be
willing to bear. Therefore, I personally feel that our goal is to reduce
to as great an extent as possible the amount of contamination of water
by waste, and certainly to reduce it to that point where there is no
health problem involved.
446
-------
Mr. FABER. There is another question, very similar to the original
question asked of Dr. Zapp. This one is from Dr. C. N. Sawyer of
Metcalf & Eddy, addressed to Dr. Pearson, and you may wish to com-
. ment a little further: "At the present time it is being suggested
that the chloroform extractable test be used as a measure of car-
cinogenic properties of water or industrial wastes in much the
' same way as the coliform test. Do you see any hazard to the ac-
ceptance of such a test in regard to hampering research in this
area?"
Dr. PEARSON. I think that question should have been directed
to Dr. Zapp. I am not at all competent to comment on the use of the
chloroform extractable determination for carcinogenic properties. I
am not either a chemist or a toxicologist. However, there are two
engineering aspects of that question that I might just comment on.
If I am correct chemically, in assuming that chloroform extractable
determination will also recover from sewage or the waters a fraction
of the ether soluble material, then the problem of physically sampling
and characterizing the material is going to be extremely difficult.
This is well recognized by workers who have had to deal with the so-
called ether soluble or grease determination, simply the method of
obtaining a sample of the waste material may affect the results several
hundred percent.
Then the second engineering aspect of this question is whether
or not, if you obtain information related to carcinogenic properties of
the chloroform extract, is this comparable or could this serve the same
purposes as the coliform determination in assessing possible safety or
risk associated with the use of water?
I think a lot of research would have to be done to establish a
relationship between carcinogenic reaction in humans and the presence
of defined concentrations of the chloroform extract, because this is the
kind of basis that was developed for the use of the coliform determina-
tion.
When the coliform water quality standards were established, prior
to recommendation of the levels we now use, there was a lot of work
done attempting to relate disease rates with coliform concentration in
the water supply. This may have been empirical, but nevertheless it
was done, as well as trying to obtain estimates of the ratios of coliforms
to pathogens. So there appeared to be a defined correlation or em-
pirical relationship between disease rates and coliform concentrations
as of that time.
From an engineering standpoint, if you are going to use the chloro-
form extract test for carcinogenic activity, you would have to establish
first such a relationship of this type to use it. I don't know whether
this will discourage research. If there is interest it this, someone
ought to do a lot of research to resolve the question.
447
-------
Dr. LEAKE. There is a point here of very great theoretical import-
ance, however, which is that the carcinogens are of such a wide nature
that certainly simple chloroform extracts would not give much of an
indication regarding those that are water soluble or absorbable or
those that might be radioactive.
Dr. BISHOP. Mr. P. J. Weaver, of Procter & Gamble, asked to
make a short statement.
Mr. WEAVER. In view of the fact that questions concerning syn-
thetic detergents were raised several times during the principal talks
this morning, I would like to make a brief statement on behalf of the
soap industry.
The Association of American Soap & Glycerine Producers, Inc., five
years ago organized a group of firms interested in problems of synthetic
detergents in relation to sewage and water treatment. The group
consisted of both members and nonmembers of the association. It
was originally called the Technical Advisory Committee and, more
recently, the Technical Advisory Council.
Over a period of years, it raised among its own members about
$300,000 to carry on a number of programs of research in universities
on these problems. Kesults of most of these studies have been re-
ported in the literature.
The principal direction of the activity has been the effect of ABS
and phosphates on the operation of sewage treatment plants and on
water supplies after the industry's products have been used in the
home.
This work has been valuable to everyone dealing with the problems
of synthetic detergents in respect to sewage and water treatment.
Many of the early assumptions have been proven erroneous and there
has been considerable modification of informed viewpoints as expressed
in the literature. Some of these accomplishments are the following:
1. The concentration of ABS (alkyl benzene sulfonate) in
water can be more accurately determined now than formerly
because of a new method of analysis developed through this
activity.
2. It has definitely been proven that synthetic detergents as
found in sewage do not destroy the bacteria which decompose
sewage. Originally, there was a reverse theory.
3. Synthetic detergents are degraded to the extent of 50
percent or better in the sewage treatment processes employing
secondary treatment. Some opinion was formerly to the con-
trary.
4. ABS as found in water supplies creates no toxicity hazard.
This has been substantiated by two-year animal feeding studies
at 1,000 and 5,000 parts per million. Reference was made
» 448
-------
this morning in one paper that most toxicologists believe that
a hundred-to-one ratio of extrapolating animal results to man
is sound. On that basis the threshold level would be at least
50 parts per million, and very possibly it would be higher. Pre-
viously there was a gap in the knowledge of the safety of water
supplies containing ABS.
The work of the Technical Advisory Council is continuing. A
two-year program of research has been set up to determine the
chronic toxicity of ABS on a second species of animal—dogs.
The association and its members realize the importance of the
problem of water supplies to the entire people of the country. It
intends to cooperate to the fullest in the effort to determine factual
information and to protect the water supplies of the country.
Dr. BORUFF. Is it true that the soap industry has developed
a new detergent which is just as good as the one now used, but only
50 percent is eaten up in the treatment plant, and that this new
detergent will be eaten up in the sewage treatment, but it is more
expensive? Is that gossip true or false? I would like your comments.
Mr. WEAVER. I would like to speak in response to that question,
not as a member of the Soap Association but as a representative and
employee of Procter & Gamble.
The Procter & Gamble Co. is working on this problem and has
asked its suppliers to work on developing a new surface-active agent
which would be degraded to a greater extent than the 50 percent
or better of the present ABS material. We are doing this at the most
rapid pace possible. At this moment, to our knowledge, there is no
such material commercially available in the United States but we are
working on it.
Mr. KOMLINE. (T. R. Komline, Komline-Sanderson, New
Jersey). Do you have nonfoaming material? I have seen reports
of it in the English literature, and I am wondering.
Mr. WEAVER. No foaming?
Mr. KOMLINE. Yes. I was hoping you would comment on this.
There was one aspect which you didn't cover, and this may be the
one that is going to be most critical when you finish. That is the
aspect of physical chemistry. Most of these detergents are what
we call anions. They are negatively charged particles and the house-
wives of this country are today pouring some hundreds of millions of
pounds of anions into these waters or sewages, and the treatment
of them is becoming more difficult because actually the matter of
treatment is a matter of conglomeration of positive and negative
charges, plus other factors which we don't understand, and an im-
portant question to be answered is; Could you possibly manufacture
449
-------
a nonionic detergent so you would not be upsetting, let us say, tra-
ditional or classic sewage treatment or industrial waste processes?
Mr. WEAVER. There are many nonionics on the market today,
of course. They are generally used for different purposes. Some
are called nonfoam, some will foam. I would just like to say that
because a material is a nonionic agent as opposed to an anionic, while
at high concentrations, it may not foam, this may not necessarily
hold at the low concentrations we are concerned with.
Mr. KOMLINE. We don't care whether it foams or not. It has
to do with the phenomenon of conglomeration which is being hindered
by the anions that are being put in the sewers.
Dr. BISHOP. We would like to hear now from Dr. Heukelekien,
from Kutgers. You would like to make a statement?
Dr. HEUKELEKIEN. I would like to make some comments regard-
ing some of the excellent papers that were presented this morning,
regarding the research needs.
We have been dealing with two types of problems: namely, dilution
from chemical sources, the exotic chemicals, their identification, their
removal, and their effects, which raise a number of important research
problems. In addition, there has been reference made on bacteriologi-
cal pollution. Yesterday several speakers stated that we have licked
the problem of public health hazards from use of polluted sewage
water. We can very well be proud of that accomplishment. I am
not raising any question regarding that fact. There are a host of
problems that Dr. Pearson raised in relation to bacteriological dilution
which need further investigation: the bacteriological standards and
their relation to public health; the quantitative and qualitative aspects
of the bacteriological standards and their relationship to pathogens
that he touched upon this morning lightly, in relation to the incidence
of enteric disease; the relationship of the indicator organisms to the
number of pathogens in relation to the incidence of enteric diseases.
What I want to emphasize is the validity and a critical analysis
of the present bacteriological standards based on coliforms which have
become rigid through the years and ossified and have been accepted as
the final indicator organisms. The applicable of bacteriological
standards to sewage treatment plant effluents in some States is the
absence of coliforms in 1 milliliter of effluent. It would be very easy
to show that by the time you bring the number of coilforms down to
that level, you would have to use thousands of liters of water in order
to get that one pathogenic bacteria, such as typhoid or dysentery
organisms.
The more important question in my mind is the public health
hazards of virus diseases rather than these common, nonexistent, or
very minor diseases, such as the dysentery and typhoid.
450
-------
Then the application of these bacterial standards to industrial
waste has assumed ridiculous proportions, where an industry without
any sanitary sewage is expected to abide by these same bacterial
standards based on coliforms in sewage effluents.
I could amplify this further with some personal experience, but
time will not permit it.
Then the quantitative application of coliform organisms to bathing
beaches, drinking water supplies, as well as individual wells. This is a
point that was raised by questions from the audience. We have
completely neglected the problem of pollution of individual well water
supplies. We use the same arbitrary empirical standards that were
developed for municipal water supplies to apply to individual well
supplies.
Mr. FABER. One further question addressed to Dr. Boruff relates
to what Professor Heukelekien pointed out. It might be of interest to
comment on it. The question was asked by Dr. T. E. Larson, of
Illinois State Water Survey, Urbana, 111., who asked: "What is your
feeling on the use of uniform national standards of water quality
to control pollution?"
Dr. BORUFF. No national standard would fit every situation unless
it was entirely too lenient for most situations. Currently, some of our
streams not polluted by municipalities and industry, would not fit
these standards. An example is brackish water. To me, water
quality criteria standards should vary from stream to stream and from
one reach of river to another reach of river, depending upon the reuse
of that water at the various localities along that stream. To me, in
the main, these standards for various reaches, various streams, depend-
ing upon downstream use, should be set at State levels with some
coordination of the work at Federal level, if they must be introduced.
Dr. LEAKE. I feel strongly impelled to make just a couple of general
remarks. One has to do with the importance of oil which I mentioned
as a contaminant of water. An essential need is really for research on
this problem. We will have to go to ecological levels, because of the
far-ranging implications.
The other matter that I wish to comment on is this. I think every-
one has been appalled at the estimates that were made as to the amount
of money required over the next 10 years to assure us of the quality of
water we need for drinking purposes, for bathing, or for industry—
$10.6 billion over the next 10 years. I want to point out that that is
by no means too high a figure, and it would seem to me to be reasonably
attainable if each community would do its part.
I call attention to the report that was made last year in New Jersey.
The State of New Jersey has spent an average over the past 10 years of
about $30 million per year for sewerage facility projects and water
451
-------
purification with resulting tremendous improvement in the character-
istics of the three main drainage basins of the Raritan, of the Hacken-
sack, and of the Delaware. Now, if every State could do its propor-
tionate share (New Jersey is a small State), we could meet the amounts
that have been suggested. The major sums involved in the New
Jersey expenditures came from industry itself, because it had to have
good water.
PANEL IV, Afternoon Session
Dr. Gordon M. Fair Presiding
In opening this afternoon's meeting, I would like to thank my co-
chairman, Dr. Bishop, for conducting the meeting in my absence this
morning.
The awareness of American public authorities to water pollution
reaches back no more than the Biblical span of man's life. Then,
toward the end of the 19th century, as today also, it was the growing
urbanization and industrialization of the Nation that forced the at-
tention of the public on the need for protecting "the purity of inland
waters." Then, as today again, it was recognized that the problems
of water pollution were so complex, so varying, and so many, that
existing knowledge was not enough for their solution; that existing
knowledge would have to be expanded in pace with the quickening
water requirements of the country; and that only by the synthesis
of a great variety of subjects requiring for its achievement "the or-
ganic cooperation of specialists under inspiring leadership" would
satisfactory progress be attained. Then, as today, therefore, it was
realized that men were wanted to carry on the necessary researches,
that money and facilities were essential to the success of the research
program, and that men were wanted, too, for leadership in reducing
the discoveries of the laboratories to practice.
First the State, and later the Federal Government, was asked to
conduct fundamental and applied research, in laboratory and field,
on the relation of water pollution to the development of water resources
for municipal and industrial uses and on the sanitation of water sup-
plies for the prevention of enteric disease. The achievements of the
generation that accepted the challenge of its day were magnificent.
So great were they, indeed, that by the end of the first third of the
20th century, the machinery of public water control could settle into
the grooves of more or less complacent routine.
Then came "the great leap forward" in population and in science
and industry of the midcentury. Faster than seemed believable, the
industrial revolution of our age intensified the competition for water
452
-------
and, at the same time, its degradation by ever-growing and ever-
varying pollutants ranging from thermal factors through inorganic
substances to organics of such construction that they cannot be metab-
olized by the scavenging hosts of microorganisms. Parenthetically,
it is these biological workmen to which we look for returning our lakes,
streams, and tidal estuaries to natural cleanliness by themselves or
for removing even the most fractious substances committed to water
by household and manufactory in treatment works constructed so as
to provide the most favorable environment for the operations of these
beneficent microorganisms.
Once again, therefore, we are confronted by great change; change
that demands of us the concurrent creation in adequate numbers of
specialists and leaders and the stimulation of research that through
analysis, synthesis, and reduction to practice will develop the tech-
nologies of water pollution control that are promising of success today.
To provide the sophistication needed for a successful discussion
of resources, research and training for water pollution control in our
times, the roster of specialists that has been attached to this panel
includes not only sanitary engineers, those sons of Martha who busied
herself in the kitchen while Mary sat at the feet of the Lord, but also
biologists and chemists, physiologists and toxicologists and economists
and political scientists; not only figures from universities and govern-
ment agencies, but also leaders in industry and men of affairs.
It gives me great pleasure to welcome them to the task that lies
before and to invite the audience to lend careful ear to the formal
discussions and give vigorous voice in the forum that will follow this
afternoon.
The first speaker this afternoon was to have been Dr. Eolf Eliassen,
Professor of Sanitary Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology. Unfortunately, he was snowed in even more thoroughly than
I, so he isn't here. I have asked Dr. John Geyer of the Johns Hopkins
University to read his paper to us.
453
-------
Research and Treatment Technology
DR. ROLF ELIASSEN
Professor of Sanitary Engineering
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
The first paper on this panel has discussed the changing characteris-
tics of municipal and industrial waste waters. This paper is con-
cerned with the challenges facing the sanitary engineering profession
in coping with these changing characteristics and with the higher
degrees of treatment demanded by the increased use and reuse of the
water resources of this country.
What are some of the contaminants to which further attention must
be paid? These contaminants fall into three categories: (1) Those
which will not be destroyed in waste water treatment plants, even
secondary biological treatment plants; (2) those chemicals which the
receiving body of ground or surface water cannot purify; and (3) those
which the water treatment plants processing ground or surface waters
cannot remove to below the tolerance limit of the water consumer.
In the first and second categories are those chemicals which may
be toxic to the biological population of the treatment plant or streams,
or those organic chemicals which the bacteria cannot consume.
Nature's own self-purification processes, used in biological (secondary)
waste treatment plants and streams, are part of the wonderful cycle
mentioned by the writer of old, "from dust ye came, to dust ye do
return." The dilemma of our streams is that man has defied nature by
synthesizing many new chemical substances which nature cannot
"return to dust." Some of the new synthetics may be toxic to bacteria
while others cannot serve as bacterial food. In either case, the
chemicals are not destroyed as they should be in the dynamic waste
treatment processes which exist in streams.
The third category of contaminants will include many of the salts
from municipal and industrial waste waters, as well as all of the soluble
454
-------
organic substances which have not been destroyed in the stream or
removed in the ground. Conventional water treatment processes are
not designed to remove soluble salts such as sodium and potassium
chlorides, sulfates, and nitrates. Only calcium and magnesium bicar-
bonates may be removed by the lime softening process used in so
many cities. The other salts take a far more costly process of de-
mineralization for their removal and municipalities cannot be expected
to stand such expenses. The removal of salts and excess soluble
organic substances must be accomplished at the source of the wastes—
at the industrial plants which produce them, or at the municipal waste
treatment plants through which these wastes pass before being dis-
charged into the ground or surface waters.
Water filtration plants are not capable of removing viruses. As a
matter of fact, very litle is known about the viral contamination of
ground waters or streams, nor of the fate of viruses in the water en-
vironment. Much research is needed in this field, perhaps taking
advantage of modern radioactive tracer techniques to tag viruses and
follow their behavior.
What is the effectiveness of existing waste treatment methods on
contaminants presently discharged into streams? Considering mu-
nicipal waste water treatment plants, these are designed first to remove
visible solids which can be screened out or will float or sink in a skim-
ming and settling tank—known as primary treatment. Many of the
waste water treatment plants for cities on the great rivers, such as
those on the Ohio and Mississippi, and those planned for the Missouri,
utilize primary treatment. Kemovals of organic substances from the
liquid phase are in the range of only 15 to 30 percent. The principal
purpose of these plants is to remove objectionable solids which might
settle or float in the stream and give rise to nuisances. The stream
itself is expected to complete the oxidation of organic matter by
biological means.
On smaller streams it is necessary that the waste water treatment
plant accomplish a greater removal of organic matter. Secondary
treatment is designed to remove finely divided dirt particles and or-
ganic matter, present as colloids, and also some soluble organic matter.
The secondary processes utilize biochemical units in which bacteria
and other microorganisms consume the organic matter as food and
thus destroy it.
You may have seen circular rock beds on which rotating arms
sprinkled sewage (biological filter beds), or tanks into which air is
blown to furnish oxygen for bacterial metabolism (activated sludge
aeration tanks). Organic residues, known as sludges, removed in
settling tanks are sent to anaerobic digestion tanks in which micro-
organisms accomplish further destruction of organic matter. As in
streams, these are nature's processes, accelerated by man's engineer-
ing works, but limited by the ability of nature's organisms to consume
683283—61 30 455
-------
only certain types of organic substances, particularly fats, carbohy-
drates, and proteins which constitute human wastes. These are
removed up to 90 percent before discharge to streams.
Many of the newer synthetic chemicals, the so-called exotic chemi-
cals, such as some of the detergents, germ killers, insecticides, herbi-
cides, solvents, and others are not subject to bacterial degradation
when present in solution in municipal and industrial waste waters.
Thus they pass unchanged through treatment plants to watercourses
and unchanged through water treatment plants to consumers.
Added to this, the farmers of the Nation are applying vast tonnages
of insecticides, weedicides, and pesticides to the land. Percolation of
rainwater into the ground and runoff to streams contaminate both
ground and surface water supplies. Industries, such as the vast new
petrochemical industry, are discharging organic residues from the
production of these exotic organic chemicals into some streams.
These are not even detected by present conventional means of water
analysis. How much of an increase can our watercourses take in the
face of the exploding population and expanding industries of the
Nation? The medical profession is seeking an answer to this. Mean-
while, our currently accepted waste water treatment processes are
not adequate to handle the expected increases of organic pollution of
the decade ahead.
Methods of removal of inorganic salts are available commercially,
but they are expensive. Demineralization for salt removal may be
accomplished by ion exchange, electrodialysis, and evaporation.
Some of these have not been applied to waste waters and would have
to be studied in the laboratory and the field. In most instances these
processes would have to be added as tertiary units at waste water
treatment plants.
Most radioactive substances fall into the category of salts not
removed by water or waste water treatment plants. Radioactivity
will not be considered as a serious problem in this paper because this
new industry is regulated by State and Federal laws. These prevent
the discharge of radioactive wastes to streams or the ground in any
concentration which will approach the tolerance value of the public.
Adsorption, extraction and distillation are unit operations available
for removal of synthetic organics. But it is hardly logical nor eco-
nomical to expect municipalities to bear the expense of such complex
tertiary treatment unless there is no alternative. This might occur
if the sources of chemical contaminants in streams were so diverse
that treatment at the source could not be practiced. Much research,
experimental studies and pilot plant work must be done to determine
(1) the identity and characteristics of the stable contaminants un-
affected by biological degradation processes; and (2) the most feasible
design of waste water treatment plants to accomplish their removal.
Presently all that is known is that stable organic residues are found
456
-------
in rivers used for water supplies in concentrations of parts per billion.
These are being extracted on activated carbon filters. Although
small in concentration, they lead to odors now. But what can be
predicted about the fate of the contaminants in watercourses, the
effects on water quality, and public health with increasing concentra-
tions which are bound to come? Eesearch by the sanitary engineering
and medical professions can supply the answers, and these must be
obtained soon.
If conventional water conditioning processes are inadequate to
decontaminate water containing excessive quantities of exotic organic
residues, even though only in parts per billion, new processes must be
investigated by research teams of scientists and engineers of several
disciplines. Activated carbon works well in the laboratory as an
analytical extraction tool but it is to be hoped that more economical
processes could be developed by men skilled in the fundamentals of
chemical and biochemical processing of water supplies and waste
waters.
In order to leave no stones unturned, this Conference must ask the
chemical industry: "What are the chances of changing the character
of the synthetic chemicals which contribute to water contamination?"
The old-fashioned soaps were completely destroyed by microorgan-
isms in waste treatment plants and streams so that no problems were
encountered in water treatment plants. Synthetic detergents, as
presently distributed to domestic consumers, are only partially de-
gradable by microorganisms, due to the configuration of the detergent
molecule. It should not be difficult for the chemical industry to
develop a different series of compounds and produce some which could
be broken down, and still be relatively inexpensive, as are the present
soaps and detergents. The same might be done for many other
synthetic organics which contribute to the water pollution problem.
One of the criteria of acceptance of many new chemicals by the
public of the future may well be the ability of microorganisms to
break down the synthetic organics and thus prevent the cumulative
effect of these in our water resources.
Industries will have to do extensive research on the recovery of
salts and organic residues within their production processes. Perhaps
research can devise means for the utilization of these waste products.
The only alternative is to install elaborate treatment processes at
industrial plants to curtail the discharge of those wastes which streams,
water and waste water treatment plants and consumers cannot
tolerate.
Summary and Recommendations
Summarizing, modern waste water treatment methods, as well as
water purification plants are ineffective in the removal of many solu-
ble salts, including radioactive materials and complex organic sub-
457
-------
stances presently contaminating streams and water supplies. Tertiary
treatment processes are known or could be developed for installation
in municipal waste water treatment plants, but at great cost to the
taxpayers. This paper has discussed other alternatives which are
presented in the form of recommendations.
In the cases where synthetic organic chemicals, such as detergents,
are widely used in households, it is recommended that the petro-
chemical and chemical industries direct their research toward the
production of synthetic organic compounds which can be destroyed
in conventional municipal waste water treatment plants using second-
ary processes such as activated sludge. These processes are 90 per-
cent effective in the removal of most organics, including soaps nor-
mally found in domestic sewage, but are ineffective in destroying the
more exotic synthetics, including most household detergents.
It is also recommended that:
1. Research be performed on the behavior and fate of modern
organic contaminants in the water environment.
2. Virus research be expanded to include the incidence of
viruses in municipal waste waters, in surface and ground water
supplies and the effectiveness of water and waste treatment
plants in the destruction of viruses.
3. Research be initiated to develop more effective means of
removing pollutants from water in municipal and industrial
water treatment plants.
4. More effective process controls of industrial waste discharges
be developed.
5. The recovery or utilization of industrial process wastes be
given greater consideration as a means of preservation of water
resources.
6. More sophisticated industrial waste treatment processes be
developed through research in order to prevent excessive stream
contamination from complex organic substances and inorganic
salts which can neither be recovered nor utilized.
DISCUSSION
RICHARD HAZEN
Partner, Hassen and Sawyer, Consulting Engineers
Professor Eliassen has called attention to three types of contami-
nants to which we must give further attention. He listed contam-
inants not destroyed in waste treatment plants, those not destroyed
458
-------
in the receiving waters, and those which water purification plants
cannot reduce below the tolerance limit of the water consumer. The
first two categories are essentially the same because, for the most part,
our present-day treatment processes are accelerated versions of natural
processes in receiving streams. Whether or not we accomplish the
desirable removals in the treatment plants is usually a matter of
economics.
The third class of contaminants, which includes the detergents,
synthetic chemicals, radioactive wastes, and so forth, is of course the
one giving the most concern. We are concerned not because the
immediate concentration of these wastes is perilous, but because we
do not know the long-range effects of these contaminants. We may
not know some of these effects for generations. It is obvious that the
treatment or elimination of these wastes will require much research
of the highest caliber—of the caliber that produced these new chem-
icals in the first place—and this research unquestionably will cover the
full spectrum of scientific technology. However, two features of the
problem seem quite clear:
1. We must first attempt to establish quickly and as definitely as
possible which of these compounds are truly harmful and their
allowable concentration. This is primarily a problem for the chemists,
the physiologists, and doctors. We must catalog these wastes as safe
or unsafe and set up a special category for the doubtful items. The
list of doubtful items is likely to be long for many years to come, but
we must make a start. And the unsafe and doubtful wastes must be
kept out of our waters.
2. These hazardous wastes are nearly all of industrial origin, and
are the byproducts of manufacturing and chemical processes. It is
clearly the duty of the manufacturer to find the solutions to treatment
of these wastes. If the waste disposal problem is extremely difficult
the cost should be and will be reflected in the cost of the final product.
In some cases the cost of treatment may be so great that we will
decide to get along without that particular product.
It is unfair to discharge such wastes to the municipal sewage treat-
ment plant and ask the public to find ways to treat them. Further-
more, it is obviously uneconomical to put 5 million gallons per day of
municipal sewage through a number of special processes in order to
take care of 100,000 gallons per day from an offending industrial plant.
This is not to say that all industrial wastes should be excluded from
municipal sewage treatment plants. Often where the industrial waste
is amenable to the processes used in the municipal sewage treatment
plant just the reverse is true. However, the burden of proof must be
upon the industry. Municipalities eager to entice new industries into
their midst must guard against the temptation to issue "carte blanche".
459
-------
For ordinary municipal wastes we now have treatment processes
which will reduce the suspended matter and organic pollution to almost
any limits that may be required. How far we go is again a matter of
economics and frequently depends upon how much natural treatment
we can count on in the receiving waters. As noted by Professor
Eliassen the treatment provided in ordinary sewage and waste treat-
ment works does not reduce the dissolved solids and if the water of a
stream is used over and over again the dissolved solids increase with
each use. Except in a few heavily industrialized areas of the country
and in a few arid areas where water is employed extensively for
irrigation, the increase in dissolved solids has not proved a major
barrier to water users. Ordinary softening of water for removal of
calcium and magnesium suffices in most instances. More complete
processes are used for boiler-feed water and other special uses. Kapid
increases in dissolved solids are likely to result from industrial pro-
cesses rather than from increased population and domestic sewage.
Ultimately it may become necessary in some parts of the country to
limit the quantity of the dissolved solids discharged into receiving
streams. Some of the State codes governing the treatment of sewage
and industrial wastes already have limits, but these usually apply to
the concentration of the waste itself, rather than to the total quantity
of waste which will be permitted in the receiving waters.
The cry for more and better research in waste treatment stems
largely from the fact that there have been no really basic changes in
waste-treatment and water-treatment technology for almost 50 years.
There have been many improvements in technique which have yielded
better effluents at lower cost, but the processes remain substantially
unchanged. This is perhaps not surprising since the treatment
processes we now employ are essentially natural processes.
It seems to me that research in the treatment of municipal wastes
should be directed along the following lines:
1. To search for catalysts—chemical, physical, and biological—
that will speed up the natural processes now used and permit
construction of much smaller tanks and equipment.
2. To explore thoroughly the possibilities of chemical treat-
ment, or chemical and biological treatment using new chemicals
and new strains of bacteria.
At the same time practical research and development work must be
done to improve the handling of raw sewage, screenings, grit, and so
forth, and to provide economical dewatering and disposal of sludge.
Most of us active in the sewage-treatment plants rarely operate with
the smooth precision of chemical and metallurgical plants. It is
obvious that we will not approach such routine operation until we have
found ways to remove the highly variable solids and trash in the
460
-------
sewage as it comes to the treatment plant. When we can feed raw
material uniformly to the chemical-biological processes we can hope
for automatic and consistent performance.
In closing I want to emphasize that sewage and waste treatment is
only one of the many social demands on the economy and taxpayer.
Adequate control and treatment of exotic and other unusual wastes
and more complete treatment of ordinary sewage is going to be
expensive. In establishing over-all requirements for any area or
stream we must take advantage of the natural purification available
in the water. If through the workings of pollution control agencies
we insist upon treatment to a particular degree or removal of certain
substances simply to conform to a code or regulation without con-
sideration of the receiving waters, we are undertaking an unnecessary
burden.
461
-------
Resources for Research and Training
DR. R. KEITH CANNAN
Chairman, Division of Medical Sciences
National Research Council
This panel is concerned with the delineation of unsolved and emer-
gent problems that are arising from the increasing pollution of the
waterways of the Nation. My task is to open a discussion of the ways
and means whereby we may mobilize the resources in manpower,
facilities, and funds that will be needed to promote the search for
solutions to these problems.
Much of my life I have been preoccupied with training and research
in the broad field of the medical sciences. I am, however, essentially
untutored in the academic and professional patterns of the engineers
who manage our waterways and am, therefore, insensitive to their
traditions, their prejudices, and their idiosyncrasies. Sometimes,
however, one who peeks in from without may see things a little dif-
ferently from one who looks out from within. In this spirit, I will
try to sharpen focus on the issues before us today against the back-
ground of the experiences and frustrations of medicine.
After all, medicine and engineering share primary responsibility
in the field of sanitation. It used to be a truism that the engineer
labored to adapt the environment to man, while the physician played
the complementary role of adapting man to his environment. I am
not sure that this is valid today. The engineers, chemical, mechanical,
and electrical, are now to busy modifying man's natural environment
out of all recognition that they have little time to consider the effects
of their enterprises on man's essential well-being. They leave to the
sanitary engineers and medical guardians of the public health the
task of tidying up after them.
The science and art of controlling the water resources of nature for
the service of man have, historically, been the province of engineers.
Indeed, the specialty known as sanitary engineering achieved pro-
462
-------
fessional coherence and identity when it assumed responsibility to
the community for the supply of clean water and for the disposal of
water-borne wastes. Many other specialists and technologists con-
tribute to particular aspects of water control, but I doubt if there
is any question that it is the sanitary engineer who is best equipped
by training, skills, and experience to see the problem whole and to
give direction and leadership to research and development.
Let us, then, begin our enquiry with an examination of the current
and prospective supply of and demand for sanitary engineers. The
data that I will examine have been given to me by the Division of
Engineering Services of the Public Health Service.
A recent census of practicing sanitary engineers measured up like
this:
In public health agencies 1, 324
In public works agencies 1, 090
In military agencies 445
In industry or private practice 2, 340
In universities and colleges 337
5,536
About two-thirds of these—i.e., some 3,700 sanitary engineers—
were said to be engaged in one way or another with water-supply and
water-pollution control.
This is not a large company. The water works industry encom-
passes some 18,000 utilities serving close to 140 million consumers.
It has a gross annual revenue in excess of $1.4 billion. One concludes
that the waterways of the Nation are served by an average of one
sanitary engineer per community of 40,000 persons and one per
$400,000 of revenue from water services. In these figures I see no
evidence of overstafHng or featherbedding.
Turning now to the question of recruitment for the future, we may
first accept an irreducible annual need of 280 newly trained men to
maintain present strength. This is based on a 5 percent loss per an-
num by retirement, death, or defection.
Beyond this, it may be argued that an additional 100 a year are
required so that the cohort of sanitary engineers may grow in size in
proportion to the Nation's growing population. Finally, reflecting
the theme of the present Conference, we must recognize that techno-
logical innovations in man's environment are constantly raising new
problems and opening up new areas of practice for the sanitary en-
gineer. What expansion of force will be needed to meet these new
tasks I must leave to the estimation of the experts. The Public
Health Service has offered the figure of 350 a year. By analogy with
medicine, the need is modestly stated for the field of sanitation prob-
ably faces the same paradox as does medicine—the more successful is
its practice the greater is the demand for its service. The great suc-
463
-------
cesses of medicine in the control of infectious diseases and infant
mortality, in the expanding power of surgery, and in the cure of defi-
ciency diseases and endocrine disorders—these successes have not
reduced but have increased the demand for medical service. A patient
cured of acute disease becomes a candidate at some later date for care
of those ills of mankind that accumulate with age. Likewise in the
field of water resources, it would seem to me that the demand will ever ,
be for more water to support more people to produce more waste to
pollute more water. We must run faster and faster merely to remain
in the same place.
If, then, we accept as conservative estimates of an annual need for
280 new sanitary engineers for replacement, and of 450 more to match
the increase in population and to cover new areas of service, we are,
in effect, planning to double the professional population in 12 years.
In the face of growing competition for the prospective scientific talent
of the country, this may prove to be hard to achieve.
What is the Nation's capacity for the training of sanitary engineers?
First, I think we must agree that our thinking should be in terms of
graduate training. The undergraduate education of the engineer, like
that of the physician, must be broad and general, comprehending the
elements of all aspects of practice. Specialization and the study of
particular areas in depth must perforce be a graduate experience.
Some degree of specialization, even within the limited area of sanitary
engineering, is however, essential before a man can assume a position
of professional responsibility in the community. A canvas of govern-
ment agencies indicated that for 84 percent of the positions available
for sanitary engineers, these authorities sought men with graduate
training no less than that required for a master's degree. For leader-
ship in practice, teaching, or research we may well agree that engineer-
ing, like other scientific professions, has reached the stage of develop-
ment at which a doctor's degree will be the accepted symbol of superior
quality.
The current annual output of sanitary engineers by the engineering
schools is about 300. This, be it noted, is about equal to the rate of
depletion of the ranks of active practitioners. However, only about
130 of these have earned a master's degree and less than 10 have
achieved a doctorate. Moreover, some 25 percent of these men with
graduate experience are foreign nationals, and so we come to the sorry
conclusion that the current annual output of men with significant
training in depth in one or other major area of sanitary engineering is
a bare 100. This is far short of the annual depletion of the ranks of
active professionals. It does not begin to meet the estimated need
for expansion.
Where lies the bottleneck? Some 68 schools offer graduate training
to the level of the master's degree in one or more branches of sanitary
engineering and 36 will accept candidates for the doctorate. Unfor-
464
-------
tunately, the ability of most of these schools to deliver is on paper only.
Sixteen schools are responsible for 90 percent of the graduate output,
15 average less than three master's degrees a year, and 18 have
• awarded none in the last three years. This, surely, is a melancholy
record. A survey of 45 of the 68 schools was made in 1958. The staffs
in sanitary engineering totaled 192 engaged in teaching and 149 more
* in research with nominal teaching responsibilities. This gives an av-
erage of some four teachers per school and 1.7 graduate students per
teacher. It is little wonder that the average annual cost per student
was placed at $3,500.
The schools exist. Why are they so poorly populated? The uni-
versities of the Nation award about 60,000 master's degrees a year.
Of these, 5,400 are in engineering and 17,000 in the physical or
biological sciences. It is only too evident that sanitary engineering
is losing out badly in the competition for professional talent. At the
level of the doctorate the situation is even more disturbing. Of the
3,000 odd doctorates awarded annually in science and engineering,
less than 10 have been majors in sanitary engineering.
It is evident that there is lacking in students of engineering and
science any lively motivation to enter the field of sanitation. Motiva-
tion toward a particular career is compounded of many factors—
anticipated economic rewards, family tradition, social prestige, the
opportunity for adventure, intellectual satisfaction, and so forth. Of
these, the intellectual appeal of a vocation is in my opinion a more
potent force than the prophets of a materialistic culture may be in-
clined to concede. Certainly it is the one that the schools can most
directly cultivate. That department within a school that most
vibrantly radiates an intellectual and professional excitement for its
specialty is the department that will attract the best students. Lack-
ing this, all your fellowships, traineeships, and other devices to spur
recruitment to specific fields of endeavor can be only palliative.
This has been the experience of medicine. The student demands
an intellectual foundation for practice. As scientists, we persuade
him that he will find this most surely in the logic of controlled observa-
tion and experiment. In general, it has been those departments of
medicine that have affiliated closely with the departments of the
preclinical sciences or have developed laboratories of their own that
infuse their teaching with the spirit of enquiry as well as with the
spirit of practice. These are the departments that fire the imaginations
of students and capture their loyalties.
The practitioner in the field of environmental health operates both
in the area of engineering and of public health. He has one foot in
the physical sciences and one in the sciences that are the foundation
of medicine. In most schools of engineering the intellectual climate
reflects preoccupation with the physical rather than the biological
adaptation of the environment. The faculty of sanitary engineering
465
-------
is a small and rather lonely enclave set apart from the mainstream
of scientific interest of the school. It has limited access to the under-
graduate student and must seek to encourage him to apply his develop-
ing skills to the service of public health in an atmosphere unsympa- •
thetic to his enthusiasms.
The few schools that have been most effective in recruitment to
sanitary engineering have been strong schools of engineering that *
have established a close rapport with schools or institutes of public
health or of preventive medicine. Not only does the climate of interest
in such schools infuse the young engineer with interest in biological
concepts, but provides a means of broadening the base of recruitment
to include that large body of students that are majoring in the life
sciences.
The technology of sanitation is increasingly calling on the coopera-
tion of microbiologists, immunologists, physiologists, toxicologists,
and radiobiologists. Its future effectiveness requires close integration
of the concepts and skills of the physical and biological sciences.
The logical way to achieve this is to encourage the development of
schools that assemble these varied disciplines in a united faculty and
that combine in a common fellowship undergraduates in the life
sciences and in engineering.
It is my thesis that the authorities responsible for the promotion
of research and training in sanitary engineering should concentrate
their efforts on strengthening and multiplying the type of academic
institution that I have described. Considered estimates should be
made of the additional facilities and funds for student support neces-
sary to allow existing schools of this type to expand their enrollment
significantly. Consideration should then be given to identifying
other schools capable and willing to develop comparable institutions
and to determining the funds required to provide the necessary con-
struction, faculty and student support training grants, and so forth.
Due consideration should be given to geographic distribution in rela-
tion to population density. The principle of this proposal is simple—
better a dozen virile institutions than 50 ineffective ones.
Although the title of this paper is "Resources for Research and
Training," it has been preoccupied with the need for men rather than
with the need for research. The emphasis has been deliberate.
The essential resource for research is men with the instinct for enquiry,
men trained to ask questions and to devise experimental approaches
to finding their answers. It is men that do research, not funds or
facilities. Funds and facilities are needed to sustain investigators
and to provide them with technical support and equipment; but, as
I survey the contemporary scene, I am persuaded that it is not lack of
facilities and certainly not lack of funds that is impeding the advance-
ment of knowledge, but rather a lack of men pregnant with ideas.
Since World War II, society has been insistently demanding more
466
-------
and more research for the protection of health and, through the
medium of Congress, seems to be willing to foot the bill. The pro-
gressive expansion of research support in recent years has been
phenomenal, as the following figures indicate:
Research grant funds of the Public Health Service
1947
1953
1958 . , ..
1960
Total health
program
$4 000,000
21, 000, 000
100,000,000
200, 000, 000
Sanitary
engineering
and occupa-
tional health
$66, 000
375,000
2, 250, 000
4,400,000
Water
supply and
pollution
$57,000
220,000
815,000
1, 700, 000
Be it noted that these figures do not, by any means, represent the
total national effort. Industry and philanthropy, as well as agencies
of Government other than the Public Health Service, contribute
substantially to medical research. It has been estimated that the
total national support of research in the medical sciences in 1960
amounts to about $715 million. The over-all national support of
research in water supply and pollution control, during 1958, was
estimated to be:
Public Health Service:
Extramural research grants $815, 000
Intramural research projects 570, 000
Other Federal agencies 490,000
State and local agencies 1, 015, 000
Universities 145, 000
Industry 465,000
Total $3,500,000
The reader will note that the Public Health Service funds for medical
research in general are expressed in millions, while research projects
in water supply and pollution control are given in thousands. This
will emphasize the fact that the latter receive only a very small frac-
tion of the money devoted to research in heatlh and disease—currently
it is less than 1 percent.
In a recent report to Congress a committee of experts estimated that
the national support of medical research could and should increase
to about $3 billion by 1970 and that the Federal Government should
be expected to contribute two-thirds of this amount. If we apply
the same growth factor to the field of water supply and pollution
control, we arrive at a national research budget of about $15 million,
of which we may be sure that the major part will have to be found
by the Federal Government.
In medicine in general, the committee of experts were of the opinion
that the manpower to sustain the projected expansion of effort can be
mobilized. It was recognized that about half of current medical
467
-------
research was in the hands of Ph. D.'s rather than M.D.'s and that,
in the future, medicine will need to depend more and more on
recruitment of investigators who do not have clinical experience.
How will sanitary engineering meet its expanding needs for investi-
gators? At the present time, 60 percent of Public Health Service
funds for research grants in water supply and pollution control go to
institutions other than schools of engineering. This merely reflects-
the multidisciplinary nature of the problems in the field and should
not be a matter for concern. Indeed, it reemphasizes the need for
the type of center for training and research that unites in a common
purpose men with varied physical and biological competence. The
power of such an institution is evidenced by the splendid leadership in
research provided by the Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center
in Cincinnati.
Progress in the control of the environment, as in the advancement
of knowledge in general, depends on the labors of specialists. There
is, however, the continuing danger of fragmentation of effort and loss
of that intellectual unity of concepts that gives form and structure to
knowledge. The investigator with experience in engineering, though
he be himself a specialist, seems best qualified and must accept major
responsibility for the broad definition of problems and for sustaining
coherence and generality of concepts.
Let us assume that research in water supply and pollution control
will be able to command some $20 million in 1970 and that $20,000
will sustain the research project of one investigator for one year. It
follows that it will be possible to put about 1,000 investigators to work
in the field. If 40 percent of these are to be engineers, we must look
to the schools to produce 400 sanitary engineers with the extensive
academic training that qualifies men for research. The current
annual output of only 6 to 10 doctorates in all branches of sanitary
engineering is far short of meeting the need.
The sums of money that we have been playing with seem large to
some of us, bred in an older tradition. They are, however, minutely
small in relation to the gross national product. Meeting our research
needs would be easy, were money the only problem. The task of
society, and of the professions that serve it, is the harder one of
enticing the best minds of the youth of the country to join in the task
of cultivating man's natural resources and promoting his welfare.
Intrinsic to the problems we are facing at this meeting is the growing
feeling of a need for a redefinition of our national goals that will raise
the dignity of intellectual effort in the service of society above the
transient physical satisfactions of conspicuous consumption.
Dr. FAIR. Thank you, Dr. Cannan, for a most thought-provoking
and stimulating paper. We are glad you looked in from the outside.
If I had enough residual Scotch in me, I would quote that "God give
us the gift to see ourselves as others see us."
468
-------
DISCUSSION
DR. GERARD A. ROHLICH
Hydraulic and Sanitary Engineering Laboratories,
University of Wisconsin
i
This panel is indeed fortunate in having Dr. Cannan provide the
opening remarks for our discussion on resources for research and
training. You will all agree, I am sure, that, despite his claim that
he is an outsider, he has revealed a depth of perception into our prob-
lems that is more keen than could be demonstrated by many of us
who are immediately concerned with our manpower needs for research,
teaching, and practice.
It is hoped that this Conference and others like it will bring more
sharply into public focus the high degree of intellectual requirements
needed, and the intellectual stimulation and interest that can be
attained, by those who enter and engage in the solution of problems
in the field of water pollution. This undoubtedly will provide the
primary step proposed by Dr. Cannan to encourage and entice the
best minds to engage in this work.
As pointed out by Dr. Cannan, our production of sanitary engineers,
trained for research in the complex problems in water pollution, is
woefully inadequate even to meet our present needs. Furthermore,
with but a few exceptions, our universities have not had the resources
to bring together, in interdisciplinary effort, scientists from such
related fields as chemistry, biology, and physics in integrated pro-
grams of research and training. Even though departments in other
sciences such as bacteriology, biochemistry, organic chemistry, and
physical chemistry may express an interest, and even actively cooper-
ate, in the training of sanitary engineers in fundamental course offer-
ings, the student at the research level has need for day-to-day contact
with experts in these sciences, whose primary interest is in research in
water pollution. This means, of course, that those who wish to
provide research training, and the intellectual stimulation on which
graduate students thrive, must maintain on their staff research-minded
scientists from these related fields.
There is little question, at least in my mind, that the sanitary
engineer, trained in research, is able to recognize fundamental prob-
lems in water pollution and can provide leadership in the development
of basic research, but in the ultimate accomplishment of such research
he encounters the need for scientists in the related fields.
Dr. Cannan has provided us with information on the number of
sanitary engineers that have been trained in the past years. If we
review in somewhat more detail this past training for research in
sanitary engineering, it is clearly evident that we are only in the early
stages of providing trained personnel, for university teaching and re-
469
-------
search, who will be able to provide the kind of leadership in the inter-
disciplinary effort just mentioned. A glance at table I (USPHS data)
will indicate that it has only been in the last five or six years that we
have had more than half a dozen Ph.D. degrees granted annually in san- '
itary engineering. At this moment I have requests on my desk from
six different universities for men with a Ph.D. degree. I am sure
that this is only a fraction of the total number of requests that have '
come to the various universities represented here today.
Although valuable research is conducted by those with intermediate
training at the master's level, it is only fair to say that most of these
men find themselves better adapted to work in practice, and, because
their training is less extensive, the scope of research that they can
conduct or supervise is necessarily more limited.
Dr. Cannan has pointed out that, although a large number of schools
offer graduate training for the master's degree, and some 36 will accept
candidates for the doctorate, the ability of most of these schools to
deliver is on paper only.
Training for research at the doctorate level requires close association
between the major professor and the candidate, and, regardless of the
competence of the major professor, he simply does not have sufficient
time to work with more than a few thesis students at any one time.
It is axiomatic that we must expand our staff and facilities if we are
to meet the growing need for men at the doctorate level. Initially,
our responsibility lies in continually encouraging and inspiring our
Ph.D. students to accept university teaching and research positions.
This is the seed from which our growth will come. There is, of course,
an hi creasing need by industry for these men with a Ph.D. degree,
and we face a dilemma, since we do not wish to discourage our students
from accepting such positions. Usually, industrial positions provide
intellectual stimulation equal to that in the academic atmosphere and,
almost without exception, offer greater financial rewards.
Often we have men who reach the M.S. level who should continue
with their graduate programs but do not, simply because they cannot
make the financial sacrifice involved.
It is generally agreed that our needs are (1) to increase the number
of graduate teaching faculty (2) to expand research and teaching
facilities, and (3) to provide, through fellowship grants, the opportu-
nity for more extensive education and productive research for the
men to be trained.
Although it has been our experience that funds can be obtained for
well-designed research projects, there are many problems in water
pollution which, though recognized, are not undertaken, nor are re-
quests for funds made because the immediate manpower required to
fill key positions is not available. Until such personnel are available
these problems will not be given attention;
470
-------
Admittedly, the problem of obtaining graduate faculty will be a
slow process, but we must begin this expansion at once. One way
in which this might be accomplished would be to make available to
those already in the teaching profession, who have reached the M.S.
level, grants equivalent to their current salaries, in order to permit
them to pursue graduate work, at selected universities, and obtain
research training to qualify them for the Ph.D. degree. Most of
you will recognize that what I am proposing is similar to the National
Science Foundation science faculty fellowship program. In the last
three years the sanitary engineering division at the University of Wis-
consin has been fortunate in having three teachers from other institu-
tions supported by this NSF program. These men are married, and
without the full salary support it is unlikely that they would have had
the opportunity to complete their graduate training. Assuming a cost
per student, of this type, of $10,000 per year, which would include, in
addition to the matching salary, fees, books, and a modest sum to the
school for research supplies and equipment, a program could be
initiated to train 50 men for $500,000.
Most of the men selected for such a program would require a
minimum of 2 calendar years of training, and costs for the second
year would be almost doubled, if a new group of 50 were to begin
each year. Obviously, the number of men available, who would
qualify, would decrease quite markedly as the program continued,
but from such a program would come a supply of teaching faculty
trained in research.
Concomitant with this kind of program, physical facilities for
training must be expanded. Although the program of health research
facilities grants is a source of funds, such funds frequently cannot be
requested by universities because of the matching-grant feature.
Although many State universities recognize the desirability of ex-
pansion in sanitary engineering, they are hard pressed from other
directions to provide even the classroom space and supplementary
facilities for undergraduate training, and have difficulty in justifying
high priorities for allotment of funds for expanded research and
training facilities at the graduate level.
The project grant program for graduate training in public health
does not permit funds to be used for the construction of facilities
except for minor renovations and repairs. Funds should be available
on an outright grant basis to selected schools for expansion of physical
facilities to provide centers for research training.
Various estimates of dollar amounts required for the expansion of
staff, facilities, and support of students have been made. These
estimates have encompassed the broad environmental engineering
field and have included water supply, water pollution, food technology,
583283—61 31
471
-------
occupational and radiological health. Although a clear-cut separa-
tion of the needs for staff, facilities, and student support in the field
of water pollution control cannot be made, it is well known that most
of the men receiving advanced training in schools of sanitary engi-
neering, at the present time, enter the fields of water supply and
water pollution control either in teaching or in practice. Even in
this narrow aspect of environmental health, it would not be un-
reasonable to place into training, at the doctoral level, an additional
100 men at this time with the hope that the production of trained
workers could be such that the output of Ph. D.'s could be raised to
about 30 to 40 a year for this area of research.
This number is not adequate to meet our future requirements, but
to accomplish just this modest beginning step would require about
$1.5 million a year for staff and student support. This requirement
would be for training only, and to it must be added funds for expan-
sion of facilities and increased funds for research support for the
additional staff engaged in the training programs. Thus, research
funds over and above those presently available will be required.
To effectively develop the interdisciplinary approach to the research
required in solving water pollution problems, we have need for regional
laboratories. Such regional laboratories should be established at
selected universities where a staff of consulting scientists is already
available. At least seven such centers should be located geographi-
cally to serve the Nation's needs for research in water pollution.
Training of graduate faculty, facilities for training and research,
support for students, and establishment of centers for water pollution
research will require financing on a substantial scale and the need for
a flexible financial structure.
Undergraduate and graduate degrees awarded in sanitary engineering in the
United States, 1900-1958
Year
1900-34
1935
1936
1937
193S
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1946
1947
Bachelors '
1,266
86
88
75
82
103
H6
98
93
165
65
40
28
112
Masters'
207
35
18
61
42
61
70
68
45
24
32
33
60
143
[Doctors
6
1
1
2
1
2
2
4
2
4
2
1
Year
1948-
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955 . .
1956
1957
1958
Total.
Bachelors i
160
247
287
247
216
216
164
141
208
145
* 107
4,554
Master
163
136
148
152
«105
102
120
134
124
152
• 121
2,336 ('
5!
VI)
•XI)
?V)
W
sn
w
601
Doctors
4
4
4
7
9
*5 (3)
9
11 (2)
9 (1)
11 (1)
•16
« 116 (13)
1 No distinction Is made between nationals and nonnatlouals awarded the degree. See footnotes "1" and
» Of the total of 1,478,1900 to 1951, inclusive, 239 were awarded to nationals of other countries.
1 Figures in parentheses represent nationals of other countries and are included in the larger figure.
*Estimated.
• Of the total of 46,1928 to 1951, Inclusive, 6 were to nationals of other countries.
472
-------
Dr. FAIR. I have always been under the impression that civil engi-
neers, in view of the fact that most of then- work lies in the public
domain, were socially directed individuals. However, this was not
brought to my attention quite as forcibly as it should have been until
about five years ago, when I joined a research group on water resources
which included economists and political scientists as well as engineers
and mathematicians. I realized, then, that the problems that we
think of as economically important in engineering are much too nar-
rowly defined in most of our work. We need to have a much broader
view of the relation of our problems to the economy of the Nation and
in many instances, indeed, the economy of the world. This is so, in
particular, when we talk about our water resources.
Sir Charles P. Snow, better known in this country as the novelist
O. P. Snow, in England as the scientist who provided needed scientific
manpower during World War II, has recently stated in his Godkin
lectures at Harvard University that scientists are particularly useful
in government because they are future-directed people. At first he
said scientists and engineers. Then he caught himself up and said, as
best I can remember: "No, I shall limit this to scientists, because, in
my opinion, engineers are all too often strongly institutionalized in
their points of view and not as flexible in their minds and attitudes
toward the larger problems of the Nation as are scientists. They are
the truly future-directed people."
I suggested that it behooves us to show that Sir Charles was wrong;
however, this will take a good deal of bending of the minds of engi-
neers if we are to do so. It is important, then, that in a conference of
this type, even though it is directed toward personnel and research,
we should bring in men from the social sciences to tell us just what the
place is of the engineer, the chemist, the biologist, and those other
individuals who are concerned with water resources in the very much
larger context of public economy and public scientific advancement.
Accordingly, I take great pleasure in opening the second half of our
afternoon's meeting in which we shall hear from social scientists.
473
-------
Water Pollution Control and Its Challenge
to Political Economic Research
DR. KARL BRANDT
Member, President's Council of Economic Advisers
The subject of this National Conference is certain aspects of the
very wide range of closely interlocked problems concerning our Na-
tion's intelligent utilization and development of one of its vitally
needed natural resources: water, meaning chiefly fresh water, but
also, to a much lesser extent, salt water in estuaries and at our beaches.
Those aspects have to do with the deterioration of the quality of
water in the course of nearly all of its uses by man, with the contin-
gency of cumulative quality deterioration in a growing population
and its expanding economy, with the damaging effects of such change in
quality, and ways and means to diminish them by appropriate private
and public management of better maintenance or improvement of
water quality. It is my assignment to open the panel discussion of
the challenge the problems of water pollution present to research in
the social sciences.
Before I tackle my assignment I want to divest myself of any claim
to authority as an expert on the subject. As an economist, I have
not concentrated my studies on water resources or water pollution
control as quite a few well-known economists have in recent years.
All I can claim is that, as many fellow generalists, I have run into the
economic impact of water rights, water use, water surplus, water short-
age, and water costs throughout the years on both sides of the Atlantic
and other parts of the world in economic policy studies on agriculture,
forestry, and fisheries, or in general economic studies that had to con-
sider transportation, power, industrial, and urban development,
housing, recreation, public health, public budgeting and finance, or
economic development in underdeveloped countries.
474
-------
In practicing and directing land valuation and contributing to its
theory I discovered more and more of the powerful influence and in-
creasing importance of the demand and supply of water on public
policies in an expanding economy, particularly in subhumid, semiarid,
and arid climates. Participation in a Stanford interdisciplinary fac-
ulty team that contributed a report to President Truman's Water
Resources Policy Commission in 1950 gave me a more intensive brush
with the subject. Direction of a research project on benefit-cost
analysis and water-pollution control on behalf of the U.S. Public
Health Service2 in 1957 and 1958 gave me some insight into specific
details of economic analysis of water quality problems.
Since then, in the President's Council of Economic Advisers, I
have had to deal with criteria for the feasibility and approval of water
development projects by the Federal Government and other public
policy aspects of water resources development. Conference with
many leading scholars who are experts on the subject has given me a
grasp of the extraordinary complexity of the social science aspects of
our subject and a feeling of urgency of more penetrative research in
depth by independent, critical, and creative minds in the various
social science disciplines, particularly economics, economic geography,
and law, and closer interdisciplinary cooperation.
The social scientists have always taken the cue for the problems
they rate as having priority and therefore explore intensively from the
contemporary pains of the society to which they belong. In that
sense their disciplines belong to the applied sciences and their work
can be evaluated by the contribution it makes to the actual current
advancement of the pursuit of happiness and the welfare of their
people.
It is a characteristic feature of the social dynamics of the American
people as of today that, contrary to the gloomy assumptions of the
thirties that resulted from the depression, the Nation feels assured of
at least a continuation of the same vigorous growth and economic
expansion it has experienced during the past two decades. Fairly
reliable projections for the next decade and beyond show that the
population will continue to grow at a lively rate, and all economic
evidence points to the prospect of a continuing rise in productivity
and real per capita income in terms of dollars of constant purchasing
power, with more leisure and recreational activity as well as the
prospect of a gradual shift of a larger proportion of the labor force to
the output of services and intangibles.
It is inevitable that in the course of such powerful economic ex-
pansion and population growth the taming and civilizing of the raw
natural environment, the harnessing, controlling, and better utilization
2 Cf. R. J. Hammond, "Benefit-Cost Analysis and Water-Pollution Control,"
Miscellaneous Publication 13, Food Research Institute, Stanford University,
Stanford, Calif., 1959.
475
-------
of natural resources is one of the essential prerequisites of orderly
sustainable progress in a well-governed and self-controlled society.
In fact, the concept of what constitutes a resource never remains
static, but shifts with the changing needs and wants as well as with
the improving technology and the increasing capital of man-made
resources in the developing society.
Natural resources have no value or utility in themselves. They
are exclusively functions of man's gradually more diversified and
refined social needs and his abilities to satisfy them. They are
basically, and become increasingly, opportunities to apply and allocate
human intelligence, human resources, and man-made resources to them
so that they begin to yield more and better services or materials or
both in response to the evolving and changing needs of the society.
All this applies to the fullest extent to water in the American
economy. It is not true that nature in the raw had an abundance of
water as we have to define it today. This claim of the naturalists
who think in terms of an ecological balance under the exclusion of
man and his supposed damaging impact on a perfect nature is of no
relevance whatsoever for social scientists and for a nation's practical
necessities. Nature itself pollutes a lot of water, and so do many
nature-admiring campers without realizing it.
There are neither material or physical conditions nor political or
psychological reasons for getting frantic about supposed or asserted
inevitability of an irreparable deterioration or a desperate shortage
of natural resources resulting from a further growth of population.
The longer I have studied economic problems of natural resources use
the more I have become convinced and certain that so long as the sun
radiation maintains life on our planet there need never be any serious
scarcity of the means of the human race to satisfy its needs and its
reasonably proportioned wants, provided the people make the effort
and apply the commands of diligent husbandry as well as social
discipline and commonsense to the conduct of their economic and
social affairs.
I see no need for our country to repeat in dealing with water re-
sources what was done in the thirties, amidst their policy-induced
economic stagnation in the effort to advance the cause of soil conserva-
tion, conservation of forestry and petroleum resources. Then it
became fashionable among social scientists to shift the emphasis in
dealing with necessary economic adjustments into the area of moral
philosophy. Soil erosion, soil depletion, clearing of forest land, poor
management of forest resources—all these were declared to be crimes
of greedy individualism against society—and besides the byproducts
of the purely price-directed and profit-oriented market economy, and
of farm tenancy, a supposedly wicked form of tenure and enterprise.
Simultaneously, it was asserted that the agricultural land resources
had so irreparably been ruined for good as to make retreat from exports
476
-------
of farm products inevitable, and that soil conservation practices were
extremely expensive and nonprofi table and, therefore, must be heavily
subsidized by the Federal Government. Similarly, it was asserted
that the evil of farm tenancy had to be cured by forcing it out of
existence, and that the evil of forest depletion which is simultaneously
ruining the Nation's water resources had to be cured chiefly by na-
tionalizing the forest land and the management of the forests and of
water resources. At the same time, while we were advised by the
totally erroneous projections of the Nation's leading demographers
that we had to count on a culmination of population growth within
some 25 years and actual decline in numbers from 165 million people
thereafter, we were urged to face the certain prospect of a disastrous
decline and early exhaustion of our chief energy resource, oil, and had
to use scantily whatever little was left of it.
I mention these meanderings of articulate social scientists and certain
emotional tides that seem to run in longer political cycles in order to
give some perspective to our subject. In the professions that are
dedicated to the search for the truth it seems a moral obligation to
recognize and admit such errors of the past in order to avoid repeating
them in each generation of researchers.
Today we have long outgrown these temperamental excursions into
socialism via the detour of moral indignation about capitalism and
take a much more balanced and sophisticated view with reference to
a politically conjured scare of an inevitable shortage of agricultural
productive capacity, of a shortage of timber growth and forest prod-
ucts, and of petroleum. Indeed, in all of these uses of natural resources
the problem of today is excess capacity of production and softness of
sagging prices, although this need not hold forever.
In the area of these important resources, more and more sophisti-
cated and mature social science research has assisted the Nation in
adopting a more confident, understanding, and stable view. Public
opinion takes it for granted that the market economy is capable of
guaranteeing an adequately increasing yield from such resources as
land and its fertility and oil, natural gas, and other minerals. Of
course it is recognized that in all these cases the legal framework
which lays down the rules of the game for the management of private
and public enterprises and resource use has to be wisely amended and
adjusted, not in the direction of socialization, but toward more
effective allocation of complementary resources within the market
economy.
In social science research concerning the use of natural resources
it is widely accepted today that the problems of resource conserva-
tion, meaning the adoption of more efficient, less wasteful methods,
are closely related to the gradual progress of economic development,
the rising density of population, the progress toward more general and
equal distribution of goods and services, and the increasing emphasis
477
-------
on safeguarding the future opportunities of the youth and social se-
curity for the aged and incapacitated people.
One understands today better that in the pioneer stages of devel-
opment when the only scarce elements of production are manpower
and capital, exclusively they must be used with utmost thrift and
efficiency while this cannot possibly apply to the ubiquitous bonanza
of nature which in its raw state is more of a nuisance and has next
to no value. Intensive use and conservation begins to make sense
only when limitation of opportunities looms up, but then it becomes
not a matter of esthetics or moral preference of individuals or groups,
but of ironclad economic necessity.
This applies particularly to the concept of water resources and
their intelligent use. However, there is one important exception that
applies even to the totally undeveloped economy in any part of the
world; namely, the protection of the sources of drinking water for
man and farm animals from contamination or the effective decontam-
ination or disinfection of such supply. As is the case with the other
resources, the concept of water as a resource itself, the need for its
use in more and more forms, and the leeway for intensifying and
making such use more economical, all this depends on and changes
with the progress in the sciences and in the technology in use in a
country.
The enormous acceleration of the pace of improvement in scien-
tific knowledge in the biological sciences and in technical innovation
of the last few decades has expanded their demand for water, partic-
ularly in its agricultural and industrial use. However, with it have
also expanded the opportunities and technical means for capturing
and storing fugitive supplies, and for making better, more intensive,
and economical use of water, including particularly its reuse which
in some instances of nonconsumptive uses goes up to the point of
total consumption of a given quantity. More and better means are
at our disposal for making water available at preferred locations, for
coordinating complementary uses, for upgrading its quality, and for
discharging polluted effluents with or without purification treatment
harmlessly into aquifers, the underground, the ocean, or the atmos-
phere. While there remains a great deal to be done and to be invent-
ed, we may be confident that this can be achieved at a sufficient rate.
The social scientists dealing with water-quality problems have
the cumbersome, somewhat pedestrian task of familiarizing them-
selves properly with the technical aspects of water in all its actual
and potential uses in this country and abroad, and of keeping them-
selves somehow informed about the advancing frontier in water-use
technology, particularly any methods leading to more thrift hi water
use and to lower costs in water-quality conservation.
In all this the essential aspects in the use of water are those of
capital requirements and costs. Particularly in the area of water-
478
-------
quality control and improvement a great deal is going on in technology
and cost reduction, while in raw materials processing and chemical
industries the recovery of waste materials is also proceeding toward
improvement in discharged effluents.
It would seem futile if some scientists were to try to keep abreast
of the changes primarily by following the very extensive biological
and technological literature. To keep themselves abreast of what is
going on requires, of primarily economists and lawyers, to keep in
close touch with hydrological, industrial, sanitary engineers, industrial
consultants, representatives of industrial organizations concerned
with water problems, and public administrators responsible for water
supplies and pollution control.
Fortunately, such contacts are easily established in nearly all
States, particularly through the good offices of the U.S. Public
Health Service. This live contact with the experts is even more
necessary in order to be aware of the policies adopted by private
enterprises and agricultural, industrial, or public utility organizations,
and of the public policies administered and enforced by local, State,
and Federal Governmental agencies in specific areas. Without such
personal and institutional flow of information in support of what can
be traced through documents, laws, and ordinances, the researcher is
prone to be unaware of the remarkable progress that has been achieved
since the war in many of the crucial areas in this country and of the
exchange of experience and knowledge between, e.g., the United
States and the OEEC countries, or the United States and New
Zealand.3
What, then, are the contributions by the social sciences which
would at this juncture assist the Nation's progress most? My
answer is not based on any systematic survey, but on impressions
gleaned from reading a number of books, articles, congressional
hearing reports, and on discussion with a few researchers in this field.
The frame of reference for the development of water resources and
pollution abatement in the coming years must inevitably consist of the
expectable situation in our national economy. While it has made
remarkable progress in the 14 years since the end of World War II, it is
also a solid fact that during the last two years the era of a monopoly of
supply of the American export industries and a monopoly as a source
of financial aid and investment capital has come to an end. It lasted
actually from 1938 till 1958, or fully 20 years. That it has come to an
end is the inevitable byproduct of the success of our gigantic effort to
rebuild the bomb-scarred and badly shaken economy of Western
Europe and Japan and our further effort to start industrialization in
many newly independent nations, as well as our building up of the U.N.
* Cf. OEEC, Organization for European Economic Cooperation, European
Productivity Agency of the, "Air and Water Pollution, the Position in Europe
and in the United States," Paris, February 1957.
479
-------
and its independent agencies, foremost the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund.
This reconstruction of the economy of the free world has found its
crowning achievement in the restoration of hard convertible currencies
in England, on the European Continent, and in Japan. With it has
been restored a hard international competition on the basis of quality
of products and price. This requires a sharp discipline as to the con-
tainment of cost-push as well as demand-pull inflation and a severe
discipline in capital formation and investment.
In view of the fact that the development of water resources involves
invariably the investment of large amounts of capital, mostly for very
long periods, irrespective whether the source is private or public, and
since the service of this capital enters the national cost account, it is
now more mandatory than before that an optimum use be made of such
capital. This does not imply that the development of our water re-
sources be geared exclusively to a minimum cost of industrial produc-
tion and that all intangible benefits or all future benefits should be
sacrificed. Far from it. However, from the standpoint of continued
success of our agriculture and industries in competition in the world
market, the balance of payments, the integrity of the currency,
effective control over the Federal and State budgets, and, therefore, in
the interest of the improvement in the real income of the people, it is
imperative that prudent husbandry prevail in the use of other resources
for the development of water resources. This must also apply to water
pollution abatement.
The public in general, the legislators, and the public administrators
ought to receive from economists and associated social scientists the
best information and guidance possible on the economics of the solu-
tions offered by the engineers and the proposals made by pressure
groups and interested parties. They ought to bring into focus the
existing alternatives as to technical solutions, the costs and losses
incurred by and the benefits accruing to all parties in the case of exe-
cution of specific projects or the nonexecution of such projects, as
well as the differences resulting from partial execution and delay for
the remainder.
Futhermore, it is most desirable that economists lay bare the re-
sults of changed prices charged for the use of water in the allocation
of such resource use to various users. Their greatest contribution
may be expected by demonstrating the extraordinary variety of eco-
nomic arrangements and adjustments that are possible for solving
problems arising from increased demand for water in the expanding
economy.
In this whole area, I feel that we are on the threshold of great prog-
ress, because in various places in this country, notably some universi-
ties and research organizations, a good deal of work has been launched
and some products are beginning to appear. I consider the Rand
480
-------
Corp. research study by Hirshleifer, DeHaven, and Milliman entitled
"Water Supply, Economics, Technology, and Policy," that just came
off the University of Chicago Press and contains the results of several
years of intensive research, as a most timely and far-reaching piece
of work that shows what can be done. It continues the authors'
own earlier studies and utilizes work done by Eckstein, Krutilla,
Eenshaw, Haver, Cyriacy-Wantrup, Tolley, and others, and arrives at
most salutary recommendation as to policy.
At present it appears to me the risk is greater that more capital
investment is forced into publicly financed water resource development
than is compatible with over-all allocation of scarce resources according
to principles of efficiency than the risk that the development of water
resources is lagging behind the needs. If this be the case, such over-
investment by premature development of basically sound projects, or
by political yielding to demands for public financing of financially
and economically unfeasible projects, cannot avoid weakening the
comparative advantage of American agriculture and industries. This
risk is particularly real, due to a variety of circumstances which have a
bearing on the investment in water-development projects, including
those for water pollution abatement.
I name only a few. A large part of the projecting is done by en-
gineers, who owing to their limited area of responsibility, apply high
standards of safety and think in physical terms of rigid minimum
"requirements" of quantity and quality of water. Frequently they
think of total or ultimate development of water resources. They and
very articulate public groups that support them have concepts of
water being a unique resource and material which must be accorded
priority above all others, and they have usually a range of priorities
among classes of users that gives household use top rank and agri-
cultural irrigation second rank.
Public financing with tax-exempt bonds is often approved by
majorities of voters who either consider themselves as exempt from
the immediate impact of the costs involved in higher real estate taxes
or who speculate on exceptionally high benefits for themselves as the
result of high increase in real estate values. Many of the voters, and
particularly many of the local and State government officials, have be-
come accustomed to the expectation that in the long run such indebted-
ness will lose most of the weight as a budget item because, with terms
of many decades, creeping inflation will take care of most of it.
As soon as Federal Government financing enters the picture other
considerations impede a policy of optimum efficiency of national re-
source allocations. While benefits are mostly accruing locally or
within a State the costs are, even when reimbursable, distributed over
the taxpayers of 50 States. Indeed, since Federal taxes are collected
within States, taxpayers have an incentive to get as much as possible
of the revenues "repatriated" to their State or municipality in the
481
-------
form of Federal finance for projects. The incentive is still greater in
economically weak States because there Federal financing may mean
the transfer of Federal revenues far in excess of what originated in the
State.
In its historical tradition of giving next to defense including naviga-
tion priority to the development of agriculture, the Congress has
granted in its legislation that project costs for flood control and naviga-
tion are nonreimbursable, and that costs involved in irrigation are
reimbursable free of interest, and over periods which may actually
reach 60, 70, or more years. In the approval of water-development
projects for partial or total Federal financing by the executive branch
of the Federal Government the rules for judging the economic feasi-
bility require a ratio of benefits to costs in excess of unity and for a
choice between projects preference for the one with the higher ratio.
Not only does this invite overestimation of benefits and underestima-
tion of costs, but it provides no sensible criterion for a comparison of
many projects as to their contribution to the growth of the social
product.
It may be questioned to what extent all this is pertinent to our
subject of water pollution control, since the benefit-cost analysis has
not been compulsory in its application to water pollution control
projects, but has only been tentatively considered as a potential
approach to economic analysis of projects and to appraisal of the
value of pollution abatement. However, the weakness of the pro-
cedures of evaluation of economic feasibility and justification applied
to water-development projects in general is nevertheless closely inter-
linked with water pollution control, because water pollution is an
essential feature of nearly all legitimate use of water, and because
one cannot separate the damaging effects of any sort of contamina-
tion or lowering of quality from such phenomena as volume and
velocity of flow; i.e., degree of dilution, seasonal variation of flow,
stagnation, temperature changes in reservoirs or navigable canals,
recharging underground supplies with reclaimed sewage water, and
many others.
One of the obvious discrepancies in our national policies of resources
use and development lies in the continuation of Federal budget expend-
itures annually in storage, transportation, and losses in handling the
excess stocks of farm commodities. It is assumed that in the West
over 90 percent of the water is withdrawn by irrigators, and it is
also assumed that on the national average less than 40, but in the
West often only 20 percent, of the irrigation water is salvaged for
replenishing the underground water, and its quality is seriously
reduced by a considerably higher content of dissolved minerals.
Yet much of the irrigation water is supplied at prices considerably
below cost.
The least problematical part of pollution control concerns munic-
482
-------
ipal sewage as distinguished from industrial and particularly chem-
ical plant discharges. In the case of municipal sewage primary treat-
ment is relatively easily achieved, involves relatively moderate total
capital requirements and operating costs, and even secondary treat-
ment, while substantially more expensive, does not seem to lead into
the range of difficult economic or administrative questions.
The far more important problem lies in industrial use of water,
mostly for cooling, but increasingly for the discharge of industrial
wastes, particulary dissolved organic chemicals into municipal sewers,
creeks, rivers, and estuaries. In recent years the discharge of waste
materials from atomic fission has added further technical as well as
social and economic complications. The resulting changes range
from unsightliness of riverbanks such as ugly foam or discolored
water, bad odors, prohibition of swimming and pleasure boating, and
fish kill to high costs of water treatment for downstream industries,
and decline in residential or farm values of real estate adjacent to
the banks of the river.
Yet, here as elsewhere in resource development, the country needs
advice based on careful evaluation of the consequences of such water-
quality decline for certain directly affected parties as well as the
public and the costs of alternative courses of remedial action and
the distribution of such costs. While it is technically possible to
restore river and canal water to its virgin quality of nature prior to
industrialization or even better, including the restoration of all
aquatic biology, it all involves severe costs and complex chain reactions
in our economy. Hence social science research should explore and
demonstrate the alternative courses for achieving a reasonable com-
promise which permits an aggregate benefit to the community of people
affected. To do this involves ultimately quite a few value judgments.
Again, what should be proved is the social cost of achieving certain
intangible benefits to whom they would actually accrue, and who
would share the costs, directly and indirectly.
It should be demonstrated particularly, that the costs involved for
varying degrees of improvement in the quality of aquifers are ulti-
mately entering into the account of the American economy and
thereby inevitably affect all the people. Costs of water pollution
abatement can be deflected or charged to certain individuals, corpo-
rations, or other forms of enterprise. However, as in the case of
taxes and levies, the actual burden of such costs is shifted to a broader
number of people if not the public in general.
Eeliable and accurate knowledge about costs and their ultimate
bearers should not and will not prevent the people and their repre-
sentative government from making progress in water pollution
abatement. On the contrary, the better the public understands the
complex and interlocked issues of intelligent water uses and the
necessary adjustments, the better become the prospects for arriving
483
-------
at sensible solutions by voluntary cooperation and consent rather
than coercion and bureaucratic rule of more and more centralized
power. If the citizens of a State understand fully what it means
in terms of costs to enterprises and to the public if perfectionism
prevails as, for example, quality criteria for industrial effluents into
rivers are lifted to unrealistic levels, or one should require secondary
treatment for municipal sewage disposal into the ocean, then we
may expect to arrive at reasonable compromise.
Such compromise could lie in gradualness in the raising of require-
ments, in adoption of reasonable standards and a broader participation
in shouldering the costs. While it may be deplorable that some fish
are killed in a river or canal which actually served primarily as a carrier
of industrial waste it may yet be the case that this use of that par-
ticular current of water in a strictly industrial area may prove to be
the highest marginal productivity attainable that far outweighs any
potential value of the commercial or the sport value of the fish.
With all the remarkable progress we have made in recent decades
in public understanding of the issues involved in resource development.
and water and air pollution, there remains an enormous task to be
performed in general economic education. Such education presup-
poses that research in the social sciences provides the knowledge on
the local, State, and national issues involved in water pollution.
In tackling public policy issues of water pollution abatement the
schools of thought which are critical of any market approach to the
optimal allocation of water resources to different users and uses
tend to see the avenue toward improvement of water quality in trans-
fer of all responsibility and power of allocation to central administra-
tive agencies within a State, if not an entire river basin, preferably
under Federal legislation. They frequently ignore the profound
change in land and water law that is required, and even more so the
extraordinary amounts of capital involved in compensation for the
transfer of such title under eminent domain and the aggrandizement
of the already unwieldy size of the bureaucracy involved in such
change. Bigness in public administration, the degree of centralization,
depersonalization jand diffusion of decisionmaking are inevitably
causes of inefficiency, and thereby rising social costs.
In conclusion, I anticipate the need of a considerable allocation of
research resources in economics and law, to problems arising from
the necessity to abate water pollution. However, such research must
consider problems of private and public water quality management as
an integral part of problems of efficient use of water in all forms, and
of other resources. The greatest challenge lies in the opportunity of
contributing to a better understanding of alternative arrangements
by which the desired ends of optimum pollution abatement can be
attained with a minimum of costs and a minimum of distortion of
our economic system.
484
-------
DISCUSSION
DR. GILBERT F. WHITE
Professor of Geography, University of Chicago
Many of the problems upon which Dr. Brandt has touched and
with which I shall deal have been suggested by Messrs. Pearson, Zapp,
Leake, Eliassen, and Hazen. To speak of there being economic limits
to a treatment process implies knowledge of the social benefits and
costs. To speak of an industry or a community making a choice
among different ways of dealing with water pollution is to imply that
there is knowledge of the different solutions and of methods of assessing
them. It also assumes that there are public agencies and policies
capable of considering and making the choice. To speak of improved
communication and of enlightened public opinion is to imply knowl-
edge of attitudes and attitude formation. Much of this knowledge
still is lacking.
It would be comforting to believe that the people of the United
States certainly will exercise sufficient husbandry, discipline, and
commonsense in their economic and social affairs to prevent any
serious scarcity of water or any inefficient deterioration of water
quality in the years immediately ahead. That position seems sanguine
in view of the physical limits of available water, the widening gap
between technical knowledge and its application on the streams, the
shortage of analytical tools for determining efficiency, and the prevail-
ing ignorance as to ways in which water quality now is managed.
Clearly, there is enough water in the country as a whole to meet
prospective needs and still maintain high standards of water quality
if proper management is exercised, especially in certain areas. It
seems equally clear that the Nation has been slipping behind in its
efforts to curb the mounting pollution load. The very holding of this
Conference testifies to deep uncertainty as to effective methods to
deal with the resulting set of problems. Here, as with some other
aspects of water management, technical skill apparently is running
ahead of practical application: the rate of advance in moving, storing,
treating, and appraising water, even recognizing that progress in waste
treatment has been conspicuously slow, is greater than the rate at
which this knowledge is being put to use in cities and industry.
The growing gap between practice and technical knowledge is at
the very heart of the problem of dealing with water pollution. It is
made especially complex by the difficulty of applying the market
mechanism to pollution-abatement measures: unlike municipal water
use or irrigation water withdrawal, there is no ready means of setting
values by the interplay of market forces. Thus far, no city has found
a way to induce its citizens to dispose of their garbage and trash
485
-------
through the market, just as no owner of small forest properties has
perfected the control of forest fires without relying upon public
assistance and organization.
Although the prevailing evaluation and pricing of water is a sub-
stantial obstacle to efficient water management, and although better
pricing would enhance water quality in most areas, any move toward
a more rational system runs head on to highly inflexible public atti-
tudes and institutions. Ironclad economic necessity has not yet
cracked some sacred images. If this is the case with evaluating and
pricing water for direct agricultural and manufacturing use, how
much more remote is the likelihood of employing a market mechanism
for setting water quality for uses involving esthetic and ethical
considerations?
When we try to assess the social desirability of reducing or curbing
pollution to various limits, and when we try to appraise the merits
and demerits of alternative ways of holding those limits, we are
handicapped by ignorance in several sectors. We do not understand
the circumstances in which private and public managers make deci-
sions as to pollution abatement; we lack incisive methods of appraising
alternative solutions; and we are largely in the dark as to the effec-
tiveness of various government mechanisms for coordinating water
development and pollution regulatory activities so that intelligent
choice may be made among possible solutions.
Elements in Decisions
Although much effort has been given to identifying sources of
pollution and to estimating dilution and treatment needs to achieve
various levels of water quality, relatively little is known as to the
social environment in which decisions on corrective measures are
taken by legislators, city managers, or corporation executives. With-
out attempting to outline all of the directions in which research seems
essential to developing an adequate understanding of the circum-
stances of such decisions, a few examples can be offered.
The elasticity of demand for water for industrial and recreational
uses is not well established. This is fundamental to any economic
analysis.
Public attitudes towards water quality, as witness New York City's
water supply, may determine an entire public program, but are
discerned only dimly at the ballot box.
The way in which industrial managers estimate water quality,
water needs, and technological change in planning new waste-treat-
ment works is not understood. We have no adequate explanation
of the role of waste treatment in the location of new industry, although
we are rather confident that it is much more important than water
supply. Nor do we know in any sophisticated degree the impact of
pollution on land values.
486
-------
Perhaps the greatest deficiency is in knowledge of the effect of
various social constraints and guides in pollution abatement activity.
Notwithstanding predictions in the Advisory Committee report of
1939 l that Federal exercise of regulatory authority would lead to
transfer of all enforcement activity to the Federal Government from
the States, we do not know what the legislation of 1948 and 1956 has
in fact done to the decisions made thereafter by city officials and
manufacturers. How significant is public opinion by comparison with
financing and regulation? This is still largely speculative, and can be
answered only by careful investigation of municipal and industrial
situations.
Methods of Appraising Alternative Solutions
Obviously, many waste-treatment programs now are undertaken
without a systematic attempt to calculate the full social returns
and costs of the enterprise. The danger of overinvestment in pollu-
tion abatement is real. But we must recognize that the available
methods for discounting these streams of income and costs are at
best rough. While current benefit-costs methods have been shown
to have serious weaknesses, the administrator has few sharper tools
to use in trying to find optimum solutions among alternative plans.
Here is a pressing need: to refine and sharpen the analytical tools
so as to take account of all factors relevant to public choice.
Machinery for Choice
As with other aspects of water development, there is a severe lack
of administrative machinery which would provide for a reasonable
public choice among alternatives. Rarely is the full range of altern-
atives considered. The range of possible adjustments to threatened
impairment of water quality is great for most situations, including
readjustments in land use, different degrees of treatment, different
degrees of dilution, and a wide array of regulatory and financial
measures.
It is rarely the case that there is a simple choice between an engi-
neering project and pollution. Having the analytical tools is important
and may well be the greatest research challenge, but there must be
hands to wield them. We have only begun to critically examine the
kinds of administrative machinery that can serve to apply tools and
knowledge of local conditions to the design of basin programs and to
their execution, particularly by non-Federal agencies. Recent re-
search has directed some attention to interstate agencies, but the
strength and weakness of other state and Federal mechanisms has
not been fully explored.
1 United States, 76th Cong., 1st sess., "Water Pollution in the United States,"
H. Doc. 155 (1939), p. 84.
583283—61 32 487
-------
Nothing has been said about the disciplines from which answers
to these and other problems may be drawn. They include anthro-
pology, economics, geography, law, political science, and sociology.
More important than the discipline is recognition that research
leading to understanding of each of these aspects of pollution abate-
ment is essential to formation of balanced public policy. Without it
the tendency will be to rely upon either traditional engineering or
traditional regulatory devices. The Federal experience with curbing
flood losses since 1936 should be a sobering warning that reliance on
engineering alone may only exacerbate the problem.
Finding the combination of private and public measures suited
to the national aims and resources will claim the best thought of
students of attitude formation, geographic location, economic opti-
mization, and political process. Research along these lines properly
should go arm in arm with the training of personnel and with research
on the physical effects and treatment of water pollution.
Panel IV
General Discussion
Dr. CANNAN. This question is addressed to me by Prof. Theodore
Jaffe, Auburn University: "If there are to be only a few large grad-
uate schools to be inspired or directed to graduate study in sanitary
engineering, how are the small schools to attract and hold a fac-
ulty?"
My first reaction is that this situation as in most things it is well
to begin at the more promising beginning. If we can establish a few
effective models of what is needed, then we may hope that they will
be imitated by other smaller schools until the need is met.
The proposal to encourage the strong schools is not a proposal to
suppress the others. On the other hand, the latter should not be
encouraged to continue to attempt that which they cannot do
adequately.
Not every university feels the need for a medical school. Still
students medically oriented do find their way into medical schools.
Dr. FAIR. The next question is addressed to Dr. Rohlich.
Dr. ROHLICH. This question is from Dr. W. W. Hodge, Koppers
Company, Inc., and Mellon Institute: "Are the positions as heads of
State public health departments usually given to men with M.D.
or sanitary engineering degrees? And is it better to get an M.D.
and then a D.P.H. or a sanitary engineering Ph. D. and then a
D.P.H., or Doctor of Public Health?"
I would think that the heads of the State public health departments
488
-------
are, almost to a man, M.D.'s. Somebody correct me if I am wrong
in that.
Is it better to get an M.D. and then a doctor of public health or a
sanitary engineering Ph. D. and then a doctor of public health?
This will not endear me to my friends in public health. But I
think it would be preferable for a person who is so inclined to obtain
his medical doctor's degree and then go on into the field of public
health, and similarly I personally would advise the sanitary engineer
to first obtain the sanitary engineering Ph. D. and then go on to a
doctor of public health. I am not sure that answers your question,
but that is my feeling.
Dr. FAIR. There are two questions for Dr. Eliassen which Dr.
Geyer has kindly consented to answer.
Dr. GEYER. Leslie M. Dalcher, Fairbanks, Morse and Company,
Chicago, has this question: "Has recent research produced any
promising new methods of treating wastes from individual house-
holds?"
The quick and simple answer to that is no, but it might justify a
little comment. There have been continual improvements of the old
methods, and one of the recent good studies was financed by the
Federal Housing Administration. This work indicated that disposal
fields with the laterals operated in series rather than in parallel seem
to work better. The old accepted systems are not bad except they
are poorly understood, poorly installed and poorly operated. As a
result of this, most individual household systems fail in 5 or 10
years after they are put in. People who have had control of these
individual systems have begun to review their activities and wonder
whether what they are trying to do is really worthwhile.
Baltimore County, for example, spends a great deal of effort in
trying to control the installation of individual household systems.
They estimate they have 25,000 of them in failure and they are
wondering whether what they are getting is worth the effort that is
going into it. What has happened seems to support the contention
that the best solution for individual households is to put the sewage
in a public sewer and let the community take care of the problem.
I know there are some of the manufacturers of home appliances
who have become interested in this problem. They would like to
find ways that they could treat the waste water and return it to the
water supply, solving at a single blow both the water supply problem
and the water disposal problem, but I hardly think the enormous
difficulty of doing this needs to be pointed out.
Dr. FAIR. Dr. E. K,. Baumann of Iowa State wishes to make a
statement.
Dr. BAUMANN. I made this comment out about an hour ago after
Dr. Cannan's paper. It could equally be directed to the whole panel,
489
-------
because the thought occurred to me as to whether we are not putting
the cart before the horse.
I think we all recognize that we have a tremendous backlog of
work to do to clean up our problem of water pollution. To do this,
we are going to need a tremendous amount of research conducted
and we are going to have to train a large number of sanitary engineers
to do the research and to build the steel and the concrete necessary
to put this research into effect.
However, we are still operating in a capitalistic system and men
are still motivated to enter a profession at least partially due to
potential economic reward. Dr. Cannan mentioned the medical
profession. I am a professor acquainted with many students.
Most of those who go into the medical profession commonly expect
to earn from $20,000 per year upward in the practice of medicine.
Hence, there is no shortage at the present time of students desiring
to enter the medical profession.
Median income of sanitary engineers, however, and at least 50
percent of them are employed by government agencies, is still less
than $9,000 per year. This is the lowest median salary of any
engineering branch, any of the major engineering branches.
How can we motivate students to enter graduate programs in
sanitary engineering when they are required to go further in education?
Some 35 to 40 percent of our men in sanitary engineering now have
master's degrees. How can we motivate them to go in when the
financial rewards just aren't there at the present time?
In Iowa, our State Health Commissioner is still limited to a salary
of $9,000 a year, our State Sanitary Engineer to a salary of less
than $11,500 per year. Our 20-year men in the State Health De-
partment in Iowa still earn less than $9,500. Would you, if you
were a student, enter this field for financial rewards? It is obvious
that we must strengthen our present school potential by increasing
financial rewards in our support of research programs. Our present
research programs and our present programs help to finance a student's
education, but do not provide the financial rewards after his formal
education is completed.
Being in education, I recognize that we can't all be chiefs, we
still need some Indians, and it is the Indians that we are trying to
educate that are getting these median salaries which are not attractive.
I remember 15 years ago when I entered the field, one of the things
I was anxious to do was to express the young man's viewpoint.
I stand here today at the end of 15 years, able to express the young
man's viewpoint, and I am no longer one of the young men. As
I look around the room here today, I would recognize that these
men, the men who are getting in this lower salary group are not
represented here, because I would expect that 90 percent of the
490
-------
men in this room today are in the 10 percentile of earnings of sanitary
engineers.
Dr. FAIR. Undoubtedly this is a very important question, but I
can't help thinking, coming from a missionary family, that there are
other inducements as well to enter a profession, there is such a thing
as a calling. So far as the medical profession is concerned, it is
having just as hard sledding today in attracting qualified people
to itself as is the sanitary engineering profession and even chemistry.
The big call apparently at the present time is in physics. The
competition for the best minds of the country seems to be in physics
and in law, and all of the others are having a rather difficult time
just now.
Dr. BRANDT. The question by G. E. Condo, Chairman,
National Clean Waters Commission, Izaak Walton League: "Re-
search to develop a market approach to waste disposal is admi-
rable, but so far it has been impossible to definitely assign dollar
values to many of the real benefits of clean water. Don't you
believe public policy requires as high a degree of waste treatment
as possible during the interim period of social research?"
In discussing the question of treatment of sewage of cities, I do not
consider it as so essential to have an enormous amount of market
research into water. In many communities with a reasonably decent
government where the people complain about nuisances connected
with discharge of untreated sewage, such as bad odors, unsightliness,
or the general filthy condition of the water, which makes it unusable
for recreational or other purposes, I see no need for putting a dollar
value on such effects.
I have the confidence in the good common sense of our people in
their communities that when they want to abolish some public
nuisance, when they are agreed that it is one, they ask the two
questions: (1) What does it cost to remedy the situation perhaps by
alternative methods? (2) Can they afford to do it? In the majority
of cases that I know, the local community can afford to establish
primary sewage treatmeot because the costs are not enormous. There-
fore, why should one go through the trouble of using a formula that
puts a dollar value on largely intangible benefits or on the ratio of
costs and such artificially priced benefits. This can only sidetrack
the initiative in controlling pollution.
Naturally, if we emancipate ourselves from the hard realities of the
political economy ignoring the scarcity of our manmade resources we
may envisage as high a degree of waste treatment as is technically
possible, irrespective of costs involved. But who would really be so
irresponsible?
It is my impression, however, that municipal sewage treatment is the
least complex one of all water quality control problems. The really
491
-------
tricky problems concern industrial waste being discharged into various
aquifers. There you arrive at closely intertwined sets of intricate
problems of multiple use, reuse, regularity of flow, and many others.
You may have to weigh here, let us say, a factory that could employ
5,000 people, but would simultaneously either pollute a river or a
canal or would have to bear considerable additional costs for dis-
charging only treated effluents or for discharging its effluents harm-
lessly untreated into the ocean. There arise very difficult socio-
economic questions. There a study by economists of all alternative
courses of remedial action that are open and the presentation to the
electorate of their findings and recommendations, and the real eco-
nomic issues that are involved in their decisions could do a great deal of
good. To weigh so and so much local employment and income of
people on the one hand, and strict enforcement of very high quality
requirements for effluents on the other, is an area of decision-making
where I really count on economic research.
One begs the most interesting questions by saying: "We want a
maximum of water treatment." Is it a maximum under all circum-
stances irrespective of such social costs as less employment? Econ-
omists are primarily involved when it comes to the question of costs,
and alternative methods for lowering costs. Economists want to de-
termine how much the total costs are, who or which group will
ultimately carry the burden of such public charges.
In my paper you will find some reference to this shifting of costs, of
financing water pollution control measures to Federal and State
governmental levels.
Dr. WHITE. This question comes from Dr. Fair, and I want to say
that the nature of my response does not spring from the fact that I
happen to be standing between Dr. Fair and Dr. Brandt. You will
understand my qualification.
"What members (in terms of professional competency) would
you recruit to an ideal group concerned with water resources
within the framework of the national economy?"
I will answer that by saying I think I would recruit the kind of
group which was recruited for the Water Resources Seminar at Har-
vard or the new program in water resources study at Stanford with a
couple of exceptions. In each case they have political scientists,
economists, hydrologists, and engineers involved, trying to look at
the problem in one case in terms of an idealized basin, in another case
within the broad realm of public policy affecting water. The con-
tributions of these groups, I think, are evident. For example, it is
apparent that there are always some economic considerations, but, as
Dr. Brandt has suggested, there may be situations in which the
benefit-cost kind of analysis simply doesn't apply, and it is a matter
of political judgment as to where it is appropriate and where it may
492
-------
be either inappropriate or actually a disservice. I would indicate
two other professions that I think have something very important to
contribute to such investigations, whether it is under the auspices of
. an institution or a Federal agency.
One is the geographer who brings information and insight into the
way in which activities are distributed spatially. To give an example,
we talk a great deal about the effect of water supply on industrial
location, but the fact is that we know very little about it and the
actual impacts of water supply availability on location and probable
shifts in location as a result of changes in water supply.
The other is the anthropologist. When I see the defeats of some
people on fluoridation votes or when I see the kind of treatment that
the New York City board of water consultants received on then-
Hudson River proposal I feel that an essential part of dealing with
public policy in programs affecting water is to look into public atti-
tudes, then- formation, and their relationship to social organization
and structure. I am not being facetious when I suggest that beliefs
concerning holy baptism and the sanctity of water may have more
than passing significance to the way a vote goes on a bond issue in
California, and that if you are going to be practical about dealing
with water supplies, you have to understand the kinds of attitudes
people have toward water and the ways in which these attitudes may
be shifted. You can have front-page stories on every newspaper
every day of the year, but if these stories are not related to the basic
beliefs and patterns of association and prejudice of people to whom
they are directed, they may have little or no effect. So I would say
we need a number of disciplines, including a couple which Stanford
and Harvard have not yet included.
Dr. BRANDT. This is a question from Dr. Heukelekian, Rutgers
University: "Do you apply the same criterion of value judgment
and national cost accounting to the private sector of the economy
as you do the public sector?"
Certain values and judgments based on them are ultimately under-
lying all discussions about affairs in the political economy in which we
live, where the people govern themselves and ultimately decide at the
ballot box what they want. Values are anchored deep in the hearts
and souls of the people. I feel that in dealing with policy matters a
social scientist has no right whatsoever to set up his own value judg-
ments which differ from those on which the society stands. Such
values are e.g., freedom, or that barest minimum of interference by
others in our private life which is unavoidable for the national welfare.
They too must be duly considered in water pollution studies.
We want an intelligent and informed electorate that decides on the
policies of water pollution control and on the choice of costs that are
ultimately carried by the taxpayer. Well-informed people who see all
493
-------
the sides of it, who see the alternatives, who see the costs shall make up
their minds. Coming from a State in which the referendum is used to
the extreme, I can say that by and large I am always pleased by the
soundness of the judgments the people pass at the ballot box.
However, in this water pollution area, it is my impression that much
too little knowledge exists about all the economic and social issues
that are involved in decisions. But once the people are well informed
they will use their own value judgments, which can neither be manu-
factured nor be set by social scientists. Social scientists and econo-
mists ought to be on tap, not on top.
Dr. CANNAN. Dr. P. E. Dugan, Syracuse University Research
Corporation, asks this question: "Most panel members have indi-
cated that research is needed which embraces the overlapping of
the several disciplines: engineering, biology, chemistry, medicine,
law, et cetera. Sanitary engineering appears to be but one aspect
of water pollution control. Why do you advocate training future
investigators in sanitary engineering rather than the broader
disciplines of public health science or water control science, for
example, which would consider toxicological problems and so
forth. The solution of water pollution problems will embrace
several disciplines such as engineering, biology, chemistry, law,
and so forth, no combination of which can completely be satisfied
in a given academic curriculum."
I agree that the disciplines contributing to water management
continue to expand beyond those traditionally associated with sanitary
engineering.
My position is that sanitary engineers, by reason of training, skills,
and an orientation toward practical problems in the field are best
qualified to identify research needs and to mobilize the help of
specialists.
Many problems are first identified in the field but must be fed back
to remote laboratories for their solution. Others are recognized as
significant in the field only because of new discoveries in the laboratory.
Progress is a two way traffic.
You ask if the title sanitary engineer is still appropriate. A number
of others are being proposed. I doubt if we are ready to dissociate
the field from engineering. The need is for the engineer to frame his
problems to chemists, toxicologists, biologists, sociologists, and the
like so as to stimulate their interest and cooperation.
Dr. ROHLICH. This is a question from Harry S. Bingham of
Clarkson College of Technology in New York: "TTie importance of
graduate study has been stressed in your remarks, and I would
therefore question whether you mean to imply that there is no
foreseeable problem in interesting the undergraduate in a career
in sanitary engineering? Due to the unbalanced emphasis on
494
-------
some of the physical sciences at many of our schools of civil
engineering particularly, I have found that an overwhelming
majority of the undergraduates make up their minds as to future
employment and interest before the major sanitary engineering
course or courses have been presented to them. Would you care
to comment?"
i I certainly must agree with Mr. Bingham that there is, of course, a
long lapse in undergraduate training before students get any courses
that interest them in going forth in sanitary engineering. I did not
mean to imply that there is no foreseeable problem in interesting under-
graduate students in a career in sanitary engineering. I think there
is a real problem.
Last evening I had a talk with Dr. Weinberger of Case, who had
some very cogent ideas and actually had put into practice a program
of interesting undergraduate students in a career in sanitary engineer-
ing. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if it would be in order to ask Dr.
Weinberger if he would be willing to repeat some of the remarks he
made to me.
Dr. WEINBERGER. I shall be very happy to do so. Of course, I
have been very pleased with this afternoon's meeting. The introduc-
tion of the social scientist viewpoint has been really stimulating.
On the matter of getting students into sanitary engineering, many
of us have felt there is a need for some sort of missionary activity along
this line, and we have to do something about it.
Mr. Camp mentioned there has been a shortage for many years, and
although he indicated there was much activity, I, for one, would have
to question whether there really has been activity or just wishful
thinking.
A number of years ago, we became concerned with the fact that
with the shortage and need for sanitary engineers, that there is a
shortage of students and qualified applicants, not only at our school,
but nationwide. An important finding was that many of the students
would have tremendous opportunity but didn't even know about the
scope of the field. As a matter of fact, in talking to a local chapter of
the ASCE, I find that many of the people practicing in the field do
not, themselves, have a knowledge of the breadth of sanitary engi-
neering activities.
Many of the things that we talked about this afternoon would be
entirely new to them.
I have proposed that some of us interested in this field, some of the
people who have this overall view of the subject, actually go out and
present our story to students and faculty in the undergraduate schools.
As was mentioned by Dr. Cannan, the medical schools have already
developed the idea of the undergraduate school where boys go for
premedicine and then go on to medical school. We have to develop
a similar chain.
495
-------
I would, therefore, propose that we actually take the time and visit
undergraduate schools that do not have sanitary engineering pro-
fessors or sanitary engineering graduate schools and talk to the stu-
dents and faculty and present to them our story. I would also urge
that we visit other departments, including chemical engineering, *
chemistry, and the life sciences and acquaint these people with our
field. We overlook the fact that these people, who potentially can ,
make significant technical contributions, aren't even aware of the
problems that exist in our field. We assume they do. They must be
told of the challenges.
One further point, I do not think it is necessary that we make
sanitary engineers out of everyone interested in the field of sanitary
engineering. There is a shortage of manpower, but some of this
manpower could and should be trained and educated as chemists,
biologists, or social scientists. They don't have to end up being sani-
tary engineers. We do have to present our problems to them if we
want them to accept the challenge and work on their solution.
It is hard to believe that many of the people here today, with their
knowledge of the field and their dedication, would be unable to attract
more people into the field, if they actively worked on it.
Dr. CANNAN. This brings me to a closely related question. Dr.
Heukelekian of Eutgers University asks: "How can men trained in
basic disciplines contributing information to water pollution
control be induced to be interested in research, training, and
teaching in this profession?"
There is no simple answer. We have heard that we must propagate
the gospel to youth in its formative years. Unfortunately, there is
currently an ostentatious solicitation of youth by all branches of
technology. I would leave it to the political scientists here today to
consider whether this free competition, this mad scramble, for scien-
tific manpower in the face of limited supply is the best way to meet
the national need.
There is a feeling among us that we are at a disadvantage because
sanitation is not a field with a natural appeal to youth. Nor are many
other human endeavors that find their following. My thesis is that
if a spirit of excitement, of intellectual and spiritual satisfaction,
pervades the exposition of the substance of a profession, men of good
quality will be recruited to fill the ranks. The contagion is spread by
the teacher rather than by circus tours of high schools with films,
brochures and exhortation.
Dr. FAIR. Dr. White, do you want to comment on that?
Dr. WHITE. In respect to what Dr. Cannan has just said, I have
been impressed with the fact that in a number of fields which one
might consider would have great challenge today, take the field of
municipal and metropolitan area planning, there is a somewhat similar
496
-------
situation to that described. I feel quite clear myself from being in-
volved in college administration that getting information to pros-
pective students may be helpful, but probably the choice is in relation
1 to much less accessible kinds of experiences of the students. What do
they consider to be a challenge, what do they consider to be a useful
and exciting part of the life into which they are going? I don't
believe we know much about how we recruit first-rate people for some
of the services. There is now a national commission that is trying to
deal with recruitment for public service.
497
-------
CLOSING PLENARY SESSION
Wednesday, December 14
Morning Session
Chairman
Harry E. Schlenz
President, Pacific Flush Tank Company;
Vice President, Water Pollution Control Federation
The Conference this morning formally receives the reports of
panels I, II, and IV, These reports will be presented by the Chairmen
who presided over these particular panels on Tuesday. Last evening,
while most of us enjoyed a leisurely dinner the members of the sub-
committees assigned to each of the panel groups, worked for many
hours to summarize and translate into specific terms the views,
suggestions, recommendations, aims and goals expressed in the
formal papers and discussions.
It was also the responsibility of the subcommittee of each of the
panels to consider and summarize all questions and answers as well
as statements made from the floor following each of the program
addresses presented on Tuesday.
Following these procedures of the subcommittee, the staff personnel,
working into the early morning hours, transcribed these reports
which were then distributed to and reviewed by all of the members
of the panel subcommittee early today.
At the conclusion of each summary report there will be an oppor-
tunity for discussion and questions from the floor.
In closing, the chairman takes this opportunity to remind the
National Conference on Water Pollution that it is not the specific
obligation or purpose of those here in attendance to formulate or
introduce resolutions or motions to be acted upon at this time. All
papers and discussions, including questions and remarks from the
floor, will be included in the proceedings to be published following
498
-------
the Conference. These will be distributed to all those who have
registered and others concerned.
The report of panel I will be given by the Hon. Thomas A. McCann,
who presided yesterday over the interesting sessions of that panel.
Subcommittee Report, Panel I
Hon. Thomas A. McCann
Neither the extent nor the effects of water pollution are sufficiently
known to permit precise agreement at this Conference on the topic
assigned to panel I, "Water Pollution and Our Charging Times;
Effects of Pollution on the National Health, Welfare and Economy."
But an analysis of the papers and discussion indicates that the future
quality of our water resource and the range of human needs the
resource can serve can be as high or as low as we wish it to be, de-
pending on the values we wish to protect and the price we are willing
to pay.
Known threats to human health from water pollution under existing
treatment levels are not seen as catastrophic by public health officials;
but better knowledge of the short- and long-term effects of pollutants
may show dangers where none are now anticipated.
Certain minimum steps are indicated to minimize threats to public
health from pollution: investigation of potential health hazards as an
integral part of development of processes and products producing
pollutants, and preservation of uncontaminated water supplies and
regulation of waste disposal.
The information needed to protect public health can be obtained
only by the combined efforts of public and private interests, inspired
by a keen sense of responsibility for water quality. Government
responsibility in fact finding should be exercised in a strong and fore-
sighted manner in order to provide sound bases for action programs.
Examination of the public health consequences of technical and
industrial processes must be a regular and necessary part of research
and development. The eventual cost to our society of achieving
hygienic security will be much less than the potential cost of dealing
with the effects of pollution.
Effects on recreation and esthetic values are difficult to measure
because the judgments on use of water for such purposes are subjective.
Impacts of pollution on fish and wildlife are extensive. The United
States Fish and Wildlife Service has stated that the area of habitat
rendered unproductive each year by pollution is greater than the
habitat established by all public agencies conducting wildlife restora-
tion programs.
Impacts of water pollution on industry are difficult to generalize
upon because of the almost infinite variety of industrial uses. The
499
-------
largest industrial use is for cooling, where a wide tolerance in quality
is permissible. In food and pharmaceutical manufacture, on the
other hand, standards well above those for drinking water may be
necessary.
Industrial management does not often seek public action to protect
its water supply; it is reported as inclined to accept the burden of
treating the water it needs for its processes. Industrial management, >
for the most part, believes that pollution of industrial water supplies
will not increase to more critical levels in the near future. Water
quantity and quality are important in plant location decisions; so
is the extent and cost of pollution abatement which is likely to be
required of industry.
The problem of evaluating pollution—of finding acceptable ways
of comparing costs and benefits—is very difficult, but must be resolved
if specifics are to supplant generalities as a basis for the establishment
of sound public policy. Documentation of pertinent kinds of water
quality deterioration is necessary. The prime difficulties are that
various pollutants cause varying kinds of water supply deterioration;
and measures of pollution effects vary with the values being considered.
A pollutant damaging to recreation may be harmless to industrial
users.
A precise definition of the different kinds of values with which we
are concerned is essential. At least three kinds of values must be
considered—health values, recreation values including esthetic values,
and market values. The relative importance of these values will
vary with changing demands.
Measurement of physical and biological relationships—to relate
water quality to volume, temperature, etc., as well as to the usual
problems of waste disposal—is essential.
In consideration of the impacts of water pollution on our changing
times, the subcommittee members assigned to panel I have prepared
a series of recommendations designed to protect and enhance the
values of the water resource. The subcommittee believes that the
following recommendations are reasonable and warrant vigorous
implementation—
1. We recommend that the Conference express its conviction that
the goal of pollution abatement is to protect and enhance the capacity
of the water resource to serve the widest possible range of human
needs, and that this goal can be approached only by accepting the
positive policy of keeping waters as clean as possible, as opposed to
the negative policy of attempting to use the full capacity of water for
waste assimilation.
2. There is need for a more systematic approach to the evaluation of
water pollution problems, to include health, esthetic, and market
values. A framework for analysis must be developed which will pro-
vide a relatively precise understanding of benefit-cost and which will
500
-------
form the basis for the design of public policies and programs for effec-
tive water quality management.
3. States should develop tvater monitoring programs for bacterio-
logical, biological, chemical, physical and radiological quality. This
work should be coordinated with the efforts of an expanded national
water quality network of the Public Health Service. More data
should be collected on the condition of streams both before and after
water pollution abatement.
4. The construction of municipal waste treatment facilities should
be expanded immediately with continued increases to keep up with
population growth and to abate the backlog of pollution by 1970. A
similar program expansion should be applied to the wastes from
industry.
5. Each Federal installation should be required by Congress to
treat its wastes in accordance with the standards for cities and in-
dustries in the area, with 1964 set as the target date for providing
minimum treatment.
6. It is recommended that improved methods be developed for
measuring pollution abatement progress. New engineering param-
eters which encompass all pollution components, as well as yardsticks
for measurement of stream quality, are critically needed.
7. The administrative level of the water supply and water pollution
control activities in the Public Health Service and in the States should
be commensurate with the importance of this problem.
8. We recommend that public policy formally recognize the recrea-
tion value of our water resources as a full partner with domestic, in-
dustrial, and agricultural values in water quality management policies
and programs.
9. We recommend that appropriate public and private agencies
mount and sustain an expanded program of public information to the
end that enlightened public opinion can be brought to bear on the
accomplishments, costs, needs, opportunities, and problems involved
in water quality management, noting that this Conference should pro-
vide a dramatic opportunity to launch such a program.
10. It is recommended that the Public Health Service assume leader-
ship, in collaboration with other public and private agencies, in collect-
ing, compiling, and publishing pertinent data on the toxicity of water
contaminants. This should include criteria, standards, methods of
testing, and safe allowable concentrations for human consumption;
also that efforts be made to stimulate toxicological and epidemiological
studies to be made to determine long- and short-range effects.
11. In order to facilitate assessment of the total pollution problem,
it is recommended that particular attention be given to accelerating
the collection of information on industrial waste loading. The Public
Health Service should coordinate collection of this information on the
national level.
501
-------
12. The Conference feels that financial incentive should be provided
to encourage industry to install needed waste treatment facilities.
This may be accomplished by permitting industry, for corporate in-
come tax purposes, to charge the cost of nonproductive waste water •
treatment facilities as an expense.
The members of the Panel I Subcommittee, in addition to the ,
chairman were: the Co-Chairman, Dwight F. Metzler, Kansas State
Board of Health, American Public Health Association, Chairman,
Conference of State Sanitary Engineers; Leland C. Burroughs, Shell
Oil Company; Irving K. Fox, Resources For The Future, Inc.; Seth
Gordon, Conservation Consultant, California State Department of Fish
and Game; Frank Gregg, Izaak Walton League of America, Inc.; Mrs.
E. Lee Ozbirn, General Federation of Women's Clubs; A. J. Steffen,
Wilson & Company, Inc., National Technical Task Committee on
Industrial Wastes; Harry E. Schlenz, President, Pacific Flush Tank
Company, Water and Sewage Works Manufacturers Association; and
Dr. Russell E. Teague, Kentucky State Department of Health,
Association of State and Territorial Health Officers. The subcom-
mittee was assisted by these PHS Resource Personnel: W. E. Gil-
bertson, R. S. Green, J. R. Harlan, and J. H. Svore.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Panel I Report
Mr. SAMSON. I have one question in connection with Mr. Metz-
ler's remarks on Federal installations. I wonder if this panel in its
prodigious labors considered whether or not a Federal installation of
any type should submit the plans and specifications of its disposal of
human and industrial or any other wastes to some other duly con-
stituted and proper governmental authority for approval.
Mr. METZLER. The answer to this question is that we did not con-
sider this specific subject. On the other hand, the first paper in the
series, which was presented in Panel I, recommended that the treat-
ment works at Federal installations meet the same standards being
met by the municipal and industrial facilities in the same general
area. To me this carried the connotation that the Federal installa-
tions submit their plans to the State water pollution control authority
for review to determine that they did a reasonable job of meeting
those standards set for others in the vicinity. It is a very good ques-
tion, Mr. Samson.
Some of you set 1965 as the date for achieving this goal, but we
felt the program could be accelerated and advanced the date to 1964
after considerable discussion. There was a feeling among the dele-
502
-------
gates that 1965 was too far off, and I heard a good deal more sugges-
tions for 1963 than I did for 1965.
Dr. ELDIB. (Dr. I. A. Eldib, Esso Research & Engineering Co.).
I have two points to bring out. I know it is practiced in industry,
at least in the laboratory, that there are certain things you can throw
in the sink and other things you cannot. We have cans sitting on the
side, and one uses his judgment as to whether to use the sink or the re-
ceptacle. I wonder if it is possible to do this on a national, domestic
basis. In other words, people would know that this is the kind of
thing they throw in the sink and this maybe they ought to keep in a
can of some sort and the garbage man comes and picks it up in a tank.
Mr. McCANN. Let me say, Dr. Eldib, we probably had the best
help of any panel that has been charged with any responsibility. We
happen to have the charming president of the American Federation
of Women's Clubs, Mrs. E. Lee Ozbirn, and this will be an item in their
program. She has accepted the challenge of putting over public
awareness of the problem, under which your suggestion would come,
an educational program as to the kind of waste and what to do with it.
Dr. ELDIB. Just one more point. Is it possible to issue little
posters at home similar to what civil defense has distributed, on what
certain signals mean, so that housewives can put the poster close to
the kitchen sink and go down the list so they know the things they
should not throw in the sink?
Mr. McCANN. I think it is very good, and we will call on the
Advertising Council of America to help us in this. That was discussed
in our panel; that they could be of a lot of help to us.
Mr. METZLER. There is a question from C. S. Moore, of E. I. du
Pont de Nemours & Co.: "What attention was given by the panel to
the most important consideration of cost and relative value
between the various areas of pollution abatement?"
I recall that this came up on at least three separate occasions.
One was when Irving Fox made the suggestions which led to recom-
mendation No. 2 of the panel, and, if you will permit me, I will read
that one again:
There is need for a systematic approach to the evaluation of the water pollu-
tion problems, to include health, esthetic, and market values. A framework for
analysis must be developed which will provide a relatively precise understanding
of benefit-cost and which will form the basis for the design of public policies and
programs for effective water quality management.
On the other hand, there was considerable opinion (and perhaps
no precise agreement on the point) that there were some benefits to
clean water which were far above and beyond our ability at the present
time to measure on a cost-benefit basis. This led to the first recom-
583283—61-
503
-------
mendation which I gave for the panel—that we make every effort to
protect and enhance the quality of the water resource by keeping
pollution in all instances at as low a level as practicable.
This question from Prof. E. R. Baumann, Iowa State University:
"What attention was given to recommending a river-basin con-
cept of handling water pollution and water resource problems
with greater coordination of efforts of all organizations interested
in water?"
The river-basin concept of handling problems, I think, was almost
taken for granted in Panel I, although, so I recall, there was no
specific discussion of this particular point. This is a good question,
and I think probably the members of the panel would assume this is
a valid way of handling water pollution and water resource problems.
Subcommittee Report, Panel II
Dr. E. A. Ackerman
The members of Panel II regard their assignment as one of the
more difficult at this Conference. An analysis of pollution control as
a means of increasing water supplies requires a great deal of the infor-
mation and expert knowledge which came forth in panels other than
this. Our panel's question is complex because we not only must
know what the present dangers are, but also what impacts various
types of pollution will have in the future upon the Nation's water
supplies. We must know what the future needs for water will be
for specific purposes, and total demands as they extend into the future.
We must know how pollution control measures are to be handled,
and how they will fit into our legal and administrative systems. This
job of analysis is not one which we have taken lightly.
Participating with us in our panel sessions and deliberations have
been representatives from all major regions of the country. We
have listened to lawyers, legislators, engineers, administrators, geolo-
gists, biologists, and chemists. Included in these have been Federal
Government officials, State government officials, municipal officials,
and men from private industry, private foundations, and trade asso-
ciations. Speaking for the panel subcommittee, I should like to state
its consensus in comments on three broad questions: (1) How much
do we know about water pollution? (2) What can we see for the
future? and (3) In areas where other water needs exist, or may be
reasonably anticipated, what should be done to minimize waste
disposal demands upon water resources?
We already know more about pollution and pollution control than
we put to practical use. As Mr. Powers observed in our session,
there are many water quality intelligence programs in this country.
504
-------
These include those of the U.S. Geological Survey, the newly estab-
lished National Water Quality Network under Public Health Service
supervision, regional projects like the Ohio River Valley Water Sani-
tation Commission, and numerous others of a local information-
gathering nature by private industry and municipalities. Through
these means we have a reasonably broad picture of stream contami-
nation by microbiotic organisms as indicated by the coliform bac-
teria, and much specific knowledge of the inorganic and organic con-
taminants of industrial origin usually found in urban areas or in
densely settled regions.
We have a reasonably good picture of the control of pollution from
natural causes. Indeed, the reduction of sediment in streams, and
the control of undesirable dissolved solids in streams, may offer major
opportunities for water improvement.
Carl B. Brown, of the Soil Conservation Service, stated, ". . . . silt
pollution is a major deterrent to the effective development of the
water resources of most drainage basins in the United States." He
further estimated that annual losses from silt pollution may be on
the order of $350 million a year for the country as a whole. Mr.
Brown also pointed out that substantial amounts of our reservoir
capacity are lost every year from silt or from sedimentation. He
further noted that about two trillion gallons of water must be filtered
annually to remove suspended silt. We know the sources of much
of this sediment, and even the type of erosion which causes it. Within
recent years even metropolitan areas have been adding their increment
to the sediment load of streams, as suburban development has soared.
Yet there are many things which we do not know. According to
Mr. Klassen, for example, adequate analytical methods do not exist to
determine the quantitative presence in water of 400 new substances for
washing clothes, cleaning cars, killing weeds, controlling insects, and
other uses. According to Mr. Klassen and Mr. Cunningham, we need
to accelerate research on viruses and means of their control as an
additional safeguard to potable water supplies. Dr. Cottam pointed
out that we do not even know the total consumption or production of
all pesticides. Mr. Klassen observed that present laboratory methods
for determining water quality compliance are, in most instances, giving
us nothing more than a history of conditions that existed one or more
days previously. Methods are needed to determine what conditions
are at a given moment so that better knowledge of hazards to water
can be ascertained.
Finally, treatment processes presently available for use in urban
waste disposal are less than 90 percent efficient. For that reason,
treated wastes cannot be discharged to receiving streams without
deterioration of quality. Economically feasible "totally complete"
treatment has not been developed yet.
505
-------
If there are gaps in our knowledge of the present, it can be expected
that the gaps are even larger as we look at the future, the contours of
which we need to appraise in answering the questions put to this panel.
Surprisingly, however, we do have some important information in this
respect. Kecent inventories of the relation of water resources to future
demands indicate that on 22 major watersheds of the Nation five will
show a deficiency of supply as compared to projected needs in 1980.
This means that for these five basins there will be a demand for water
which can be produced through the techniques of reuse or pollution
control. Already some such water is in use in these basins. The
greatest prospective deficiency occurs in the Southwestern States and
it is there that quality control to permit water reuse becomes essential
for future economic development. Before the end of the century
three more basins, the Western Gulf, the Upper Arkansas-Red River
Basins and the Western Great Lakes area, are expected also to become
deficient areas. On the other hand most drainage basins east of the
Mississippi and those on the Lower Missouri, the Lower Arkansas-
White-Red, and the Columbia show adequate supplies, with proper
conservation and normal control measures, even at the end of this
century.
This situation does not describe many difficult sub-regional and
local situations. The general outline is such that Mr. Banks stated:
"We have reached the point where any use of water that does not
give optimum economic and social return is wasteful. Maximum use
with minimum quality deterioration must be our goal if we are to so
budget our water expenditures that the available supply will be ade-
quate to meet our growing needs."
Probably for this reason several endorsements of comprehensive
development were made. Descriptions were given of the process of
comprehensive planning as it is now being carried on for the South-
eastern river basins by the U.S. Study Commission, Southeast River
Basins. Such development has progressed systematically within a
few River Basins, like the Columbia, the Colorado, the Central Valley,
and the Missouri. Completed planning studies for comprehensive
development have been made in additional basins as for the New
England-New York basins, and those of the Arkansas-White-Red
River basins. In addition to the Southeastern river basins, studies
are in progress for Texas rivers and in the Delaware basin.
The progress of comprehensive development is of substantial
interest to those interested in pollution control. It is basic to any
knowledge of the extent to which pollution control will be needed as a
source of water. Only through comprehensive planning can we obtain
an estimate of total needs over a reasonable future period. Only
through comprehensive planning can we obtain an intelligent picture
of alternative sources to meet these needs. At least two speakers
506
-------
defined comprehensive development in terms of plans which aim at
the maximum benefits for all purposes. One suggested that this be
in terms of the maximum contribution to Gross National Product.
There is more to comprehensive development as it has been con-
ceived by the speakers than engineering and technical organization.
A legal and administrative structure which will permit the progress of
such development and management is a question requiring serious
attention. Even though comprehensive plans may be proceeding or
have been finished for a number of important river basins, the legal
support necessary to carry out comprehensive water management to
the fullest, needs study and attention. Our legal structure may or
may not be compatible with the needs of comprehensive development.
Thus the concept of water quality rights was introduced by Mr. Banks
as almost certain to be a needed part of the legal structure of the
future. In many of our States we now have water quantity rights,
although not in all, but water quality rights need defining and legis-
lative sanction.
It appears inevitable that as water quality deteriorates and inter-
feres with established uses of water, litigation regarding water quality
will increase in frequency and magnitude. Water quality rights,
therefore, will achieve greater recognition and more precise definition.
In connection with these rights the question of water quality
standards arose. Some speakers stated quite emphatically that no
standards of water use could be applied to the entire country; indeed,
that each community, or each river reach, presents an individual
problem in water quality standards. Others felt that this may be a
somewhat narrow interpretation of water quality criteria. There
are certain standards which can be nationwide, indeed, universal.
Thus, our knowledge of pathogens can tell us what will make people
ill anywhere, and permissible levels of radioactivity will be the same
anywhere. However, there are a number of criteria which can be
of interest only locally or regionally.
Out of these and many other interesting and significant statements
which were made in the course of panel II sessions the subcommittee
has developed a few recommendations which it offers to the Conference.
The panel recommends the following measures to facilitate the con-
trol of pollution in the Nation's streams and underground waters:
1. Comprehensive development
Planning for the comprehensive development of each major basin
or water resource area should be established as a fixed national policy.
By comprehensive development we mean the application of integrated
multiple-purpose design, planning and management which include the
joint consideration of ground and surface waters, systematic conserva-
tion by water users, and the treatment and management of waters
507
-------
having substandard quality. Consideration of every appropriate
technique would be a routine part of planning for such development.
Such planning, insofar as feasible, should include consideration of
all important industrial plant sites. An early and important objective
should be a systematic program of flow regulation. State initiative
toward comprehensive planning should be encouraged, and participa-
tion by all major interests should be encouraged. The objective
should be one of eventually producing maximum total benefits from
all economic and social uses.
2. Reservoir site acquisition
Provision should be made, legally and financially, for the identifica-
tion and acquisition at an early date of reservoir sites needed in the
execution of comprehensive plans. The mounting population, the
spread of settlement, and general intensification of valley land use
otherwise may make many good sites totally unavailable or pro-
hibitively costly.
3. Water quality criteria
Provision should be made within the Public Health Service for
developing the water quality criteria which are suited to application
on a national basis. However, many water quality criteria are not
uniformly applicable because of the effects of area usage differences,
stream characteristics and other factors. State and local determina-
tions of some criteria also will have to be made. It is recognized that
periodic revision of these criteria not only will be in order, but should
be sought, as new data are made available.
4. Water quality monitoring
Enlargement and extension should be made of the water quality
monitoring programs now in effect, so as to reveal more adequately
conditions, existing and future, in rivers and streams. We believe
that the protection of the public health and the preservation of water
supply sources for accepted beneficial uses require such extension and
enlargement.
5. A national credo
We recommend the adoption of a national credo, to be given as
wide and consistent publicity as is feasible. The content of the credo
would be—
(a) Users of water do not have an inherent right to pollute; (&) users
of public waters have a responsibility for returning them as nearly as
clean as is technically possible; and (c) prevention is just as important
as control of pollution.
6. Basic research
It should be regarded as an obligation on the part of industry to
undertake basic research which will determine the biotic and other
508
-------
effects influencing the public welfare of the products they distribute.
This should apply to detergents, insecticides, pesticides, herbicides,
fertilizers and other microchemicals and microbiologicals, and to the
effects of metallic wastes such as compounds of chromium and cyanide.
Where the effects of these or other health hazards or potential public
nuisances are not adequately treated within industry, the Federal
Government or the States must provide for and budget such research.
Additional research of peculiarly public responsibility includes the effect
and interpretation of reducing anaerobes, nitrifying bacteria, viruses,
protozoa and other biota, and radiation hazards.
7. Sediment and salinity control
The value of soil conservation, sediment control, and salinity con-
trol as pollution abatement measures should be recognized through
planning and budget in our National, State, and local resource devel-
opment programs. They should be considered as tools to be applied
in water development and management. Pollution abatement is a
problem with roots in rural land use and agronomy, as well as in urban
congestion and industrial growth.
This ends the recommendations and the report of the committee,
but, in closing, I should like to commend a few words to your atten-
tion which cannot have the approval of any committee as yet. The
reason is that I thought of them this morning. I felt I should like to
say them, if the chairman will permit me. And I present them on
my own. They are comments of two different sorts. The first re-
lates to the use of the word "budget," which appears in our recom-
mendations. This may seem to call for appropriation increases and,
indeed, it often does, as has just been noted for research. This is one
very valid area for appropriation increases, where there are new things
for which we have not as yet any means.
But there is another side to this word "budget," that should always
be kept in mind. Whenever any budgetary increase is suggested or
asked for in a public program, I believe that the recipient agency or
agencies have an obligation to think about efficiency—not only to
think about, but reconsider efficiency—in its operations. Because of
the many and mounting obligations which this Nation has, and, even
more, will have, there will be special need of this in the future if we
are to do the job that will face us.
The other comment is of a somewhat more philosophical nature.
A few days ago I read a few words which tell the thought of a famous
statesman and a national leader of the present day. Perhaps these
words might apply to that recommendation which I submitted on
the national credo, and I quote him—
Can you imagine a good life which does not have an artistic and esthetic ele-
ment in it, and a moral element in it? That would not be a good life. It would
be some temporary phase of existence which would be rather dry and harsh.
509
-------
I would say there is both an esthetic element and a moral element
in pollution control. And I think we need to consider it, as we go
about our business in presenting this to the Nation, because I feel
we need to prove our interest before the eyes of the world in non-
material as well as in material things.
This may not be an original thought, but I think it is one that
bears consideration every day in our lives, as they are very much *
interconnected with the rest of the world in the future.
I personally happen to believe that a discordant environment is
not conducive to peace in a man's soul. And pollution certainly con-
tributes, I think, to what I should call a discordant environment. I
do not feel that we as a nation or as individuals can be what we want
to be, that is, efficient, productive, and humane, if we are not at peace
in our souls. So here, in addition to the many technical things, we
in this Conference are talking about some very fundamental things in
American life, and I think we should let other Americans know it.
The members of the Panel II Subcommittee, in addition to the chair-
man were: Co-Chairman, Ray E. Lawrence, Partner, Black & Veatch,
Consulting Engineers and President, Water Pollution Control Fed-
eration; L. W. Cadwallader, Potomac Electric Power Co. and Edison
Electric Institute; Louis Clapper, National Wildlife Federation;
Morrison B. Cunningham, Oklahoma City Water Department and
American Water Works Association; Roger Hale, Conservation
Foundation; Page L. Ingraham, Council of State Governments;
H. Wayne Pritchard, Soil Conservation Society of America; David F.
Smallhorst, Texas State Department of Health and State and Inter-
state Water Pollution Control Administrators; and Gordon K.
Zimmerman, National Association of Soil Conservation Districts.
The subcommittee was assisted by these PHS Resource Personnel:
K. S. Krause, W. W. Towne, and L. F. Warrick.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Panel II Report
Mr. LAWRENCE. This question was asked by Charles P. Beazley,
and is addressed to Dr. Cottam: "Why not establish a pesticide con-
trol commission composed of representatives of the Public Health
Service, Agricultural Research Service, and Food and Drug Ad-
ministration to police pesticide pollution?"
Dr. COTTAM. I am in sympathy with the objectives of the person
who asked that question. I share his feeling that there is need of a
better degree of coordination in the use of pesticides than we have yet
510
-------
experienced. I think we are a long way from having the type of
coordination that is needed. In my personal opinion, that cannot be
supplied by another commission. The authority of law must precede
this. If there were a commission, I would assume it would be under
the direction of the President. I feel the great need is for a national
declaration of policy by the Congress on the use of pesticides. If we
had that kind of thing, I believe then there could be the effective
vehicle we desire. The departments of our Federal Government
already have every opportunity of a coordinated approach if they
want to take it. Coordination now exists on paper, but it is ineffec-
tive and all authority seems to rest solely with those broadcasting
poisons. I think if there was a declaration of policy by the Congress,
we would be more likely to see some degree of coordination brought
about.
When you deal with these poisons that have recently been developed
(I cite one case, endrin, as an illustration), the situation is serious.
That poison is so toxic that six-tenths of one part per billion will kill
one-half the fish (bluegills) in a pool in 96 hours, as shown from
laboratory experiments.
To put it in terms that the audience can understand, five-thou-
sandths of 1 pound is sufficient to kill one-half of the fish in 3 acres of
water 1 foot deep.
When you are dealing with things as toxic and as dangerous to
human health as well as to our natural renewable resources, as this
type of chemical, and it is left to the determination of the pest control
operator to spread it willynilly as he wishes over the countryside—and
they are doing it in tremendous quantities by airplane and by ground
equipment—I think it is perfectly obvious that there are dangers to
public health.
We have reached the point, because of the high toxicity of some of
these substances and the dangers involved where we need a national
declaration of policy by the Congress of the United States on safe
standards for their use. There would then be need of a coordination
committee among the different Departments. As I remember, the
proposed statement called for Agriculture, Public Health, and Food
and Drug Administration. I believe the Fish and Wildlife Service
should be included also or someone to represent the fish and wildlife
resources of the Nation.
As evidence of the need of this from last June through September,
the Public Health Service conducted, with the cooperation of the State
health departments and the fish and game departments of the several
States, and the water pollution control commissions of the several
States, a survey of the fish kills in the various States, not only be-
cause of the importance of fish kills as an economic resource, but as
evidence of serious stream pollution.
511
-------
If I remember the figures, there were 28 States which did take the
time to report in the 4 months and others are coming in. Of the data
I have read concerning the 28 States, there were more than 200 rather
serious fish kills, and in one case more than 5 million fish were killed.
Some of those were complete kills in several miles of river or stream
and some of the commonly used pesticides were responsible. Endrin
was one of the principal sources of contamination. When it is as
widespread as that, I think the implications go much further than the
renewable resource, as important as that is.
I believe we need a declaration of policy by the Congress, and I do
not believe this will be resolved until we get a frank and clear definition
of policy as we have at the present time in just a few States. The
control agency of the Department of Agriculture can have all the
advice from the fisheries and wildlife people they wish. Then they
can take it or leave it and they usually leave it. They seem to have
full authority to go and spread the poison in any quantity they want,
and they have done it, and are doing it.
Mr. BEAZLEY (Charles P. Beazley, Applied Science Laboratories).
That was my question that you just read. I agree with the good
doctor's premise about Fish and Wildlife having a representative on
the Committee, and I think we ought to have a very firm and very
positive national policy like we have with regard to food and drug
consumption; but why not have some organization that can prohibit
the use of Endrin right now or next month, and get rid of some of
these bad pollutants and pesticides that are destroying the fish and
wildlife?
Twenty years ago we didn't have all these substances and we
managed to live. We can do it again if we can get some organization
like the Food and Drug, which is doing a terrific job in keeping poisons
off the market and controlling their abuse.
Mr. LAWRENCE. The next question is submitted by Mr. Francis
Silver. It is in the same general area of interest. It is a question
addressed to Dr. Dean. "In the discussion last afternoon you
stated that the public had decided that they preferred pesticide
residues in their apples to tcorms. I was under the impression
that this was a bureaucratic decision in the Food and Drug Ad-
ministration which interprets insect fragments and excreta as
'filth' under the 'no filth' clause of the Food and Drug Act. Can
you tell us on what you base your opinion that the public was
ever given the opportunity either at the market place or through
legal channels to decide between worms and pesticide residues
in food and water?"
I think the real comment on the part of Dr. Dean yesterday was
the fact that it was important, of course, that we keep worms out of
512
-------
the apples. I don't think he had in mind that we were consuming
the pesticide residue. But I am not capable or qualified to comment
on this question. Since Dr. Dean is not present we will proceed with
the next question.
The next question is submitted by Everett L. Maynard, and it is
in two parts. I will ask Gene Weber to answer the first part and
I will ask Mr. Brown or Mr. Zimmerman to answer the second part.
I shall read part 1.
"What is the feeling toward a type of zoning to prevent build-
ing, etc., too near a stream which results in silting and other
pollution to a water supply?"
Mr. WEBER (Eugene W. Weber, Special Assistant to the Director
of Civil Works, Office of the Chief of Engineers, Department of the
Army, Washington, D.C.). I am not the best qualified person to try
to comment on that question, Mr. Chairman. I am one who believes
we cou'd benefit from proper planning—that is zoning which would
prevent silting and zoning which would prevent misuse of lands that
contribute to pollution. I think this particular point on zoning is
one which should be considered by particular State and local
authorities which have that responsibility now.
Mr. LAWRENCE. Let me ask you to comment on part 2 of this
question.
"Should we consider leaving as much of our restricted water-
shed in natural vegetation?"
I think there may be a word missing there, but I think the questioner
would like to know if we should set aside and restrict substantial
portions of the watersheds to natural vegetation.
Mr. WEBER. I will go out on a limb on this one and say that I
think it unlikely this would be the best solution in many instances.
In my opinion we should find out the best use for all our lands and
plan that use in such a way so that all the needs for the use of the
land and the water resources could also be accommodated. I stress
the word "use" rather than lack of use.
Mr. BROWN. I will take the liberty of commenting also on the first
part of the question. I would interpret the question phrased in terms
of zoning of construction to really cover the situation of finding some
means by which the construction activities so prevalent in our metro-
politan areas could be brought under building regulation controls, so
that the production of silt would not be so great as it is today. One
of the problems that has arisen, particularly since World War II,
has been that of clearing off vast tracts of land, often of several
hundred acres, for the construction of large housing developments,
by completely clean'ng off the entire landscape. This practice did
not generally exist prior to the war. We believe this practice is, in
513
-------
part, fostered by existing local building regulations and possibly by
requirements of FHA and other organizations. We believe this prob-
em seriously needs looking into as a means of controlling silt pollu-
tion coming from construction erosion which, as I pointed out in my
paper yesterday, is some three to six times as great as that which
occurs normally on agricultural land.
In responding to the second part of this question, the position of
the Department of Agriculture has been to foster the multiple use
of watersheds. I might mention that at the last session the Congress
enacted what is known as the multiple-use act of 1960 (Public Law
86-517), which expresses the position of the Department that land
in a watershed should be used in accordance with its capability for
multiple objectives.
We believe that land which has a type of condition that dictates
it should be in permanent cover should remain in permanent cover,
such as forests. That land which is capable of other uses in addition
should be used with the needed conservation practices applied to it.
Mr. MOORE. May I comment on that. I have a specific suggestion
which might be particularly interesting to the group.
At the recent Brandywine Valley Association annual meeting, at
Longwood Gardens, Pa., a proposal was offered for our particular
consideration by William Whyte, Jr. It is in use in California and
concerns the procurement by suitable individuals or local authorities
of easements for the preservation of the land in a particular fashion.
He proposed that the land adjoining the Brandywine Creek be
purchased by the use of the easement procedure so it would remain
in the existing use or under-controlled use. This easement would be
continued through the life of the property. Property would be used
as it is now being used or improved as needed, so that there would
be no encroachment or development, either by industry or by urban-
ization, and that the quality of the water as well as the scenic values
would be maintained. I am sure that this facility or legal mecha-
nism could be applied in instances described or brought out by this
particular question. These easements would be obtained and held
by the community. The people, as an incentive to sell easements of
this character, would be given concessions in the area of taxation and
the evaluation used on their property.
Mr. LAWRENCE. The next question is from Roland C. Clement,
National Audubon Society: "Did Panel II agree with Panel I in rec-
ommending quality controls as high as practicable rather than
emphasizing the loading capacity of streams?"
I can answer that by quoting from the recommendations from panel I.
We recommend that the Conference express its conviction that the goal of
pollution abatement is to protect and enhance the capacity of the water resources
514
-------
to serve the widest possible range of human needs, and that this goal can be ap-
proached only by accepting the positive policy of keeping waters as clean as possi-
ble, as opposed to the negative policy of attempting to use the full capacity of
water for waste assimilation.
I would say the discussions and the deliberations of panel II were
in substantial agreement with those which I have just read, although
perhaps not in the same language.
The next request is from D. W. Cannon, of the National Association
of Manufacturers, who would like to make a statement.
Mr. CANNON (D. W. Cannon, National Association of Manufac-
turers). I tried to write down as best I could what the recommenda-
tions of the panel subcommittee were but I may not have all the
words exactly correct. I find some disturbing implications in some
of the language used, and I would like to raise some questions con-
cerning them. 1 believe I speak for others in not being in agreement
with everything that was contained in those recommendations.
The first recommendation on planning for comprehensive river-
basin development as a fixed national policy seemed to include heavy
emphasis on multipurpose development, whereas I am not always
sure that the big multipurpose dam is always the best approach to
some of our soil and water conservation problems. In many in-
stances the sound approach for watershed development is through
such upstream measures as proper land treatment and water retarda-
tion, in order to conserve both soil and water and eliminate floods.
So advocating this as fixed national policy, which seems to advocate it
as a uniform solution to all problems all over the country, I think, is
somewhat questionable.
.Also, there appeared to be included some reference to the industrial
plant site locations, and I don't wish to introduce a discordant environ-
ment, but if this seems to endorse the idea of governmental dictation of
industrial plant site locations, I heartily disagree with that approach
and I think others would, too.
I also think that there are some dangers in the recommendations on
the water quality criteria. There seemed to me to be undue emphasis
on the Federal approach of formulating nationally applicable criteria,
and even though there was some encouragement given to some formu-
lation by States and localities of local criteria, it seems to me that this
overlooks the varied conditions that must be confronted in all the
various areas and regions of the country and the complexity of the
problems that vary so much from one area to another.
I also have some question about the language contained in the
recommended national credo. I believe it contains the phrase "as
nearly clean as is technically possible." And I particularly wonder
about that in connection with the financial burden that this may
impose upon the municipalities of the country. I am wondering if
this is meant to suggest a requirement that municipalities may be
515
-------
required to up their B.O.D. removal from 85 to 90 percent to 95 or 99
percent, or just what is this technical perfection to which the munici-
palities will be required to comply, apparently regardless of cost to
the local taxpayers? As I understand, these are the recommendations
of the panel subcommittee, and I wish for the record to show that
they are not unanimously acceptable to all of us.
Dr. ACKERMAN. I think this does call for a comment on my part
in defense of the subcommittee. Perhaps we were not clear enough hi
our language, and if we weren't, you will have to excuse us for it.
Mr. Cannon has put an extreme interpretation on these things which
we did not intend. I should be extremely sorry to have them stand
as stated since they infer a point of view on our part that we did not
have.
As far as multiple projects are concerned, there is something more
to multiple-purpose planning than simply the big barriers or dams
that are known as the multiple-purpose projects. True multiple-
purpose planning, as we shall see it in the future, involves the con-
sideration of all purposes for an entire watershed or basin. It in no
way eliminates single-purpose projects or upstream approaches,
but it does recommend a balanced consideration of the situation.
If Mr. Cannon was suggesting that we abandon our ideas for plans
for multiple-purpose, major structures in the lower reaches of the
stream, that is especially undesirable.
Another point of view which we did not have, is implied in the
remark about Government dictation of industrial plant sites. Again,
this was not our intention. I should be very pleased if Mr. Cad-
wallader would speak on this since he is an industry man, and he
originally suggested it in our subcommittee. We may not have
stated this exactly as he wanted it. I am sorry that he is not in
the room. He would give an interesting industry point of view
which would show no fear of Federal Government dictation in this
field. Nor does the subcommittee want it. Yet it is important
that all of us—Federal Government, State, municipality, private
industry—get together and do some planning or at least thinking
as to where industry may be in the future, and provide for it, because
in the end it is going to be cheaper for industry and cheaper for the
municipality.
Now, on the matter of nationally applicable criteria, there is a
question of emphasis and balance again. I have no doubt (but I am
not in a position to know exactly) that perhaps most of these criteria
may be matters for local or State consideration. There are some, as
I tried to make clear in the report for the subcommittee, which are
universally applicable. If you wish to insist that levels of radio-
activity or questions of bacteria and health are not of national scope,
members of my panel and I would wish to argue with you on that score.
516
-------
On the credo, it asks that water be returned as nearly as clean
as is technically possible. What is technically possible? Perhaps
we should have the idea of economic feasibility in there, too. We
did our report late at night and in a short time, and perhaps there
was an error of statement that we did not intend. Certainly no
reasonable person (and I would like to think that we are all reasonable
on this) would insist on technical perfection at great expense to any
community or to the Nation. The ideal is to do what we know
technically we are able to do. The major question comes on what
we are able to do. It would involve more discussion than we have
time for here to answer that question.
Mr. LAWRENCE. This question was asked by Eichard Smith,
U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Again I am asking Dr. Ackerman to
comment, because it does relate to our recommendation No. 2,
which I shall read.
"Who should make provision to reserve sites for water storage in
view of ihe recommendation No. 1 that calls for basin planning
and State leadership?"
Dr. ACKERMAN. I think a somewhat similar answer applies to
this that I have used in relation to the other questions and comments.
In fact, I would say that it needs more study than a panel such as ours
was able to give it in the time we had. Obviously, there is a Federal
Government interest as long as there is a Federal program of the
extent and with the objectives of the Federal programs that we have.
In addition, I think there are State interests in this and, as I under-
stand it, there is even one State which is going ahead at the present
time in the acquisition of such sites. Pennsylvania is reported to have
a program of site acquisition. Other States like California also have
programs for land acquisition for public works or for other purposes
looking to the future.
In addition, private industry is concerned insofar as utilities are
interested in sites, too. Again here it is not one or the other, but
reasonable selection among alternatives.
Mr. SCHLENZ. There has been a request by someone to have an
indication of the number of registrants at this Conference. The num-
ber of registrants now is 1,145—which is remarkable considering the
difficulties of transportation due to the snow.
In closing this morning's session, we should give a rising thanks to
the subcommittee chairmen, and their working subcommittees for
their fine and complete summary reports. Also, appreciation should
go to those in the audience who have participated in the floor discus-
sions and have asked questions which have added to our knowledge
on this subject.
517
-------
Subcommittee Report, Panel IV
Dr. Gordon M. Fair
The awareness of American public authorities to water pollution
reaches back no more than the Biblical span of man's life. Then,
toward the end of the 19th century, as today also, it was the growing
urbanization and industrialization of the Nation that forced the atten-
tion of the public to the need "for protecting the purity of inland
waters." Then, as today again, it was recognized that the problems
of water pollution were so complex, so varied, and so many that exist-
ing knowledge was not enough for their solution, that existing knowl-
edge would have to be expanded in pace with the quickening water
requirements of the country, and that only by the synthesis of a great
variety of subjects "requiring for its achievement the organic cooper-
ation of specialists under inspiring leadership," would satisfactory
progress be attained. Then, as today, therefore, it was realized that
investigators were wanted to carry on the necessary research, that
money and facilities were essential to the success of a research program,
and that men were wanted, too, for leadership in reducing the dis-
coveries of the laboratory to practice.
First, the State and, later, the Federal Government were asked to
conduct fundamental and applied research in laboratory and field on
the relation of water pollution to the development of water resources
for municipal and industrial uses, and on the sanitation of water
supplies for the prevention of enteric disease.
The achievements of the generation that accepted that challenge
were magnificent; so great were they, indeed, that by the end of the
first third of the 20th century, the machinery of public water control
could settle down in to the grooves of, more or less, complacent routine.
Then came the "great leap forward" in population, and in science and
industry. Faster than seemed believable, the industrial revolution of
our age intensified the competition for water and, at the same time,
its degradation by ever-growing and ever-varying pollutants, ranging
from thermal factors through inorganic substances to organics of such
construction that they cannot be metabolized by the scavenging hosts
of micro organisms.
Parenthetically, it is these biological workmen to which we look for
returning our lakes, streams, and tidal estuaries to natural cleanliness
by themselves, or for removing even the most fractious substances
committed to water by household or factory, in treatment works con-
structed so as to provide the most favorable environment for the
operations of these beneficent microorganisms.
Once again, therefore, we are confronted by great changes; changes
that demand of us the concurrent creation in adequate numbers of
specialists and leaders and stimulation of research, that through
518
-------
analysis, synthesis, and reduction to practice will develop the techno-
logical support of pollution control that is promising of success today.
To provide the sophistication necessary for a successful discussion of
resources, research, and training for water pollution control in our
times, the roster of specialists that was attached to Panel IV included
not only engineers, but biologists and chemists, physiologists and toxi-
cologists and economists and political scientists and, according to
Dr. Gilbert White, we may have missed the boat by not including
geographers and anthropologists—not only figures from universities
and Government agencies, but also leaders in industry and men of
affairs.
It follows that a very wide spectrum of talent considered the prob-
lems that we face in research and training for water pollution control
and brings its report to this meeting.
The outlook for research is most promising because there has been
a revolution in science as well as a scientific revolution. To draw a
distinction between these two concepts that, otherwise, would seem
to be identical, it should be explained that the scientific revolution
has brought us new products and capabilities that are changing our
mode of life and our environment, whereas the revolution in science is
unifying the scientific disciplines and making it possible for scientists
to understand one another's problems and to cooperate in their
solution in radically new ways.
A striking example of the scientific revolution, as Prof. A. E.
Kennelly, whose name is attached to the Kennelly-Heaviside layer,
now generally called the ionosphere, used to suggest, is the fact that
we can send a message around the globe in the time it took for the
cry "land ahead" of the lookout on Columbus' ship the Pinta to
reach the helmsman's ear.
To exemplify the revolution in science, we need merely to attempt
to define the boundaries between the formerly well established com-
partments of science, labeled physics, chemistry, and biology. Today
we find it largely impossible to answer a question such as "Where does
physics stop and chemical physics begin?" Or, to continue, where
shall we draw the line between chemical physics and physical chemis-
try; between physical chemistry and chemistry; between chemistry
and biological chemistry; between biological chemistry and chemical
biology; between chemical biology and biology; between biology and
physical biology; between physical biology and biological physics; and,
to come full circle, between biological physics and physics?
The destruction of the barriers between the sciences, not by inter-
disciplinary or cross-disciplinary cooperation, but by the fusion of the
disciplines themselves is illustrated by the report that a Nobel Prize
winner in physics plans to direct his future work into biology. Such
indeed is the nature of the revolution that is taking place in science
itself. In a sense, therefore, we have become, as a group, like medieval
583283—61 34 519
-------
man who as a natural philosopher aimed at the mastery of all human
knowledge.
Because of this great change in science, we can look forward with
assurance to the solution of almost any problem. Among our least
realized capabilities, it should be noted, is the utilization of developing
mathematical concepts. Whereas the time lag between the discovery
of scientific principles and their utilization has been narrowed pro-
gressively, the backlog of mathematical ideas has continued to mount.
The promise of progress, therefore, remains great.
But let me turn to the specific report of the findings and recom-
mendations of panel IV.
The panel, as you will see from the report itself, brings in certain
recommendations and supports these by certain factual material.
Our first recommendation is related to the flow of engineers and
scientists.
1. The flow of engineers and scientists who are competent to ad-
vance and administer the scientific, technological, and economic con-
servation of our water resources, including, in particular, the control
of water pollution, must be increased promptly by recruitment and
training of basically qualified personnel at two levels: (a) the pro-
fessional or predoctorate level; and (&) the postdoctorate level.
Now, the reasons for this are that we do not have enough engineers.
We do not have enough men in the chemical, physical and biological
sciences to deal with the problems that we face. We must reach over into
already established scientific disciplines and entice individuals to come
over into our field; very much as Dr. Glazer is being enticed by his own
interests into the field of biology, we need to bring people from chemistry
and biology and the social sciences and mathematics into our particular
area.
There are about 5,500 practicing sanitary engineers of whom about
two-thirds (3,700) are engaged in the development and control of water
resources. It is estimated that about 280 newly trained men are needed
yearly to maintain present strength. This estimate is based on an as-
sumed five percent loss per annum by retirement, death, or defection.
About 100 additional men are needed annually to keep pace with the
requirements of population growth, and 350 are wanted as soon as possible
to ensure the accomplishment of urgently required technological advances.
This implies doubling the professional population in 12 years and doing
this in the face of growing competition for prospective scientific talent.
Work in this field demands, for the most part, training to the masters
and doctorate levels. The current annual output of sanitary engineers
is about SOO, of whom only about ISO have earned a master's degree and
fewer than 10 a doctorate. About 25 percent of these advanced students
are trainees from foreign countries, leaving about 100 with significant
education in depth for employment in the sanitary engineering fields in
the United States. Obviously, this is too jew even for current operations.
520
-------
The universities of the Nation award 60,000 master's degrees per
year. Of these, 5,400 are in engineering and 17,000 in the physical
and biological sciences. Sanitary engineering is losing out badly in
competition for professional talent, therefore. At the doctorate level
the situation is even more disturbing. Of the 800-odd doctorates awarded
annually in science and engineering, less than 10 percent have been in
sanitary engineering.
Data are lacking on the existing numbers of qualified chemists, bi-
ologists, economists, and political scientists in the area of water resource
development and conservation. However, both quantitative and qualita-
tive estimates point to deficiencies that are at least proportional to, if not
greater than, those in the engineering group.
The manpower needs for research are particularly acute. If research
is expanded to an estimated requirement of $20 million by 1970 and if
$20,000 will sustain one investigator for one year, about 1,000 investi-
gators will have to work in this field. If 40 percent of these are to be
engineers and 60 percent basic scientists, educational institutions will
have to produce 400 sanitary engineers and 600 basic scientists with
academic training that qualifies them for research. The current output
of only 6 to 10 doctorates in all branches of sanitary engineering is far
short of meeting the need, and the competition for basic scientists is so
great that a determined effort must be made to recruit needed numbers of
research leaders in the respective fields related to water quality control.
2. The capability of graduate schools or university departments of
engineering and public health to produce a sufficient number of
engineers and scientists who are able to deal effectively with the mount-
ing problems of water resource control must be enlarged by support
of staff, student body, and teaching and research facilities, as well as
by grants-in-aid of research. Interdisciplinary research should be
encouraged in particular. Because the use of personnel and the
application of research lie in the public domain, the Federal Govern-
ment must be expected to assume a substantial portion of the required
financial burden.
A solid look at our graduate schools shows that they are not too well
prepared for such a load. The capacity of 45 schools surveyed at different
times including a series of direct interviews at 23 institutions show the
following: 68 schools report the availability of graduate training in sani-
tary engineering. Of these, 36 offer training beyond the M.S. degree.
Only 15 ham averaged 3 or more M.S. and Ph. D. degrees per year since
1954. An additional 17 have averaged at least 1 but less than 3 per year.
Eighteen of the schools have not granted any such degrees during this
entire period. This is neither a balanced nor an efficient organization
in a nationally vital area.
The following deficiencies in capacity for research and training are
estimated to exist:
521
-------
(a) A 88-percent increase in teaching staff, and operation at
optimum level of enrollment, will provide less than half the expected
annual requirements for personnel training at the graduate level.
(b) The expectations of an increased requirement of nearly twice
the present research activity is dependent upon acquiring both the
added personnel for teaching and the full-time research staff, or a
total staff of 144-
(c) To provide the desired capacity for training and research will
necessitate the addition of nearly 500 qualified persons for teaching
and research.
Corresponding increases in research funds and facilities are required
to sustain needed investigators and to provide them with technical support
and equipment. Only a small fraction of the Public Health Service funds
devoted to medical research is going into research for water supply and
water pollution control—currently less than 1 percent. A committee of
Congress has estimated that the national support of needed research could
and should increase to about $3 billion by 1970, and that the Federal Gov-
ernment should expect to contribute about two-thirds of this amount. If
we apply the same growth factor to research in water supply and water
pollution control, we arrive at a national research budget of about $15
million, a major part of which would have to be financed by the Federal
Government.
3. The flow of research findings on the water environment must be
increased and intensified in depth as well as breadth.
Fundamental research is needed in many aspects of water pollution
control including determination of the limits to which receiving bodies
of water and biological as well as other treatment units can be safely
loaded for the disposal of increasingly complex waste materials; identifi-
cation of the role of water as a carrier of viral diseases, such as infectious
hepatitis; and studies of long-range chronic effects of trace contaminants
in water.
We need to increase our research effort on the behavior and fate of
newly introduced organic contaminants; and newly recognized viruses.
We need to develop more effective means of removing pollutants from
water in municipal and industrial water treatment plants; more effec-
tive process controls of industrial waste discharges; better recovery or
utilization of industrial process wastes; and more sophisticated industrial
waste treatment processes.
Water supvly and pollution trends show that one of the most pressing
problems in water quality management is the development of new treat-
ment processes that will remove more of the contamination from municiapl
waste waters than present methods are able to do. Currently, large quan-
tities of water must be made available to dilute and transport the residual
wastes after treatment. When this water is not available, serious pollu-
tion hazards may result.
522
-------
To discover and develop the required technologies will demand a, major
coordinated research program utilizing the best minds in the country and
attracting physicists; physical, organic and biochemists; toxicologists;
hydrologists; economists; geographers, and anthropologists who have not
up to now been seriously engaged in water pollution research.
4. The flow of treatment-plant operating personnel as well as
engineers and scientists working the wider field of water-supply and
water pollution control must be increased and their training broadened.
Two types of training are generally available: First, in-plant training
oj operating personnel jor water and waste-water treatment works. This
should be a requirement of all municipal sewage treatment works, par-
ticularly oj those benefiting from Federal aid. Second, academic training
of such personnel. This is available largely through short-course pro-
grams and conferences in universities and colleges. This training is
most desirable. However, the means and resources are quite limited in
comparison with the number of technicians that will be required within
the next 15 years for pollution control purposes.
5. The field of water supply and pollution control has become so
complex that we must think more generally than in the past, of a
multi-disciplinary approach to the solution of developing problems.
This implies the introduction of representatives of many disciplines
including economists and political scientists, as well as applied mathe-
maticians and physicists to this field and the creation of requisite
institutes or centers for environmental health research at which needed
personnel can be brought together.
Rapid changes and increasing complexity characterize our social
and industrial growth. Research for the solution of today's problems
calls for the group attention of scientists from the physical and bio-
logical sciences, sanitary engineering, applied mathematics and physics,
and economics and political science. The making of headway is ham-
pered by lack of communication with representatives oft hese areas.
Unless a challenging program can be developed to encourage increased
multi-disciplinary attention to research in this area, we must be appre-
hensive of our ability to cope with environmental health problems that
the technological advancements of the next several decades promise to
bring.
Sample problems are: Operations research or systems analysis oj
water resources developments including water quality control; inte-
gration of water purification and waste-treatment processes for max-
imum efficiency and economy; instrumentation jor in situ, wide-scale,
and longitudinal identification oj pollution hazards and their control
or prevention; automation of sampling and analysis of data; automatic
computer control oj treatment operations and warning systems jor special
hazards; and advanced methods oj separation or destruction oj solids in
wnter, There are many others of like complexity and challenge that can
523
-------
be envisaged as lying before both in the immediate and more distant
future.
6. The total national support for research in water supply and water
pollution control should be increased substantially.
In research, funds and facilities are needed to sustain investigators
and to provide them vrith technical support and equipment. Only a
small fraction of the Public Health Service funds devoted to medical re-
search is being applied to research in water supply and water pollution
control—currently less than 1 percent. A committee of Congress has
estimated that the national support of needed research in all fields of
science and engineering could and should increase to about $3 billion by
1970, and that the Federal Government should expect to contribute about
two-thirds of this amount. If we apply the same growth factor to water
supply and pollution control, we arrive at a national research budget of
about $15 million, a major part of which would have to be provided by
by the Federal Government.
The members of the Panel IV Subcommittee, in addition to the chair-
man were: the Co-Chairman, Dr. Charles A. Bishop, U.S. Steel Corpo-
ration; Dr. John C. Geyer, the Johns Hopkins University; Dr. Richard
D. Hoak, Mellon Institute and Engineers Joint Council; and Felix E.
Wormser, Chamber of Commerce of the United States. The sub-
committee was assisted by these PHS Resource Personnel: B. B.
Berger, and H. A, Faber.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Panel IV Report
Dr. BORUFF (technical director, Hiram Walker & Sons, Inc.,
Peoria, 111.). In Panel IV one of the speakers proposed, as an alter-
native to the Public Health Service establishing four regional labora-
tories for monitoring and applied research work, that this work can
be placed at well-selected universities where the work could be done,
and would also encourage the points that you have brought out in the
report. Three of the members of the Advisory Board here on the
front row would just like to see this included in your report in order
that it may be given*consideration.
Dr. FAIR. Thank you very much. We shall see that this point is
included in the record.
This recommendation, incidentally, calls to my mind the excellent
organization that has been developed in England to solve problems
such as face us now. There, much of this work (practically all of it,
as a matter of fact) is carried on by the Department of Scientific and
Industrial Research through scientists and engineers which this
Department recruits to itself. The scientists may be attached to the
universities or research institutions. In this way, the individuals
524
-------
have tenure and job security and do not become dependent upon the
individual university or research undertaking to which they are
assigned. There is continuity also in scientific progress. Researchers
can progress from one kind of work to another. This is a happy
arrangement through which the talents of the country can be mustered
to very best effect.
To a certain extent, this response of mine, quite subconsciously,
is a partial answer also to a question by Dr. L. H. Flett in which he
asks; "Has adequate consideration been given to using scientific
advances being made in Western Europe to conserve manpower
here? Can we have greater cooperation?"
More specifically, we do have the literature from Western Europe
to consult and we do use the information that is prepared there.
Greater cooperation is most desirable. This is being accomplished
in various ways. For example, the Water Pollution Control Federa-
tion is not merely an American national federation, it is a worldwide
federation. There is intimate exchange of ideas and information
within this particular organization.
A question has been addressed to me and other panel members by
Mr. Francis Silver, environmental consultant, as follows: "What
methods are being used or developed to coordinate the toxic
burden placed on humans from polluted water with toxic burden
from other sources (food, air, drugs), so that the index of total
actual toxicity, including synergistic effects, is monitored and
not just isolated (however numerous) contaminants, or con-
tamination from a single source?"
This is a matter that is of deep concern to public health authorities
in connection with mounting exposure to hazardous radiations. Our
dentists insist on an X-ray diagnosis. The Commonwealth of Mas-
sachusetts demands that teachers be declared free from tuberculosis.
That requires a chest X-ray every 3 years. Occasionally we need
to be X-rajred for medical diagnostic purposes. The question is:
How much of a dose do we receive in the course of a year and in the
course of a lifetime? It has been suggested that we wear the necessary
badges or carry a card on which exposures are noted. That, however,
hardly seems practical. One is reminded too much of big brother
watching us in 1984 and such, having received so many roentgens up
to this particular time.
Dr. GEYER. In connection with this question, it might be interest-
ing to some of those here that in September, under the sponsorship
of the Environmental Sciences and Engineering Study Section of the
National Institutes of Health, a conference on physiological aspects
of water quality was held. The complete proceedings and discussion
of this conference are in preparation, should be published in January
of next year, and some of the matters implied in this question just
525
-------
asked will be discussed in all their ramifications in papers appearing
in these proceedings.
Dr. FAIR. F. B. Elder, American Public Health Association,
asks the following question: "Was any special consideration given
to the gathering of information relating to research that origi-
nates in other countries, particularly Iron Curtain countries?
Was there any discussion of recruitment to undergraduate en-
gineering and sciences related to water pollution control re-
search?"
We know that the Federal Government is obtaining all possible
published information from the Iron Curtain countries. This is
merely a question of bibliographical research that any person would
normally undertake.
So far as recruitment to undergraduate engineering and sciences is
concerned in connection with water pollution control, we realize that
we shall probably accomplish very little by trying to interest high
school students in this field. The area of knowledge is a very sophis-
ticated one. A good deal of maturity is needed to become interested
in it. As Dr. Cannan pointed out so magnificently yesterday, the
way in which to recruit needed workers is to have exciting work in
this held going on within the universities. Using the rise in physics
as an example, we find that students who formerly went into medicine,
or chemistry, are going into physics today. Why? Because it is
an exciting area. It does capture the imagination of the best minds.
As a result, medicine is having its difficulties in recruiting superior
individuals. This is true also of chemistry. This is an ancient
solution which long ago found expression in the statement attributed
to Emerson that if you can build a better mousetrap than your neigh-
bor, the world will beat a path to your door.
An inquiry from William A. Hasfurther, Anne Arundel County
Sanitary Commission, reads as follows: "Training of operators can-
not be done fully in schools—greatest problem is on-the-job
training. Recommendation No. 4 should include assistance to
State health departments, so they can adequately staff their
training sections."
Mr. Hasfurther's statement is actually included in the supporting
arguments for our recommendations. These, I did not read. We
agree that plant operators should be trained at plants and that there
should be a concerted effort in those plants which are receiving
Government grants to see that they are operated properly.
Dr. FAIR. Dr. Eldib, of Esso Research & Engineering Co., asks
the following with reference to Dr. Zapp's paper: "From the medical
viewpoint, there appears to be no necessity to eliminate all con-
taminants from water to insure its wholesomeness. We require
assurance that no harm will result from contaminants which
526
-------
remain in water, we recognised our problem, we know what we
should do about it, and we are working on it. What is being
done?"
This, apparently, is a quotation from Dr. Zapp's paper to the effect
that we do not have to eliminate all contaminants. The inquirer
asks: ''What is being done?"
A reasonable answer seems to be that, where we know what we have
to eliminate and how we can do so, we are trying to do away with
dangerous contaminants, and where we do not know what needs to
be eliminated we are trying to find out what needs to be done.
Dr. ZAPP. The statement taken from my paper expresses a funda-
mental fact of toxicology; namely, that a toxic effect of chemicals
disappears as the concentration goes down and reaches a no-effect
level. The recognition of this principle is written into the 1958
amendment to the Food and Drug and Cosmetics Act, with one
exception, and that is the class of materials found to induce cancer
in man or animals. So I stated, as a toxicologist, that our problem of
providing wholesome water does not involve the complete elimination
of contamination, but rather the reduction of contamination to levels
which are recognized among experts qualified to judge such matters
as being safe.
Now, the toxicity of materials is being studied on a larger scale
than ever before in this country, and I might point out that informa-
tion gathered in studies directed toward such things as the establish-
ment of safe levels for pesticides on crops provides the basis for
establishing safe levels of those same materials in water or, for that
matter, in air, if they happen to be airborne. There should be better
communication between those concerned with the safety of water, air,
and food, because we, as man, are integrating our intake from all
three of these sources.
I will say again that the toxicologists are not unaware of these
different sources of entry into the human body. Take just one little
example. It is recognized among water experts that a part per million
of fluoride in the drinking water is beneficial. Yet it is almost im-
possible to get amounts of fluoride greater than one-tenth of a part
per million into food, the reason being that those concerned with the
safety of food are aware of the fact that man has already had an intake
or fluoride from water and it should not be added to indiscriminately.
This indicates an awareness on the part of the toxicologists of the
total problem.
Dr. FAIR. The following is a statement by Mr. Moore, of the
du Pont Co. "Despite the array of talent available, no reference
was made to an immediate and colossal means for reducing the most
expensive form of pollution abatement—handling that from humans.
Could the panel provide a down-to-earth and practical contribution
527
-------
to the Conference by recommending research be done on means to
reduce or eliminate human sewage at or near the origin? Industry
has long been working with this philosophy."
My answer to that would be: Touche. But perhaps you would
like to add to it.
Mr. MOORE. Yes, sir. I think that, as we have sat in these rather
lengthy deliberations the last 2 days and again this morning, there
appears to be a lack of what we can do today or what should we be
doing in the immediate future. I certainly appreciate the rather
extensive deliberations that have gone into your presentation today
in Panel IV, but again I think we are confronted with problems of
immediate concern in addition to those of long range. It seems to
me that one of the objectives of the Conference is that of obtaining
something with which people can work immediately. It seems to
me that one way we can both assist ourselves in reducing the large
expenditures for complex central sewage works, and in reducing the
need for additional water supplies, which the people in some of the
other panels have described as being a near crisis, is to reduce the
amount of water that is used in our toilets. If we could reduce the
amount of water used by toilets by 1 gallon a day per person, I think
we would eliminate a lot of this concern over the diminishing supply
that is required for domestic purposes.
I know this isn't popular, but I think we might just as well recognize
that one of the ways we are going to save money and one of the ways
we are going to utilize our existing supplies better is to look to the
individual and convince the individual that they are wasting water at
a great rate right in the home, and that they can significantly save
water without any inconvenience to themselves or any compromise
of sanitary conditions.
Dr. FAIR. It is a very interesting statement. What you are saying
is that we should ask ourselves what we ask of industry.
Dr. Eldib, would you like to present your two statements?
Dr. ELDIB. The first statement is: To encourage private industry
to enter into the field of water pollution research as a business venture,
financial incentives should be worked out.
It seems to me that private industry on a small or a large scale
can enter into the field of research in water pollution as a financial
enterprise. In other words, something that we can make something
out of, and I don't mean grants from the Government or assistance,
just plain enterprise.
In order for this to take place, it seems to me it is very important
for somebody (I don't know who), perhaps the Government, to
define the financial incentives of such enterprise. This is the first
statement.
The second statement I have is in connection with resources for
528
-------
research and training. The distinguished members of the panel have
brought out the point that we need more engineers and more scientists,
but it seems to me that this is something that will develop with time.
We can't just do this right away, but there are other things which
can be done right away and that is, having the Government solicit
the support of scientists from industry. In other words, they might
just go out and borrow some people to work for the Government
on a loan basis, on a short-term basis, just to get the program started or
to help bring in new ideas into the field of sanitary engineering and
public health.
Dr. FAIR. I like both these statements and particularly the second
one. The suggestion that we ask for a loan of scientists from industry
seems to me to be a splendid idea.
I have one more question addressed to me, and this is: "Was there
any discussion in the panel as to the allocation of the recom-
mended research budget? If so, were the problems of the very
small water supply (household to small industry size) and waste
treatment system considered to deserve a share of this expendi-
ture?"
We did discuss this matter at length last night. We came to the
conclusion that we were particularly interested in the promotion of
fundamental research and fundamental research applies at all levels
of development, the small as well as the large.
I realize that there are special problems in the technology or in the
application of the research findings, but these will take care of them-
selves, I am quite sure, if we lay a solid foundation of knowledge on
which technology can be based.
Afternoon Session
JOHN S. SAMSON, Chairman
Chairman, Nebraska State Water Pollution Control Council
Member, Water Pollution Control Advisory Board
Mr. Wolman, Chairman of Panel III on "Keeping Water Clean,"
honored guests, ladies and gentlemen; we come now to the last forum
of the last half of the last day of this National Conference on Water
Pollution which, beyond doubt, has brought together the best tech-
nical, engineering, medical, and professional public health minds of
the Nation on a problem which, we all agree, demands the best that
we can give it—and immediately.
How important the water situation is, as we enter the decade of
the Sixties, is well demonstrated in the California citizenry's recent
529
-------
voting of $1.75 billion bond issue to develop that State's water re-
sources. This is the largest such program yet devised by a single
jurisdiction. In effect, it will spell the difference between continued
and fantastic growth of the Nation's fastest-growing area, or its slow
death for want of the necessary water to keep it alive and healthy.
Nor was such action confined solely to a single State. At the No-
vember 8 elections, citizens in other parts of the country voted in excess
of $328 million in other bond issues for sewer systems construction.
Some of the largest were in the two Kansas Citys; namely, Kansas
City, Mo., which voted a $75 million bond issue, and across the river,
Kansas City, Kans., some $15 million; Philadelphia; a number of Ohio
cities and counties; Portland, Oreg.; and my own home city of Omaha,
Nebr., which voted $15.7 million for construction of a sewage treat-
ment plant. It is apparent that water resource and sewage disposal
problems are showing no favorites in locale.
Neither are water supply and pollution control problems new to
our era, though this Nation appears to have set some historical
superlatives in the amount and extent of its problems. Emperor
Justinian, who reigned over the eastern Roman Empire for some 40
years between 527 and 565 A.D.,was the first ruler of recorded history
to establish a modern sewage disposal plan. Among the first historical
traces of sanitary engineering construction is the sewer arch which is
found at Nippur, in India, which was probably constructed about
3750 B.C. A sewer running under an important street in Telash
Asawr, near Baghdad "which connected with bathrooms and toilets
by tile pipes," was probably constructed during the 26th century B.C.
Other instances of the existence of tile drains in the pre-Christian era
have been found in archeological excavations in the Old World.
So, if it be any consolation to a modern America, striving to find its
way out of a water pollution complex which threatens to engulf our
physical and economic health, I say to you that the problems actually
are as old as civilization itself.
It is without contradiction that the dilemma of stream pollution now
confronting us has greatly reduced the amount of usable water avail-
able for agriculture, industry, recreation, and public water supply.
In specific reference to panel III which on yesterday's program bore
the theme "Keeping Water Clean," we must not approach this problem
in a mere theoretical or academic manner, nor say, esoterically, that
the responsibility for meeting the problem can be fixed definitely as
that of either the States or the Federal Government.
For this closing plenary session this afternoon it is our responsibility
and our obligation to meet the problem head on and forthrightly.
The citizens of this great country are entitled to that kind of leadership
and none less. In keeping with that purpose and premise, I now turn
the meeting over to that great and outstanding gentlemen, who headed
panel III in discussions yesterday and who labored with us on the
530
-------
subcommittee up until, I think it was, 1:30 in the morning, preparing
the final draft. I want to introduce to you Dr. Wolman.
Subcommittee Report, Panel III
Dr. Abel Wolman
Panel III has as its principal objective a comprehensive study of the
various problems involved with "Keeping Water Clean." This broad
subject included the responsibilities of Government, industry and the
public in controlling the rising volume of pollution in the Nation's
rivers and streams.
In opening the session on the not so innocent theme of "Keeping
Water Clean," the panel chairman posed several questions as a frame-
work upon which the discussion might evolve. These questions were
not intended to cover all of the problems, but they were designed to
point up some of the issues which are associated with the subject of
keeping water clean. They are listed as follows:
1. How clean should the Nation maintain its river and streams;
for what purpose; and at what price?
2. What are the responsibilities of private industry, as well as
the local, State, and Federal Governments in keeping water
clean?
3. How can public sentiment be created and maintained as part
of the continuing fight against water pollution?
4. Who is to pay for the stepped-up program against water
pollution?
5. What are the inadequacies of various water pollution con-
trol laws, and what should be done to strengthen these laws?
The subcommittee, following the formal panel session, pursued these
questions at considerable length in order to arrive at a set of recom-
mendations which would be acceptable to the varying points of view
represented at the session.
I want to say to you, because I think the record should disclose
it, that the subcommittee machinery which we were using in order
to arrive at conclusions was composed of a variety of people who are
interested in this very significant question. I imagine that even
Justinian would not have had too much luck in getting complete
unanimity out of our group because of each individual's past interests
and confidence in his own personal Tightness, which is one of the
things we have a right to do in a democracy. No one, I think, would
have expected that you could design a language or a conclusion or a
philosophy which would have unanimous consent, unanimous
acceptance.
531
-------
We had also four representatives from the Public Health Service
sitting in with us in order to supply us with the late word, any data,
helping us in processing these conclusions with us. Their participa-
tion, I might say in advance, in our deliberations, was minimal. We
are quite aware of the fact that there can be and probably will be
charges that these arduous and enthusiastic workers in the Public
Health Service may have had too much to do with either our panel
conclusions or any other. I merely state to you that the subcommit-
tee handled this situation, we believe, entirely on our own. Such
help (and there wasn't a great deal of it) which the Public Health repre-
sentatives provided was extremely useful to us. There was neither a
guide nor a veto of any of the material which I now present to you.
You may be somewhat disturbed and perhaps even confused when I
read the very first conclusion in answer to our central questions on how
clean a stream should be. When I have succeeded in reading it, I
want to make a comment on it and perhaps suggest even a revision.
This is because of events which I shall comment on in a moment.
First, let me read what our subcommittee agreed upon as its first
recommendation:
The national goal with respect to stream protection should be the safeguarding
of water quality. Every stream should be made to provide for the fullest range of
uses for the type of society served and consistent with the variabilities within
and among different river basins.
My attention was called this morning to the fact that Panel I found
it desirable and necessary from their point of view to make similar
statement with respect to clean streams. I shall now read it to you.
We recommend that the Conference express its conviction that the goal of pollu-
tion abatement is to protect and enhance the capacity of the water resource to
serve the widest possible range of human needs, and that this goal can be ap-
proached only by accepting the positive policy of keeping waters as clean as possi-
ble, as opposed to the negative policy of attempting to use the full capacity of
water for waste assimilation.
You will note that there are certain significant differences between
the comments of Panel I and Panel III. It has been suggested to me
by a member of Panel III, who was not present last night at our
subcommittee meeting, that the proposal be made that the sugges-
tion of Panel I, which I just finished reading, be substituted for
that which we agreed upon last night. I am presenting this proposal
to you in the hope that you will consider it, for two reasons: (1) It is
more positive rather than negative in relation torthe'Panel III observa-
tion ; and (2) There might be some values, so some feel, in contradic-
."tion in language. But I am suggesting, on the part of the people
proposing this, that they feel there might be some value in consistency
in statement between the two panels.
I present it to you in the hope that you may show, not by vote, but
by some expression, how you feel about the substitution.
532
-------
Mr. GUTERMUTH (Natural Eesources Council of America). As
one of the members of the Steering Committee of Panel III that
labored on into the night last night, and I do believe, Mr. Chairman,
that this statement of Panel I is more positive than the statement
which we adopted last evening. I recommend therefore, that we sub-
stitute the statement from Panel I.
Mr. CANNON (National Association of Manufacturers of the
United States of America). I would like to call to the attention of
the chair that Panel II also made a recommendation on the same
subject. I made a comment on the recommendation of Panel II for
an amendment to include the concept of economic feasibility which
the chairman indicated had merit. Therefore, before any action is
taken on Mr. Gutermuth's suggestion, I would like to offer the same
amendment for consideration by those present here.
Dr. WOLMAN. Do you have a specific suggestion as to the modifi-
cation or the substitution? This is a language problem and I don't
want to get lost in it.
Mr. CANNON. My suggestion would be "As clean as economically
feasible."
Mr. GREGG (Izaak Walton League of America, Inc.). I think
the point that is raised by Mr. Cannon is valid. A qualification is
necessary. We don't need to confine ourselves to considerations of
economic values, although that is important, and perhaps the pur-
pose could be served by saying "In keeping waters as clean as pos-
sible in consideration of health, recreation and esthetic values, and
economic and technical considerations," or "Economic and technical
possibilities," or something like that.
Dr. WOLMAN. May I try to resolve this, because if we get enough
editorial suggestions from the floor, we will not get a panel statement.
I would ask that the members of our own subcommittee on
Panel III indicate on the cards that they may have available, which
we will collect, as to what their general feeling is about the substitu-
tion. Also, I would ask the other speakers who have just suggested
modifications in language that they submit to us here on the platform
in the next 20 minutes or so what their modification is. I will defer
this No. 1 statement until I have both sets of views in front of me,
and then submit it to the Conference.
I hope that is agreeable to the group. Unless I hear some dissent,
I shall proceed with item 2, hoping that you can register your judg-
ments and any change in language to which I can return later.
2. Administration of water pollution control programs on State and
interstate streams should continue to be the responsibility of the State
agencies which therefore must be supported by adequate budgets and
533
-------
staffed by competent directors, engineers, scientists, and related pro-
fessional personnel. It is essential that State legislatures appraise
more realistically their opportunities and responsibilities in carrying
out the principle herein stated and are urged to take appropriate
action where necessary.
3. The Federal Government has clear responsibilities in its work-
rag relationship with State and local governments with respect to:
Research, leadership in personnel training, regulatory procedures,
water resources inventories and investigations, and standards of water
quality.
No agreement was reached among the conferees as to the extension
of authority of the Federal Government in the area of water pollution
control.
4. The Federal grants-in-aid program has provided a valuable
stimulus to the control of stream pollution. Other methods of financ-
ing construction of sewage and waste treatment works deserve thor-
ough study and investigation to determine the most appropriate
means available or which might be made available for sound and
equitable allocation of costs. Several other means of financing were
suggested in one or two papers presented at the Conference. The
view of the panel subcommittee was that these should be listed and
appraised without any commitment on the part of the subcommittee
as to which, if any, should be recommended. It did suggest that
these and others unnamed should be explored at some subsequent
time.
(a) Incentive grants from Federal and State appropriations;
(6) Guaranteed bonds;
(c) Revenue bonds;
(cZ) Marketing long-term revenue bonds under a Federal sys-
tem of guarantees such as FHA-guaranteed mortgages or loans
for defense production purposes;
(e) The creation of a "Water RFC" or such Federal finance
agency to discount, purchase or collateralize such bonds for loan
purposes; and
(/) The earmarking of specific taxes, notably, from Federal
licensing of pleasure boats and sale of fuel to all waterborne
craft, for water pollution control purposes.
5. The panel agreed that State statutes and organizational struc-
tures for water pollution control should be reviewed and strengthened
or revised where necessary. The following revisions were proposed
in the suggested 1950 State Water Pollution Control Act as a
guide for State legislation in this field. The proposals were: (a) Vest
comprehensive authority in the State water pollution control agency,
which would be given independent status in its organizational place-
ment in State government; (&) insure construction of municipal treat-
ment facilities ordered by the State agency by authorizing courts to
534
-------
direct all necessary steps, including bond issues, tax levies, and rev-
enue charges, if required; (c) authorize the establishment of sanitary
districts to deal with local pollution control problems beyond munic-
ipal limits.
The panel did not arrive at an agreement on these proposals.
6. There was general agreement that the public needs more infor-
mation on pollution and its abatement. Government agencies and
other informed individuals should make every effort to present the
facts in understandable form for use by individuals, organizations,
and the general media of communication. Such material should
include factual information and suggested methods of attack as have
been discussed by the conference.
Mr. GUTERMUTH. I am reporting, Dr. Wolman, that five or six
members of your subcommittee got together to discuss the possible
changes to this language of the statement from panel I which we had
up for substitution for our first statement. We realize we are never
going to get agreement on this in a meeting of this kind. So your
panel recommends that we proceed with the original proposal, to
substitute the statement from Panel I as written for our recom-
mendation No. 1.
Dr. WOLMAN. Have you considered the suggested language made
by various representatives?
Mr. GUTERMUTH. Yes. They feel, while it isn't explicity spelled
out in this statement, everyone realizes and appreciates that the
economic factors must be considered. It is assumed,
Dr. WOLMAN. I shah1 increase my unpopularity by assuming that
this means you adopt Panel I's statement. Again I say that there shall
appear in the record any disagreements or suggestions for expanded
language, which would take care of those of you who feel that even though
it may be implied, the language might be strengthened in the direc-
tion of economic use and application.
NOTE.—The recommendation agreed to is as follows: "We recommend that the
Conference express its conviction that the goal of pollution abatement is to protect
and enhance the capacity of the water resource to serve the widest possible range
of human needs, and that this goal can be approached only by accepting the
positive policy of keeping waters as clean as possible, as opposed to the negative
policy of attempting to use the full capacity of water for waste assimilation."
The members of the Panel III Subcommittee, in addition to the
Chairman were: Co-Chairman, Milton P. Adams, Michigan State
Water Resources Commission; Eobert F. Boger, Publisher,Engineering
News-Record; Lloyd E. Partain, National Association of Manu-
facturers; Edward J. Cleary, Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation
Commission; Harry Cornell, International Association of Game, Fish,
and Conservation Commissioners; George H. Taylor, AFL-CIO;
583283—61 35
535
-------
Justus H. Fugate, American Municipal Association; C. R. Guter-
muth, Natural Resources Council of America; David B. Lee, Con-
ference of State Sanitary Engineers; John S. Samson, Nebraska State
Water Pollution Control Council; J. V. Whitfield, North Carolina
Department of Water Resources; and Mrs. A. E. Whittemore, League
of Women Voters of the United States. The subcommittee was
assisted by these PHS Resource Personnel: J. T. Barnhill, J. J.
Flannery, D. H. Howells, and Murray Stein.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Panel III Report
Mr. SAMSON. Gentlemen, we next come to that part of the pro-
gram which is referred to as the open forum discussion, and I have
been advised here this afternoon and in various parts of the building
that there are some gentlemen who would like to be heard and like to
express themselves. I want to say to you here and now that this is a
democratic gathering and certainly I would be the last man in the
world to say that we shouldn't have a full, complete, and honest
expression. I am thoroughly in favor of that approach.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Edward R. Thornton, chairman,
New England Interstate Compact Commission. Mr. Thornton.
Mr. THORNTON (Chairman, New England Interstate Compact
Commission). Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ladies and Gentlemen: As a Democrat from New Hampshire, I
always feel better if most of the people are in front of me rather than
in back of me, so if you don't mind, I would like to turn a little bit.
I would like to address myself to Recommendation No. 3, relative
to the extension of the authority of the Federal Government in the
area of water pollution control. Speaking for the New Hampshire
Water Pollution Commission, of which I am a member and for the
New England Water Pollution Control Commission, we have no
argument with the first paragraph of those findings. We wish to
clear the record, however, in connection with the second part of
those findings, which states, if my notes are correct: "No agreement
was reached among the conferees as to extension of authority of the
Federal Government in the area of water pollution control."
The reason that no agreement was reached yesterday, gentlemen,
at this panel discussion, was because of the fact, that the chair ruled
that there could be no vote taken, no resolutions passed by that panel.
Due to the extension of the remarks and the time taken up by every-
one, many of us were unable to have our questions answered. The
number of questions answered by the panel were very, very few. I
did present a resolution at that time to the effect that we wished to
536
-------
go on record as being opposed to any further extension of the Federal
authority in the enforcement field. That resolution was taken under
advisement by the subcommittee last night. It is my personal
opinion that had a vote been taken yesterday afternoon, better than
80 percent present at that meeting would have agreed to that resolution.
I would like to make it clear that we in New Hampshire and in New
England have no argument and no quarrel with the present Federal
water pollution control law. We in New England have no quarrel or
argument with the staff people of the Federal agencies who are assigned
to our meetings and to our area. We get along with them. We have
the highest cooperation. We admire and respect the gentlemen and
the way they operate. We have no problems in New England that
require or call for any additional activity by the Federal Government.
As a matter of fact, we have not been impelled to call upon the Federal
Government in any of the seven signatory States to the New England
Compact. We feel very definitely that enforcement of pollution
abatement is the primary responsibility of the State, and we further
believe that existing laws at the Federal level and at the interstate
compact level are adequate for present needs, and, therefore, we
oppose the expansion or extension of Federal enforcement provisions
to waters within the borders of our States.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that there is no possibility of a vote or
a resolution of this group, but many of us have been here for 3 days.
We haven't had an opportunity to express our opinion in any form on
this matter and I would appreciate, sir, your permission to ask for an
expression of opinion from this group as to how they feel on this
question of extension of Federal enforcement authority. I would
request, sir, that as many as are in favor of my philosophy, as enun-
ciated by my few remarks, be allowed to show their approval of this
philosophy by standing for just a moment. Is that possible?
Dr. WOLMAN. I rule that it is possible. We do not want to vote.
The reason I make the ruling is that it is possible that there is evidently
a great deal of feeling, I think to some extent unwarranted, but that
is a private opinion, that industry is being made the goat in some of
these discussions; that it has not had as much of an opportunity to
make its comments, such as it would like; and that certain groups, such
as you represent, did not have the opportunity in extenso of recording
their judgments.
If you would repeat, I hope in the form of one sentence, what you
would like to express your opinion in respect to, I should ask those to
rise who happen to share your view, and have this recorded in the
minutes of the Conference.
Mr. THORNTON. I request, sir, that those who feel that existing
laws at the Federal level are adequate for present needs, and, therefore,
are in opposition to the expansion or extension of Federal enforcement
537
-------
provisions to intrastate waters be allowed to signify their approval by
standing.
Dr. WOLMAN. Is the audience familiar with what we are permitting
them to do? Those of you who concur in this brief statement of
judgment, will you please rise?
If they turned off the kleig lights, someone up here could register
the fact that at least a very large proportion of the people here would
share that view.
Mr. THORNTON. Thank you, sir.
Dr. WOLMAN. I shall now proceed with additional questions or
comments. We are, in fact, bewildered by the number of questions
that are here and I am not altogether sure how to make these choices.
There are a number of people who have indicated to Mr. Samson that
they want to make statements; without discrimination, let me call on
them quite independently of alphabetical order or the like.
Mr. THORNTON. Some of those who are opposed to my philosophy
have asked why they weren't given an opportunity to be recorded.
I forgot to do that.
A DELEGATE. I don't think the people opposed are asking for
that opportunity.
Dr. WOLMAN I rather assumed by those sitting down and who
didn't get up, there was some comparison. I don't want to play
favorites. Will those in the audience who do not share that philosophy
please stand?
(There were members in the audience who stood.)
Dr. WOLMAN. It has been so done.
We have several requests for a comment from the floor. I ask Mr.
Cornell if he will make his comments. Do you still desire to make a
comment? I will restrict everyone to approximately a minute and a
half. I do want to give as wide a spread and recognize as many as I
can.
Mr. CORNELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
It is my privilege to be here today representing the International
Association of Game, Fish, and Conservation Commissioners. This
Association represents, internationally, the administrators who are
responsible for the management of our fish and game resources. At
its annual meeting last September, there were two resolutions passed
by our organization concerning this Conference and its results. I
wish to give you copies of those resolutions at this time in order
that they may become a part of the record of the conference.
The position of the international is summed up in two concepts.
538
-------
Clean water is more than a public health problem. The elimination
of disease-causing organisms is not enough to meet the national needs.
Water must be reused again and again for industry, for drinking, for
agriculture, and for recreation. Each user must return it, on its path
to the sea, in a condition suitable for any of these uses.
The second concept is that the elimination of pollution is the
responsibility of all levels of government; municipal, State, and Feder-
al. When anyone fails to accomplish its task, the next level must
take over. Each level of government must have adequate laws to
accomplish this end.
The financing of an adequate pollution control program is obvious
in principle; it is only complicated in detail. Industry must remove
its wastes from effluent water and add the cost to the price of its
product. The removal of human wastes from our waters must be
financed by taxation. Individually and collectively our taxes must
pay the price for usable water. It is reasonable that the three levels
of government should contribute to pollution abatement.
This Conference may, or may not, accomplish its purpose of pro-
viding a blueprint for an adequate pollution abatement program for
the next decade. Senators Kerr and Case, and Congressmen Blatnik
and Cramer, in their presentations on Monday evening, however,
made it abundantly clear that legislation for an improved pollution
abatement program will be provided.
Dr. Gabrielson's paper on Monday indicated that our population
consists of some 182 million people. Most of them are concerned with
some form of recreation. He quoted a thorough study conducted in
California which "showed that fully 60 percent of all recreation is
water-oriented."
These figures, alone, should assure our legislators, at both the State
and Federal levels, that clean water is demanded by the American
people. So long as ballots determine the destiny of our country,
legislation for clean water cannot fail.
Dr. WOLMAN. Thank you.
Mr. Hyslop asked to be heard this afternoon.
Mr. HYSLOP. I am James Hyslop, president of Hanna Coal Co. of
Ohio and West Virginia. I am speaking here as a representative of
the bituminous coal industry.
After observing the proceedings of this panel I wish to express my
personal admiration and approval of the deep sincere concern for the
welfare of humanity that has been so forcibly exhibited. One must
respect and admire the spirit of dedication to a worthy, though oft-
times unpopular, cause that has been so evident in all who have active-
ly participated. Such enthusiasm must surely lead to high and noble
accomplishment. The coal industry feels that it can make a solid
contribution to the objective for which the President of the United
539
-------
States called this meeting by succinctly stating a few of its carefully
considered views, as follows:
1. We respectfully suggest that the Conference give appropriate
attention to the clearly indicated although inadequately empha-
sized fact, that important and highly significant progress has
already been accomplished in the field of the abatement of stream
pollution caused by industrial waste. We refer to the effective
protection against pollution that has, at great expense, been built
into most new plants that have been constructed in recent years,
and to the improvements that have been applied by many older
plants, that have vastly improved their performance.
2. It should be realized that the abatement program of industry
is going forward at a very rapid pace. The job is by no means
finished, but it is being pushed at a rapidly accelerating rate.
Industry learns fast, its education in this field is being promoted
by better State and local laws, more intelligent and vigorous
enforcement of existing statutes, by public sentiment, by inter-
state compacts, and by its own enlightened self-interest.
3. Any new program that does not carefully and scientifically
take these facts into account is going to be misguided by views
which are badly out-of-date and unrealistic. Mistakes made as
a result of the error will not only be wasteful of the public's
money, but they will actually retard progress by introducing
confusion and public disfavor. Emotion and fervor have their
place in this cause, but they must be tempered by sanity and
science. Industry is willing to accept intelligent criticism, it
wants adequate credit for its accomplishments, and due recog-
nition of the progress it is making.
4. The coal industry has made real and significant progress in
pollution abatement, it is on record with State authorities and
ORSANCO as not only favoring vigorous abatement programs
and a diligent compliance with all regulations, but also has
pledged itself to a program of research and cooperation designed
to find solutions for the important unsolved problems that are
peculiar to our industry.
5. All will agree that any unnecessary assumption of authority
by Washington of powers that properly belong to the local gov-
ernments is a grievous mistake. ORSANCO has done an out-
standing job not only through solid accomplishments in cleaning
up the waters of the Ohio River basin, but also in the difficult
field of State, Interstate and Federal relationships in the abate-
ment program. The success of this time-tested arrangement will
surely be threatened by any Federal intervention into regulation
and enforcement.
6. In view of these considerations and others, which, while
important, could not be included in this limited statement, we
540
-------
submit that any extension of Federal, legal or police authority in
the field of stream pollution would at this time of accomplish-
ment and progress be a serious and expensive mistake.
Dr. WOLMAN. There is a request of Mr. Erskin of the Izaak
Walton League to be heard from the floor.
Mr. ERSKIN. If we are to maintain the dignity of our society and
realize our objectives, we must go away from this most important
meeting with moral obligation and with honest intentions to accept
and activate the recommendations of this meeting.
I am sure we are all aware of the common law of averages. But
as a Nation we have not been satisfied with the mere average of pure
food, of education, of highways, or of other high standards we have
learned to expect in our American way of life.
By the same token, we must expect and demand that our Nation's
water be used with consideration for all segments of our society and
maintained in a state of purity that will guarantee a continuing supply
of clean water, and I will say "clean" twice.
Dr. WOLMAN. Mr. Billings would like to make a statement.
Mr. BILLINGS. I am R. M. Billings of Kimberly-Clark Corp.,
a member of the American pulp and paper industry. I have re-
quested these few moments to set a matter straight for the record.
We had supposed that the matter was common knowledge. How-
ever, certain reports read at the meeting by individuals who are not
a part of industry have raised questions in our minds as to the com-
pleteness and accuracy of their information. Some seem to believe
that industry does not recognize the problem of pollution. Nothing
could be further from the truth, and I know, I speak for all industry.
Industry believes that we are in the midst of a serious pollution
problem which will grow increasingly difficult to solve with each
passing year, but industry believes that we will solve it and, what is
more, industry knows that we are solving it now. What industry
does not agree to is that the realization of the existence of the problem
burst upon us December 12, 1960. We are not shattered by the
revelation of the problem now; we have been sobered by the magnitude
of it for the last 10 years—and we have been doing something about
it. I would refer you to the curves giving production and water
usage for the paper industry shown by Mr. Pasek yesterday. These
indicate that over a period in which production has doubled in the
paper industry, only nominal increases in water usage occurred.
This amazing progress was brought about only by rapid expansion of
research in the waste disposal field, and by constant attention to the
problems.
New industrial plants constructed during the last 5 years have had
waste treatment facilities incorporated as an integral part of their
541
-------
design of construction. Nearly all states already require this as a
condition that must be met before a permit for construction and
operation will be issued.
Yesterday's panels were punctuated with the loud reports of
exploding populations. Industry has been hearing these reports
even at first when they were very faint. Population increase means
industrial activity increase. Industrial specialists have made care-
fully researched sales forecasts. Plans for expansion are already on
the industrial drawing boards. But these plans without exception
include adequate waste treatment facilities as an integral part. You
just don't expand an old water-using plant or build a new one without
giving as careful consideration to the quality specifications of the
water leaving the plant as you do to the requirements of water
coming to it.
In closing, I can proudly say that had all other water users of this
nation made progress comparable to what American industry has
made in the last decade and if all other water users had as well pre-
pared plans as American industry has for the future, the problems
confronting us now would be relatively small.
Dr. WOLMAN. Thank you.
In order to keep the pendulum swinging from one side to the other,
I have a card here that points out this individual has a facetious
remark which will be very short.
Do you mind giving us your name? And your affiliation?
Mrs. DUNN. My name is Annette Hoge Dunn, and I am from the
New York State League of Women Voters.
I would like to point out that there are more industrialists present
today than fish, and I am not including all industrialists.
Dr. WOLMAN. These rapier thrusts come from one side to the other
and would be extremely interesting to a man from Mars, because
perhaps he would want to remind those of us on earth that this is a
curious kind of juxtaposition which we see here in the Conference,
and in Panel III. Considering the fact that our country prides
itself in being one of the great industrialized countries of the world,
from which, incidentally, most of our satisfactions stem, I think it is
worth including this velvet-glove statement, because I happen to
feel it is true.
This is not done to reassure either the fish or the industrialists.
One of the misfortunes that the fish have is that they can't talk back
at us. But I do believe it is worth a sobering thought that the Con-
ference should not give the impression in either direction that this is a
simple battle between a set of disembodied citizens who are dispos-
sessing the industrial growth of the United States.
It does occur to me that I might remind you of what I said yester-
day, that this problem would be a simple one if we had no people in
542
-------
the United States. Nobody has had the temerity to get on the floor
and suggest that as the overall solution. This sense of equilibrium
is what I am trying to put in the record.
There are two questions here from P. J. Short, Jr., of Lukens
Steel Co., neither of which is directed to me, but since he took the
precaution of asking two questions, he gets a kind of preference,
and I shall read one, and then the other, and perhaps give him my
own impression, because it does fall, in a sense, within Panel Ill's
comments.
On of the questions was directed to Mr. Boger and the other to
Mr. Curley.
"You referred to Federal taxes on our telephone bills and posed
the possibility of taxing water utility bills. What agency do you
have in mind to exercise this either on the Federal or the State
level? Couldn't it be handled just as well on the local or State
basis?"1
And the second question is: "Private industry is doing a real un-
publicieedjob of waste disposal (as has been pointed out a moment
ago) and has contributed substantially to the degree of pollution
abatement. Would you care to elaborate on your reference to en-
couraging industry through tax benefits and any other compensa-
tions?"
Neither one was directed to me, but I would like to comment. I
call your attention to the fact that the panel items which deal with
these subjects are very careful to suggest that all of those subjects
should be reviewed in a much more thoughtful, much more logical,
and much more detailed fashion than it was at all possible to carry
out in this kind of a Conference.
I am sure that Mr. Short is even more aware than I am that any
suggestion to give tax exemption to the Federal income tax for indus-
try, for one purpose or another, is a long and combative and interesting
battle. If he had hoped that even Mr. Curley or this Conference
would have given him the simple and quick answer to this, I think he
is much more naive than I know him to be. I merely remind him that
all these considerations we felt needed scrutiny.
The simple one which Mr. Boger pointed out, taxing motorboats
and the like, obviously is one which would require a tremendous
amount of consideration. Our panel simply felt that these were ways
of trying to find money. They all needed to be reviewed, discussed
and battled through, I suspect, for a fair number of years to come.
Mr. Fugate, this is a question directed to you by E. N.
Simonsen, of the Standard Oil Co. of Ohio: "In view of the dramatic
success of ORSANCO in abatement pollution in the eight-State
Ohio River Basin, do you still believe that Federal control is needed
to control interstate pollution? If so, please comment."
543
-------
Mr. FUGATE (American Municipal Association). If every river
basin had the leadership evidenced by the Ohio River Basin States,
perhaps we of this Conference would not even be here. It is a
pleasure for me to state that our city acquired by residence and by
business affiliation one of the former members of the Advisory Board
of this authority. I discussed this authority somewhat with him in
the past several years. He is, shall we say, an enlightened indus-
trialist. If we had an attack upon the problems on a river basin basis
as has been done in the Ohio River Basin by every river basin authority
and States and industries, we would need very little authority for the
Federal Government.
Dr. WOLMAN. Are you willing, Mr. Fugate, to stand another
question? The question is: "How do you reconcile your statement
that you do not wish Federal control to be extended into every
city and town with the program you outlined, giving the Public
Health Service enforcement powers over navigable waters which,
in itself, gives the Public Health Service power over every creek
and also gives the Public Health Service complete control of
State programs?"
Mr. FUGATE. I want to point out to the proponent of this question
the provision of the present Public Law 660. Eliminating some of the
verbiage, it says here: "The pollution of interstate waters. Whether
the matter causing or contributing to such pollution is discharged
directly into such waters or reaches such waters after discharge into a
tributary of such waters and which endangers the health and welfare
shall be subject to abatement, as hereinafter provided."
I think that, if you study what waters are interstate waters and
what waters are tributary to them, you will find yourself in need of
some clarifying assistance, even as my city was when we considered
building a water reservoir as a single-purpose project on a tributary of
a navigable interstate stream. The attorneys for the city advised us
that there was a question as to the authority of this one city to build
this one reservoir on such a tributary without an act of Congress.
Next I want to say this, that with the problem of enforcement you
get down to what is the most controversial and ultimately the most
necessary part element to pollution abatement. You can talk about
it, you can request cooperation, you can follow all of the provisions of
the Blatnik bill, either as it exists or as it may be amended. Ultimately
you get down in some instance to a situation such as St. Joseph, Mo.
I say that if we are to take effective steps to abate pollution within the
reasonable and foreseeable future, it must be implemented by adequate
enforcement power by an authority which is sufficiently divorced from
local influences so as to be effective within a reasonable time.
Dr. WOLMAN. I am now ready to accept either questions or com-
ments from the floor for another 5 or 6 minutes, if there is a great
544
-------
urge on the part of anyone to comment. Does this mean exhaustion
or agreement?
Mr. ERSKINE. Mr. Chairman, could I take two more seconds of
your time? I would like to answer the lady about fish and indus-
trialists. I happen to have some industrial dust on my feet, and I
hope that our physical and financial ability in America will support
both the fish and the industrialists.
Dr. WOLMAN. Senator Whitfield, of North Carolina.
Senator WHITFIELD. Ladies and gentlemen, we are closing this
Conference shortly. I think we ought to realize, since this is the very
first Conference of this kind in history, it is epic making. After all,
why are we here? We are here to deal with people and their welfare.
We are here to deal with the economic, social, and every type of
welfare of the Nation.
I think we ought to be proud of the fact that this Conference has
brought together so many people to discuss the problem and make
it worth while, and let them see that the only way we can attain great
things is to work at it. I want to thank everyone connected with it,
and in particular the Public Health Service, for the arrangement of
the program, as they have done. We all realize they are to be
congratulated for this program and for this Conference.
After all, we have read a lot of fine speeches. We have a lot of
facts. Then we get back home. We get back to the unspectacular.
That is the part of water pollution that involves the cleaning-up
process and making it possible for this Nation to continue its water
supply.
We need 600 million gallons a day by 1980 our engineers tell us.
Therefore we have to keep our streams clean if we are to take care
of this need. I for one have enjoyed every minute of the Conference
and I think it will be an epic-making Conference in the welfare and
the history of this Nation.
Dr. WOLMAN. I have one more request for a comment from the
floor by Mr. Moore.
Mr. MOORE. There is one point I would like to make. This is not
a criticism. I think it is one that should be considered by all of us.
Each of the groups or disciplines attending the Conference has been
guilty of using exceptions to prove that something needs to be done.
If we are to change our laws, or if we are to change the regulatory
control on the basis of the exceptions, whether they be national or
local, then we will be continually struggling to convince our legisla-
tures, either at the State or Federal level, to adjust themselves to
a new condition which perhaps will change tomorrow, because another
set of people will be trying to work out their individual problems.
545
-------
Dr. WOLMAN. I might add just this comment on that observa-
tion, that we were rather careful in the drafting of one of our recom-
mendations in not suggesting that every State legislative structure
and its organizational structure needed to be revised and be adjusted.
We merely said that interested parties in each State might very well
look at themselves and determine what they happen to need.
I think it is disconcerting to you, and perhaps also to me, that one
of the papers on the panel, coming from Karl Mason, as you know,
who is the chief engineer of a soverign State in which, incidentally,
I believe a great deal of accomplishment has resulted over the years,
is one of those who indicated that the States have been delinquent
in their performance of their functions. I say disconcerting, and
in some respects to me quite surprising, but that is what he feels.
Your comment, therefore, has some pertinence on this whole
question.
I am going to close this session now since you can have your
breathing spell before the more general and, I assume, more
philosophical summaries which will take place.
May I take this opportunity as chairman of your Panel No. Ill of
thanking the entire group for their remarkably fine participation and
then1 even more remarkable patience with your chairman. Thank
you.
(The following resolutions were submitted for the record by Mr.
Harry Cornell, International Association of Game, Fish, and Con-
servation Commissioners:)
"Whereas the Surgeon General of the United States Public Health Service, at
the request of the President and the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare,
has issued a formal call to a National Conference on Water Pollution to be held
in Washington, D.C., December 12 through 14, 1960; and
Whereas a committee representing some 30 civic, scientific, and national
organizations, including the International Association of Game, Fish, and Con-
servation Commissioners, has been working with the Public Health Service to
plan and set up this Conference; and
Whereas this association recognizes the paramount importance of adequate
supplies of clean waters in the maintenance of fish and game populations, as well
as our human population; and
Whereas invitations to the Water Pollution Conference will include, among
others, the fish and game commissioners of our 50 States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the International Association of Game, Fish, and Conservation
Commissioners commends the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and
the Surgeon General of the United States Public Health Service for the initiation
and vigorous prosecution of plans for a productive National Conference on Water
Pollution; be it further
Resolved, That the association enjoins the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, and the conferees, to accept the challenge of establishing high goals
for a national pollution abatement program and to define practical methods for
attaining those goals; and be it further
Resolved, That the association support the Conference, and urge its member
organizations to attend and be prepared to offer constructive recommendations
for necessary pollution abatement programs at National, State, and local levels.
546
-------
Whereas, Public Law 660, passed by the 84th Congress in 1956, authorized
Federal grants to stimulate the construction of needed municipal sewage treatment
facilities; and
Whereas 4 years of operating experience under this act has clearly demonstrated
that Federal grants have greatly stimulated such construction, and water pollution
control problems are becoming more difficult, expecially in the fields of sewage,
synthetic organic chemical and radioactive wastes; and
Whereas studies and surveys by State and Federal agencies clearly indicate
the need for an accelerated program of construction to keep pace with burgeoning
populations; and
Whereas the 86th Congress passed H.R. 3610, doubling the amount of Federal
grants, and the President in vetoing H.R. 3610 stated that "recommendations"
will be submitted to the Congress for strengthening the enforcement provisions
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act; and
Whereas the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Arthur S. Flemming,
in response to President Eisenhower's directive, has announced a National Con-
ference on Water Pollution in Washington, D.C., for December 12-14, 1960:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the International Association of Game, Fish, and Conservation
Commissioners urges Congress to enact legislation to—
1. Increase to $100 million the annual appropriation to assist in the construc-
tion of State-approved municipal waste treatment facilities; and
2. Strengthen the enforcement provisions of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act to abate pollution of our Nation's waters; and be it further
Resolved, That the International Association of Game, Fish, and Conservation
Commissioners be fully represented at the National Conference on Water Pollu-
tion; and be it further
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the President, the
Director of the Budget, the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, the Surgeon General, Members of the Congress, and the Governors
of the respective States.
Mr, SAMSON. Ladies and gentlemen, it is now my pleasure to in-
troduce to you and for your attention a gentleman who has done the
tremendous job since yesterday of working out a summary of the
Conference. The presentation of this work will be given to you for
your thinking by Stuart Finley, of Washington, D.C.
547
-------
Summary Report
STUART FINLEY
Documentary Film Producer, Washington, D.C.
During this Conference you have received about 250,000 words of
prepared text. They have been thrown at you in the individual
panel sessions, and here in the main hall, plus three or four times that
many extemporaneous words in the coffeeshops, corridors, and the
men's room. When you get home, your associates, of course, are going
to walk up to you and ask, "What happened?"
And I wonder how many of you have one succinct sentence that will
describe what the lead story here is. I daresay that most of you
haven't analyzed it that thoroughly yet, and the process of assimila-
tion certainly is going to take a little longer than one day. It may
take several weeks before it begins to sink in in true perspective.
As an interim device, permit me to summarize what I have seen
and heard and read here. This report is a personal document and
does not represent a policy declaration by our hosts, the Public Health
Service, or anybody else. Actually, it is nothing more or less than a
set of observations by an interested and nontechnical observer. And,
incidentally, I hope it doesn't contain preconceived notions of any
kind. However, in using what we might refer to as the "journalistic"
approach, there will be probably many serious omissions and possibly
a few distortions, but I hope not.
The measure of success of this Conference, as I see it, will be the
degree to which what was said here permeates and influences your
work in the coming years. I might add parenthetically, that the
Air Pollution Conference of a couple of years ago was talky, incon-
clusive, nonspecific, and yet the many concrete activities of great
value, stimulated by the public concern generated there, can be
traced directly back to that meeting.
This Conference has developed 30 recommendations. Many of
these were predictable in advance. This is the way of conferences on
548
-------
highly controversial subjects. Unanimous recommendations must
be made on the virtue of motherhood and the evil of sin.
Actually, a Conference like this proceeds on at least two levels
simultaneously. There is the conference of prepared papers and
formal recommendations. And then there is the conference of side
remarks, individual conversations, and even individual thoughts—
thoughts of dissent or agreement, as the case may be. The first
rarely parallels the second.
Another measure of the success of a Conference is the degree to which
these private thoughts are aired, how much of the real controversy is
brought to the surface, the extent to which each one is compelled to
listen to the opposing viewpoint.
Let's summarize the Conference. As you came here, you expected
unanimous consent that pollution is bad, and it materialized. Dr.
Burney called it "a national disgrace."
Mr. Lynch, of the Milwaukee Journal, called it a "galloping national
disease."
Mr. Fox, of Resources for the Future, Inc., put it realistically when
he said, "The word 'pollution' connotes evil; therefore, it must be
opposed."
But disagreement conies on this point. How bad is bad? How
evil is evil? Or, as Mr. Gill put it, "How clean is clean?"
On this question there is a tremendous range of opinion, some of
which was audible in quotations like these, for example:
Carl Brandt, a member of the President's Council of Economic Ad-
visers, had this to say:
"While it may be deplorable that some fish are killed in a river or
canal which actually served primarily as a carrier of industrial waste,
it may yet be the case that this use of that particular current of water
in a strictly industrial area may prove to be the highest marginal
productivity attainable that far outweighs any potential value of the
commercial or the sport value of the fish."
It was put another way by Leonard Pasek of the Kimberly-Clark
Corp. He said:
"To a very substantial extent, American industry—and thereby our
economy—has been built upon the base of that valuable economic
asset, the ability of our great waterways to dilute, assimilate, and
carry away industrial wastes. The result has been a living standard
of widespread abundance and a national defense potential that has
delivered the goods during three periods of military conflict."
You could, if you wished to be unkind, characterize these as "anti-
antipollution" messages. But who wants to be unkind?
On the other side of the issue, Robert A. Forsythe, Assistant
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, had this to say:
"Many of the benefits from] pollution control are in the nonmarket
realm; for example, enhancement of fishing and recreational opportuni-
549
-------
ties, protection to health, scenic improvement, and assurance of the
future utility of water resources for various other purposes. The
market system, therefore, cannot be relied upon solely or chiefly
to identify or measure the benefits obtained by pollution control."
Your discussion panels wrestled with this divergence of opinion and
came up with some very interesting language. On the subject of
"How Clean is Clean?", Panel III said:
"The national goal with respect to stream protection should be the
safeguarding of water quality. Every stream should be made to
provide for the fullest range of uses for the type of society served, and
consistent with the variabilities within and among different river
basins." l
Note that phrase: "For the type of society served." What type of a
society do you want?
Panel II put it more strongly and in different terms:
"We recommend the adoption of a national credo, to be given as
wide and consistent publicity as is feasible. The content of the credo
would be:
"(1) Users of water do not have an inherent right to pollute; (2)
users of public waters have a responsibility for returning them as
nearly as clean as is technically possible; and (3) prevention is just
as important as control of pollution."
Panel I came up with another, even more positive synthesis:1 "We
recommend that the Conference express its conviction that the goal
of pollution abatement is to protect and enhance the capacity of the
water resource to serve the widest possible range of human needs, and
that this goal can be approached only by accepting the positive
policy of keeping waters as clean as possible, as opposed to the nega-
tive policy of attempting to use the full capacity of water for waste
assimilation."
In sum, then, it would seem that we must amend our first area of
agreement somewhat. The National Conference on Water Pollution
is not unanimously against all pollution. But the accent should be
on the positive—keep streams as clean as possible, rather than work-
ing them to death digesting wastes.
The next question is: "How well are we doing?" Another great
range of opinion, and we will cite a couple of examples:
Dr. Ira Gabrielson, of the Wildlife Management Institute, had
this to say:
"Keports that analyze water supply and demand are in general
agreement that little progress is being made in preventing the con-
tamination of ground and surface waters. Case histories are cited
for most parts of the country. Corrective action is not keeping pace
with the problem. We are failing to improve and protect water
1 The wording of this recommendation was changed to agree with the recom-
mendation of Panel I.
550
-------
supplies from the polluting effects of materials and conditions that
we already have the technology to combat. Comparatively little is
known about the new pollutants which are adding to the problem
daily."
On the other hand, Leonard Pasek said:
"At least three decades ago industrialists began to exert strong
efforts to minimize the necessary workload on these waterways.
Since that time, great strides have been made in industry's progress
toward solution of industrial wastes problems and toward the financ-
ing and constructing of the facilities to implement these solutions.
"Thus, there is every indication of a marked increase in conserva-
tion of water by industry."
Mr. Forster, of the Hercules Powder Co., stated the case for in-
dustry in these terms:
"In the last few decades, I submit that industry for the most part
has not only assumed its responsibility in the conservation and safe-
keeping of water supplies, but has done so at a faster rate than many
municipalities so anxious and eager to have industry as a neighbor."
Now, it may have slipped past me, but I didn't come across any
comparable claim for the virtue of the Nation's municipalities, and
yet the statistics cited on new municipal construction, by Dr. Burney
and others, are fairly impressive.
It would seem that each Conference member's answer to "How
well are we doing?" depends on his answer to "How clean is clean?"
I think it wouldn't be overstating the case to say that this is the
consensus of this Conference (no doubt, with some dissenters); that
we are not doing well enough. Municipalities are not doing well
enough, and industries are not doing well enough.
But when you hear Mr. Forster quote a figure of $100 mil ion spent
last year by the chemical industry alone in pollution-control works,
which, incidentally, bring in no profits in terms of stock dividends,
it makes you stop and think.
Now we ask, "Where do we go from here?"
On this question there were substantial areas of agreement.
First, there was virtually unanimous approval for more research.
Two predominant areas of research needs are health effects and engi-
neering.
In the area of health, Dr. John Zapp, of the Du Pont Co., stated the
new challenge in these terms:
"This is a different kind of question about wholesomeness than
that which has been asked heretofore. We know that the ingestion
of these waters produces no immediate harmful effects. But what
of the long run? What about 20 or 30 years from now? Will the
continued ingestion of these waters over the years lead to some cumu-
lative effects which eventually produce disaster? The horiz n of our
concern has been pushed further into the future in these last decades."
583283—61 36 551
-------
Numerous speakers pinpointed specific questions: The problem of
lead, which we ingest through water, air, food; the problem of radio-
active wastes and their safe disposal; the problem of virtually inde-
structible viruses; the problem of detergents and other synthetics.
Professor Eliassen, of MIT, commented:
"Many of the newer synthetic chemicals, the so-called exotic chemi-
cals * * * are not subject to bacterial degradation when present in
solution in municipal and industrial waste waters. Thus they pass
unchanged through treatment plants to watercourses and unchanged
through water treatment plants to consumers."
And so it goes on, and on. No end of research questions to be
investigated, and to be resolved, all of them related to human health.
Now, in the second area of research, that of engineering research,
there are challenges innumerable. Some of them might save some
money, too. It has been suggested that new and radically different
treatment methods may hold the eventual answers.
On the subject of responsibility for research, Panel II came forth
with a strong statement which I think bears repeating:
"It should be regarded as an obligation on the part of industry
to undertake basic research which will determine the biotic and other
effects influencing the public welfare of the products they distribute.
Where the effects of these or other health hazards or potential public
nuisances are not adequately treated within industry, the Federal
Government or the States must provide for and budget such research."
Nor were all of the research challenges limited to the strictly scien-
tific and technical fields. Panel I indicated a need for "a more sys-
tematic approach to the evaluation of the water pollution problems,
to include health, esthetic, and market values. A framework for
analysis must be developed which will provide a relatively precise
understanding of benefit-cost and which will form the basis for the
design of public policies and programs for effective water quality
management.
Another area of total agreement echoing through all the panel
sessions was the need for more and better basic data. In brief, we
need more facts—facts on what is going into our waters, facts on what
damage these things do, facts on how to eliminate these harmful
pollutants, facts on what it will cost if we do and what it will cost if
we don't.
All of these recommendations were predictable in advance, but there
will have been great value in restating them if, in the days ahead, there
is an accelerated effort to get these jobs done.
It was observed in Panel IV that more trained personnel are urgently
needed in the many fields related to water pollution control. It was
widely lamented that sanitary engineering has not been keeping pace
with other scientific and engineering disciplines in the race for top-
quality young people taking advanced degrees. It was strongly
552
-------
recommended that all the interested groups take action to correct these
deficiencies.
It was further agreed that there is a continuing need for public
information. Mr. Lynch, whom I have quoted before, put it this way:
"What is needed is a public sense of urgency. As for citizen re-
sponsibility, that is just a fine-sounding expression. In the broad
sense, I think, it never really exists except in terms of emergency, and
then it is not truly responsibility, but fear, anger, or outrage. Do you
think that the citizens of St. Joseph, Mo., recognized any responsibility
when they voted down sewage plant bonds last spring? Certainly
they were aware that their sewage was going down the Missouri River,
creating problems for other communities."
Speaking personally, as a citizen already aroused and as one who is
in the the business of creating a sense of public urgency, I speak very
feelingly on this point.
The ratio of interested citizens to disinterested citizens is still very
small. What is needed here is more than a pious recommendation;
what is needed is ammunition.
We need more research, more basic data, more trained personnel,
more public information. On this we all agree.
So now, let's get down to the guts of the most controversial of all
problems of water pollution, the simple problem which can be sum-
marized by the brief question: Who is in charge?
Now, perhaps on Monday night you will remember Congressman
Cramer was giving his speech and in the middle of his speech there was
applause. Up until then there had been no applause except at the end
of a talk. I looked around the room as did you. Half of the people
were applauding. The other half were not applauding. However, the
other half had been applauding when John Blatnik spoke a little
earlier at the conclusion of his speech.
So I point up the controversy to you so that you can face it a little
better. Controversies are no fun if you don't face them.
Congressman Cramer proposed these amendments to the law:
1. To strengthen State and interstate water pollution control
programs.
2. To make more effective assistance to municipalities in the
construction of necessary sewage treatment works.
3. To provide for more effective prevention and control of
water pollution caused by Federal Government installations.
4. To strengthen the role of the Federal Government in abating
pollution of interstate waters.
Mr. Blatnik had four points in his proposed amendment to the
legislation. He said that he would call for—
1. Greater Federal research.
2. Expanded Federal enforcement jurisdiction over all navi-
gable waters.
553
-------
3. Stepped-up Federal aid to communities for construction of
waste treatment plants.
4. The establishment of an independent agency in the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare to handle Federal water
pollution programs and activities.
Areas of overlap, but utter and complete disagreement of philosophy,
no matter how you look at it. Who is right?
Even panelists, who were not Congressmen and were not politicians,
became iuvolved in this complete difference of philosophy. Listen to
these two quotes:
First: "If this problem were strictly a local one, as claimed by some,
then it might be reasonable to expect local government to come up
with the solution. It is true that the problem is frequently a local
one, but is not always a local one. Moreover, some of these situations
are so complex that no reasonable combination of local and/or regional
authorities can handle them. I am inclined to believe that if the
Federal Government does not provide the stimulus and the push for
correcting our pollution situation, then we are left with the world's
greatest buck-passing game of the pot calling the kettle black, of each
community claiming its neighbor is to blame."
Another speaker on the same panel on the same day concluded his
remarks this way. He said:
"Historians have noted that over the centuries oriental despotism
has been associated with centralized control of water resources.
Unless it is the decision of the American people to alter our economic
system and abandon our private enterprise approach, the only progress
that can be made by private economic units will be the result of having
control and application of solutions at local or regional levels in order
to maintain the flexibility necessitated by the fact that different con-
ditions surround every problem of wise use of water resources."
Between these two extremes, and probably combining many others,
lies the solution of the water pollution problem in the United States
today. It isn't surprising and it certainly shouldn't be disappointing
that this Conference was unable to discover a formula to answer these
questions: Who's in charge? And of what? It is not surprising that
Panel III, which was wrestling with these most fundamental of all
questions, was forced to report:
"No agreement was reached among the conferees as to extension
of authority of the Federal Government in the area of water pollution
control."
Now, in my admittedly personal and inexpert view, the fact that
these vigorously opposed positions were brought into the open, in the
spotlight that accompanies a national conference, is of great signifi-
cance in itself.
Further, any recommendations which this Conference might have
reached, through some incredible feat of magic, would necessarily be
554
-------
tentative. This is a political fact of life at the beginning of a new
Administration. It is an economic fact of life in a society in which
the equations are constantly changing, being rebalanced.
Mark Hollis said, on the first day, that some of the interests repre-
sented here "have long been known to coexist with something less
than brotherly love." He followed this masterful understatement
with the hope that this Conference might "stimulate something be-
yond a cool air of coexistence * * * point the way to a common
understanding and a unified approach."
I have the impression that this has been done. I have the impres-
sion that, although the "unified approach" has not been defined, the
way has definitely been illuminated.
You stand agreed that the control of water pollution is a matter of
vast and urgent concern.
You stand agreed that the Federal Government, interstate agencies,
municipalities, industries, and the general public must augment their
present efforts, separately and jointly.
You stand agreed, I think, that there is work enough for all, and
glory enough for all.
As you go back to your jobs, I hope it will be with a sense of urgency,
and perhaps with a desire to change the question "Who's in charge?"
to "How can we work together?" I thank you.
555
-------
Federal Role in Pollution Control
HON. ARTHUR S. FLEMMING
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare
Dr. Burney and members of the Conference, I am certainly very
happy to have the opportunity of participating in this closing session
of the first National Conference on Water Pollution. I am delighted
that through this Conference those who are interested in the advance-
ment of fundamental and practical knowledge in this area and those
who are interested in promoting action programs have had the op-
portunity of getting together under the auspices of the U.S.
Government.
Ever since the President asked me to arrange for such a Confer-
ence, I have followed with great interest the plans that have been
developed. From the beginning I stated that I hoped that this
Conference would frankly identify the issues that confront us in this
area; would frankly discuss these issues; a ad that all points of view
would have the opportunity of being represented, and then would
finally make recommendations that would serve as a guide to all of
us who are interested in getting solutions to the problems that
confront us in this area.
You are in a far better position to indicate than I am whether or not
these objectives have been achieved. I certainly hope they have been.
As a result of this short, but intensive, education that I have had
in this area over the period of the last 2% years, I am convinced
that action on many fronts, in order to deal with this problem of
water pollution, is one of our Nation's most pressing needs. I am
sure that it is obvious to everyone here this afternoon that I have
only 36 days to give consideration as Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare to the recommendations made by this Conference. I
guess by now it is just about 36 days that I have left. I can assure
556
-------
you, however, that I will take the recommendations from this Confer-
ence, will give particular consideration to those that are addressed
to the Federal Government and, if it is possible for me to take addi-
tional action during the remaining 36 days, in order to strengthen
the role of the Federal Government in this area, I will do so.
But, in addition, I believe that, as a result of the high privilege
that I have had of serving in my present office, I will have an obliga-
tion as a private citizen to do everything I can to support and to
encourage and urge support for programs that are designed to
strengthen the role of the Federal Government in this area.
In this closing address, therefore, I am going to identify the steps
that, if taken, will, in my judgment, enable the Federal Government
to play the role it should play in dealing with this major national
problem.
Before, however, identifying some of the things that I believe should
be done, I want to speak, first of all, about something that I believe
should not be done. I refer to the proposal that some have made
to transfer responsibility for the Federal Government's program in
the water pollution area from the U.S. Public Health Service. I
believe that such a move would result in progress in this direction
being retarded rather than being accelerated.
Here are my reasons for arriving at this conclusion :
The Public Health Service, over the years, has recruited and
trained for service in this area a group of unusually competent and
dedicated public servants.
In the second place, the work of these men in the water pollution
area has been integrated with the total program and resources of the
Public Health Service in such a manner as to enable them to draw on
resources that could not possibly be duplicated at any other point in
the Government. And I make that statement advisedly, drawing
on the experiences that I have had serving as a member of both
Hoover Commissions on the Eeorganization of the Executive Branch
of the Government, and also serving for the last eight years as a member
of President Eisenhower's Committee on Government Organization.
My third reason for feeling that this would be an unwise move is
this: I have discovered that the men who have risen to top leader-
ship in the Public Health Service recognize they are crusading for
clean streams and that this is one of their major responsibilities.
This is reflected in the way in which they press, both within the execu-
tive branch and on Capitol Hill, for additional resources to enable
them to discharge this responsibility more effectively.
My fourth reason for feeling that this would be an unwise move is
this; The career civil servant who plays such an important role in
the conduct of all of the programs for which the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare has responsibility likewise recognizes
that the water pollution area provides the Department with a unique
557
-------
opportunity for constructive service. This recognition is likewise
reflected by the way in which they press for additional resources for
the conduct of programs in this area.
May I point to the fact that this leadership that comes from the
Public Health Service and that comes from our career civil servants
in the Department produces results. In 1954 the total amount of
money available for work in the water pollution control area in the
Public Health Service was $1,063,000. The operating budget this
year for all activities, exclusive, of course, of the research grants for
the construction of waste disposal plants is $12,142,000, and I am
confident that the budget that will be presented to the Congress by
the President in January will call for further substantial increases.
Finally, there is no question in my mind but that those who are
placed in top political positions in the Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare will propose and support programs of action in this
area.
I believe that by placing this responsibility in the Department,
and specifically in the Public Health Service, substantial progress has
been made. There is no question in my mind but that additional
progress will be made, and I am confident that a move to pull it out
of the Public Health Service would retard rather than accelerate this
progress.
Now, having indicated to you one thing that I think should not be
done, I want to identify those things that, personally, I am going to
work for in an effort to make the Federal Government a more effective
partner with States, municipalities, and private organizations in the
crusade to clean up the streams of the Nation. First of all, I believe
that the Federal Government should continue to make available addi-
tional resources to the Public Health Service for the collection and
dissemination of data, of information. The Federal Government's
opportunity for leadership in the water pollution control field is
virtually unbounded. This leadership will rest on a solid foundation
only if the Public Health Service is provided with the resources that
it must have in order to bring together the facts on which action by
government at all levels, by private industry, and by private groups
can be based.
In the second place, I believe that the Federal Government should
continue to make available additional resources for the conduct of
research programs by its own personnel and for making grants for
research and training projects and demonstrations to public and
private agencies.
The investment that has been made to date in this area, it seems to
me, has produced very significant results. It is obviously impossible
to develop sound action programs to deal with many of the problems
in this area, because we have not yet, through research, identified the
type of action program that will produce results. It is clear, there-
558
-------
fore, that unless the Federal Government does increase its investment
in the research area, we are being penny-wise and pound-foolish.
In the third place, I believe that the Federal Government can very
appropriately make additional resources available for giving technical
assistance to State and interstate agencies. In transmitting a com-
munication to the Congress last spring dealing with issues in the water
pollution control area, I included in the communication this statement:
"With the improved State programs that have been strengthened by
Federal program grants, it has been possible for the Public Health
Service to put more of its resources into the larger problems requiring
assistance."
This statement, it seems to me, points up the fact that, if we are
willing to do more than just pay lip service to the idea of State partici-
pation in these programs, we are able to get results. I believe, as I
know many of you do, that the States must play an increasingly im-
portant role in this area. I believe that it will be possible for them to
do so if the Federal Government is willing to give technical assistance.
In the fourth place, I believe that the authority which expires on
June 30, 1961, to make grants to State and interstate agencies to assist
them in meeting costs of establishing and maintaining adequate water
pollution prevention and control programs, should be extended for at
least another five years. In fact, I would see no reason at all why it
should not be extended for an indefinite period of time. And further-
more, I believe that the annual appropriation authorization should be
increased from $3 million to at least $5 million.
Here again the Federal Government is provided with the opportun-
ity of stimulating action at the State and interstate level, which, if
stimulated, will foreclose the necessity of the Federal Government be-
coming involved in the direct operating programs in this area.
Fifth, I believe that the program under which tho Federal Govern-
ment has made grants available to localities to pay part of the cost of
constructing municipal sewage treatment works, has been a very suc-
cessful program and should be continued. I am impressed with the
fact, as are many others, that during the period that this program has
been operating, for every Federal dollar that has been spent, our
municipalities have spent almost five dollars.
It is no longer necessary for us to speculate whether the Federal
Government can stimulate increased investment on the part of local
governments in this program. We know that it can. Personally,
therefore, I can and will support the continuation of this program in
the conviction that it is making a major contribution to the achieve-
ment of the objective that I believe this Nation must achieve. It is a
sound investment of Federal dollars.
In the sixth place,, I believe that there should be an expansion of
the activities of the Public Health Service in the area of developing
comprehensive plans for water pollution control by major water
559
-------
drainage areas. These plans must, of course, be developed in coopera-
tion with State and interstate agencies, municipalities and industry.
Surely, however, it is clear to all of us that we cannot expect to have
sound action programs unless proposed programs can be related to
comprehensive water pollution control plans.
In the seventh place, I firmly believe in the role of the interstate
compact in dealing with this problem. I believe that the Federal
Government should continue to encourage and to lend assistance to
the development of these compacts.
In the eighth place, I believe that steps should be taken to provide
for more effective prevention and control of water pollution caused
by Federal installations. A step can be taken in this direction by
amending the enforcement section of the Water Pollution Control
Act, so as to provide that findings and recommendations of the hearing
boards set up under the act shall include specific recommendations
relative to discharges from Federal property which are contributing
to pollution.
And finally, I believe that the role of the Federal Government in
abating pollution of interstate waters should be strengthened. The
enforcement procedures now included in the Water Pollution Control
Act provide a mechanism for bringing into play the combined strength
of State water pollution control agencies, the interstate agencies, and
the Federal Government. This is as it should be. This must be a
partnership endeavor. These procedures, however, are now author-
ized only for cases of pollution which are damaging to health or wel-
fare of persons in a State other than a State of origin. I believe that
these procedures should be made available also whenever there is
pollution affecting legitimate uses of the waters of any navigable in-
terstate stream, whether or not there is interstate pollution. Federal
jurisdiction in this kind of pollution, however, should be exercised
only upon request by the State, and then only when the interference
with legitimate uses is judged to be of sufficient significance to require
the initiation of enforcement procedures.
I also believe that the Water Pollution Control Act should provide a
mechanism for the initiation of enforcement procedures by a munici-
pality adversely affected by water pollution. Likewise, however, I
believe that this avenue for remedial action should be limited to situa-
tions in which the Federal Government or State water pollution con-
trol agency has concurred in the municipality's request.
Likewise, on the basis of the experience that I have had with this
enforcement section, I believe the Congress should clarify and
strengthen the role of the Secretary of this Department in the enforce-
ment processes, by providing that the findings and recommendations
of the hearing board shall be the Secretary's findings and recommenda-
tions, except to the extent modified by him, and providing for issuance
of an order instead of a notice by him for abatement of any pollution
560
-------
found to exist. Parties of interest should be provided with the op-
portunity of appealing the order of the Secretary to the United States
Court of Appeals.
Finally, I believe that the definition of interstate waters in the
Water Pollution Control Act should be amended so as to include all
waters which flow across or form a part of State boundaries, coastal
waters would be specifically included in this definition.
May I say to you that, as a result of the experiences that I have
had within the Department, on Capitol Hill, with many of the organi-
zations that are represented here, with the industries that are con-
cerned with this problem and with many of you on a personal basis,
I have been tremendously impressed by the team spirit that has been
and will be displayed by all who are related to this major national
problem. I do not think that there is really any argument over
objectives. From time to time disputes do arise as to the factual
situation that confronts us, and also as to the best methods to
follow in order to achieve our objectives. But my experience with
the enforcement provisions, particularly of the Water Pollution Con-
trol Act, convinces me that once a competent and respected body has
provided interested parties with findings of fact and recommenda-
tions based on those facts, those interested parties are willing to go
ahead and carry out the recommendations. As far as I can recall,
there is not a single instance where an industrial concern has failed to
move in the direction of complying with the recommendations of
these hearing boards, and I certainly want to pay tribute to those in-
dustrial concerns for their willingness to act, and I believe that they
reflect the spirit that prevails in industry generally.
Likewise governmental bodies have shown a willingness to comply
with these recommendations. Of course, there is one exception to
this generalization; namely, St. Joseph, Mo., which is now being
followed up in the courts under the provisions of the Water Pollution
Control Act.
But contrasted with this one situation is the fact, for example, that
voters went to the polls in November and approved bond issues
totaling over $100 million for the construction of facilities which are
needed by the municipalities to carry out the recommendations of
these hearing boards.
The response that we have received as a result of action taken under
the enforcement section of the Water Pollution Control Act is, in my
judgment, a reflection of an increasing determination on the part of
the people of this Nation to clean up our streams as rapidly as pos-
sible. By your presence and by your participation in this Conference,
you have made a major contribution to achievement of this objective.
I look foward to the opportunity of continuing to work with you.
I will be working on the other side of the table. But I will be more
than happy to do anything I possibly can to work with you in order
561
-------
to help achieve the kind of objectives, the kind of end results that I
have outlined here this afternoon, and I am confident that because
many persons, many groups will be working hand in hand with gov-
ernment at all levels, we can look forward to the future with optimism.
Significant results have been achieved up to now. I am sure, how-
ever, in the months and years which lie just ahead, with the results
that will be achieved being far more significant than those that have
been achieved up to the present time.
By coming here, participating in this Conference, you have served
your Government and your Nation. And I sincerely hope that as you
look back on this Conference three months from now, six months from
now, a year, two years from now, you will be able to see and to
identify substantial results growing out of your willingness to give
of your time, energy, and resources.
Thanks a lot for all that you have done. Best wishes as far as the
future is concerned, as we work together in order to achieve an
objective that must be achieved by our Nation; namely, cleaning up
the streams of our Nation. Thank you.
562
-------
Closing Remarks
Dr. LEROY E. BURNEY
Surgeon General
I think the comments of Secretary Flemming indicate once again
the fine support he has continued to give to this activity.
I think, too, that we are fortunate he is ending this Conference
with his challenging remarks, which are more telling now than they
might have been at the beginning of the activity.
As we close this first National Conference on Water Pollution, may
I express our gratitude to all of you for coming to this Conference
and taking part in it. I think the people in our Nation owe a debt
of gratitude to each of you for the sacrifices you have made and the
counsel you have given.
May I join with Secretary Flemming and our Water Pollution
Control Advisory Board in wishing you all a very safe journey
home. I also wish to each of you and your families a very Merry
Christmas and a pleasant and profitable New Year. Lastly, may I
wish you success in your efforts to provide clean water to our States
and to our Nation.
The first National Conference on Water Pollution is now adjourned.
563
-------
Recommendations
of the Conference
A Compilation of the
Recommendations of
the Conference from
Panels I, II, III, and IV
1. That the Conference express its conviction that the goal of
pollution abatement is to protect and enhance the capacity of the
water resource to serve the widest possible range of human needs,
and that this goal can be approached only by accepting the positive
policy of keeping waters as clean as possible, as opposed to the nega-
tive policy of attempting to use the full capacity of water for waste
assimilation.
2. The adoption of a national credo, to be given as wide and con-
sistent publicity as is feasible. The content of the credo would be:
(a) Users of water do not have an inherent right to pollute; (6) users
of public waters have a responsibility for returning them as nearly
clean as is technically possible; and (c) prevention is just as important
as control of pollution.
3. There is need for a more systematic approach to the evaluation
of the water pollution problems, to include health, esthetic, and
market values. A framework for analysis must be developed which
will provide a relatively precise understanding of benefit-cost and
which will form the basis for the design of public policies and programs
for effective water quality management.
4. Planning for the comprehensive development of each major
basin or water resource area should be established as a fixed national
policy. By comprehensive development we mean the application of
integrated multiple-purpose design, planning and management which
include the joint consideration of ground and surface waters, system-
atic conservation by water users, and the treatment and management
564
-------
of waters having substandard quality. Consideration of every appro-
priate technique would be a routine part of planning for such develop-
ment.
Such planning, insofar as feasible, should include consideration of
all important industrial plant sites. An early and important objective
should be a systematic program of flow regulation. State initiative
toward comprehensive planning should be encouraged, and participa-
tion by all major interests should be encouraged. The objective
should be one of eventually producing maximum total benefits from
all economic and social uses.
5. Provision should be made, legally and financially, for the iden-
tification and acquisition at an early date of reservoir sites needed in
the execution of comprehensive plans. The mounting population,
the spread of settlement, and general intensification of valley land
use otherwise may make many good sites totally unavailable or
prohibitively costly.
6. The value of soil conservation, sediment control, and salinity
control as pollution abatement measures should be recognized through
planning and budget in our National, State, and local resource develop-
ment programs. They should be considered as tools to be applied in
water development and management. Pollution abatement is a
problem with roots in rural land use and agronomy, as well as in
urban congestion and industrial growth.
7, That public policy formally recognize the recreation value of
our water resources as a full partner with domestic, industrial, and
agricultural values in water quality management policies and pro-
grams.
8. Administration of water pollution control programs on State and
interstate streams should continue to be the responsibility of the
State agencies which therefore must be supported by adequate budg-
ets and staffed by competent directors, engineers, scientists and
related professional personnel. It is essential that State legislatures
appraise more realistically their opportunities and responsibilities in
carrying out the principle herein stated and are urged to take
appropriate action where necessary.
9. The administrative level of the Water Supply and Water Pollu-
tion Control activities in the Public Health Service and in the States
should be commensurate with the importance of this problem.
10. That State statutes and organizational structures for water
pollution control should be reviewed and strengthened or revised
where necessary. The following revisions were proposed in the
suggested 1950 State Water Pollution Control Act as a guide for
State legislation in this field. The proposals were:
(a) Vest comprehensive authority in the State water pollution
control agency, which would be given independent status in its
organizational placement in State government;
565
-------
(i) Insure construction of municipal treatment facilities
ordered by the State agency by authorizing courts to direct all
necessary steps, including bond issues, tax levies, and revenue
charges if required;
(c) Authorize the establishment of sanitary districts to deal
with local pollution control problems beyond municipal limits.
Panel III did not arrive at an agreement on these proposals.
11. The Federal Government has clear responsibilities in its working
relationship with State and local governments with respect to:
research, leadership in personnel training, regulatory procedures,
water resources inventories and investigations, and standards of
water quality.
No agreement was reached among the conferees as to extension of
authority of the Federal Government in the area of water pollution
control.
12. That appropriate public and private agencies mount andsustain
an expanded program of public information to the end that enlightened
public opinion can be brought to bear on the accomplishments, costs,
needs, opportunities, and problems involved in water quality manage-
ment, noting that this Conference should provide a dramatic oppor-
tunity to launch such a program.
13. There was general agreement that the public needs more
information on pollution and its abatement. Government agencies
and other informed individuals should make every effort to present
the facts in understandable form for use by individuals, organizations,
and the general media of communication. Such material should
include factual information and suggested methods of attack as have
been discussed by the Conference.
14, The Federal grants-in-aid program has provided a valuable
stimulus to the control of stream pollution. Other methods of financ-
ing construction of sewage and waste treatment works deserve
thorough study and investigation to determine the most appropriate
means available or which might be made available for sound and
equitable allocation of costs. Several other means of financing were
suggested in one or two papers presented at the Conference. The
view of the Panel subcommittee was that these should be listed and
appraised without any commitment on the part of the subcommittee
as to which, if any, should be recommended. It did suggest that
these and others unnamed should be explored at some subsequent
time.
(a) Incentive grants from Federal and State appropriations;
(6) Guaranteed bonds;
(c) Eevenue bonds;
(d) Marketing long-term revenue bonds under a Federal system
of guarantees such as FHA-guaranteed mortgages or loans for
defense production purposes;
566
-------
(e) The creation of "Water KFC" or such Federal finance
agency to discount, purchase or collateralize such bonds for loan
purposes; and
(/) The earmarking of specific taxes, notably, from Federal
licensing of pleasure boats and sale of fuel to all water-borne
craft, for water pollution control purposes.
15. The construction of municipal waste treatment facilities should
be expanded immediately with continued increases to keep up with
population growth and to abate the backlog of pollution by 1970. A
similar program expansion should be applied to the wastes from
industry.
16. That financial incentive should be provided to encourage
industry to install needed waste treatment facilities. This may be
accomplished by permitting industry, for corporate income tax
purposes, to charge the cost of nonproductive waste water treatment
facilities as expense.
17. Each Federal installation should be required by Congress to
treat its wastes in accordance with the standards for cities and
industries in the area, with 1964 set as the target date for providing
minimum treatment.
18. Enlargement and extension should be made of the water quality
monitoring programs now in effect, so as to reveal more adequately
conditions, existing and future, in rivers and streams. We believe
that the protection of the public health and the preservation of water
supply sources for accepted beneficial uses requires such extension
and enlargement.
19. In order to facilitate assessment of the total pollution problem,
it is recommended that particular attention be given to accelerating
the collection of information on industrial waste loading. The Public
Health Service should coordinate collection of this information on the
national level.
20. States should develop water monitoring programs for bacterio-
logical, biological, chemical, physical and radiological quality. This
work should be coordinated with the efforts of an expanded National
Water Quality Network of the Public Health Service. More data
should be collected on the condition of streams both before and after
water pollution abatement.
21. Provision should be made within the Public Health Service for
developing the water quality criteria which are suited to application
on a national basis. However, many water quality criteria are not
uniformly applicable because of the effects of area usage differences,
stream characteristics and other factors. State and local determina-
tions of some criteria also will have to be made. It is recognized
that periodic revision of these criteria not only \vill be in order, but
should be sought, as new data are made available.
583283—61 37 567
-------
22. That the Public Health Service assume leadership, in collabora-
tion with other public and private agencies, in collecting, compiling,
and publishing pertinent data on the toxicity of water contaminants.
This should include criteria, standards, methods of testing and safe
allowable concentrations for human consumption; also that efforts be
made to stimulate toxicological and epidemiological studies to be
made to determine long and short-range effects.
23. The total national support for research in water supply and
water pollution control should be increased substantially.
24. The flow of research findings on the water environment must
be increased and intensified in depth as well as breadth.
25. That improved methods be developed for measuring pollution
abatement progress. New engineering parameters which encompass
all pollution components, as well as yardsticks for measurement of
stream quality, are critically needed.
26. It should be regarded as an obligation on the part of industry
to undertake basic research which will determine the biotic and other
effects influencing the public welfare of the products they distribute.
This should apply to detergents, insecticides, pesticides, herbicides,
fertilizers and other microchemicals and microbiologicals, and to the
effects of metallic wastes such as compounds of chromium and cyanide.
Where the effects of these or other health hazards or potential public
nuisances are not adequately treated within industry, the Federal
Government or the States must provide for and budget such research.
Additional research of peculiarly public responsibility includes the
effect and interpretation of reducing anaerobes, nitrifying bacteria,
viruses, protozoa, and other biota, and radiation hazards.
27. The flow of engineers and scientists who are competent to
advance and administer the scientific, technological, and economic
conservation of our water resources, including, in particular, the
control of water pollution, must be increased promptly by recruit-
ment and training of basically qualified personnel at two levels:
(a) the professional or predoctorate level; and (b) the postdoctorate
level.
28. The field of water supply and pollution control has become so
complex that we must think more generally than in the past, of a
multidisciplinary approach to the solution of developing problems.
This implies the introduction of representatives of many disciplines
including economists and political scientists, as well as applied math-
ematicians and physicists to this field and the creation of requisite
institutes or centers for environmental health research at which needed
personnel can be brought together.
29. The capability of graduate schools or university departments of
engineering and public health to produce a sufficient number of engi-
neers and scientists who are able to deal effectively with the mounting
problems of water resource control must be enlarged by support of
568
-------
staff, student body, and teaching and research facilities, as well as by
grants-in-aid of research. Interdisciplinary research should be en-
couraged in particular. Because the use of personnel and the appli-
cation of research lie in the public domain, the Federal Government
must be expected to assume a substantial portion of the required
financial burden.
30. The flow of treatment-plant operating personnel as well as
engineers and scientists working in the wider field of water supply
and water pollution control must be increased and their training
broadened.
569
-------
-------
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I
Additions to the Record
APPENDIX II
A. List of Exhibits
B. Films Shown
APPENDIX III
Conference Participants
A. Members of Steering Committee
B. Members of Water Pollution
Control Advisory Board
C. Conference Participants
and Speakers
571
-------
-------
APPENDIX I
Additions to the Record
Participants at the National Conference on Water Pollution were
invited to submit additional comments and points of view for the
record, these comments to be received by the Executive Secretary on
or before December 29, 1960. Following in alphabetical order are
the communications which were received.
STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY E. SCOTT PATTISON, DIVISIONAL MANAGEK,
IN BEHALF OF ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN SOAP & GLYCERINE
PRODUCERS, INC.
During the National Conference on Water Pollution, December
12-14, 1960, on several occasions questions were asked about the
health aspects of the long-term ingestion of trace amounts of synthetic
detergents in water. More specifically, the questions concerned ABS
(alkyl benzene sulfonate), the surface active agent predominantly
used in household detergents. In response to these questions, the
Association of American Soap & Glycerine Producers, Inc., on behalf
of the detergent industry, offers the following;
1. A review of the literature on acute and subacute toxicity studies
entitled "ABS and the Safety of Water Supplies," Journal American
Water Works Association, 52, 786-790 (June 1960), prepared by an
AAS&GP committee, concludes that "... based on a conservative
assessment, ABS can be consumed at concentrations at least several
times those presently found in drinking waters without producing
any long-term, physiological effects."
2, A chronic toxicity study entitled "The Chronic Toxicity of
Sodium Alkylbenzenesulfonate by Food and Water Administration
to Eats" by Tusing, Paynter and Opdyke, was published in Toxicology
and Applied Pharmacology, 2, 464-473 (July 1960). This paper
covers two separate 2-year rat feeding studies. In the first, levels
of 0.5 and 0.1 percent (5,000 and 1,000 ppm) of alkyl benzene sulfonate
derived from polypropylene, typical of that used in the manufacture
of household detergents, were fed in the diets of the test animals.
573
-------
In the second 2-year study, the ABS was supplied in the drinking
water of the rats at a level of about 0.05 percent (equivalent to 0.1%
in the diet). The levels in both studies were administered with no
significant effects and afford a more than adequate factor of safety,
even assuming that as much as one ppm of ABS might be present
in the drinking water. The authors conclude: "To the extent that
animal tests provide a basis for the assay of toxicity to humans, it
would appear that these investigations assure that considerable
amounts of ABS (much in excess of the amounts that might find their
way into the drinking water) could be consumed over long periods
without harm."
3. Another chronic toxicity study "Chronic Toxicity of Santo-
merse No. 3 From Olefin (Dodecyl Benzene Sodium Sulfonate)," by
Paynter and Weir, was published in Toxicology and Applied Pharma-
cology, 2, 641-648 (November 1960). This paper reports the findings
of 2-year feeding studies of ABS at levels of 0.2 percent, 0.1 percent
and 0.02 percent (2,000, 1,000 and 200 ppm) in the diet. The results
support those of the studies reported in 2 above, with the statement
by the authors that: "No adverse effects were produced with respect
to growth, food consumption, survival, hematological values, organ
weights and organ-body weight ratios. Gross and microscopic exami-
nation of tissues revealed no pathological changes attributable to the
ingestion of the test material."
4. Finally, it is our understanding that the U.S. Public Health
Service Committee on Drinking Water Standards, which is proposing,
for esthetic reasons, inclusion of a recommended limit of 0.5 ppm of
ABS in the U.S. Drinking Water Standard when it is revised in the
near future, has considered the toxicity aspects and has also concluded
that there is more than an ample factor of safety in considering the
trace levels of ABS which might occur in drinking water.
On the basis of the studies reported above, it appears that an
ample factor of safety for the trace levels of ABS which might occur
in water supplies has been demonstrated.
STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY HENRY CONRAD BRAMER, UNIVERSITY
OF PITTSBURGH
THE ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE WATER POLLUTION
ABATEMENT PROGRAM IN THE OHIO RIVER VALLEY
Abstract
Stream pollution does not, in general, result from the willful
destruction of a natural resource by persons of no social responsibility.
It is caused by the excessive extent to which a surface stream is
subjected to a normally legitimate water use, i.e., for waste disposal.
574
-------
When this use of the surface waters results in social costs in excess
of the aggregate benefits realized, it is controlled and regulated
in the public interest. In the general case, these costs are reflected
in many sectors of the socioeconomic structure. Whether or not
a proposed program of pollution abatement is economically in the
over-all public interest can be determined by a general analysis of
the costs and benefits involved.
The objectives of this study have been to determine to what
extent water-pollution abatement can be justified on an economic
basis, and to develop and demonstrate the methods by which the
economics of pollution abatement can be quantitatively studied
on a river-basin basis. The Ohio River Valley was chosen as the
area of study here. The use of the present work as a model for
similar studies would require modification of the water-use categories
and sources of pollution to be considered in the light of a compre-
hensive study of the region of interest.
The economic aspects of water-pollution abatement in the Ohio
River Valley have been considered on the basis of quantitative data
developed for the reference year 1958. The absolute and relative
significances of the various uses of the surface waters in the region
have been demonstrated through estimations of their annual values.
The costs of pollution as reflected in the various water uses have been
estimated with the reductions in such costs to be expected as the result
of pollution-abatement measures. The costs of abatement in the
various public and private sectors have been estimated. Net costs of
pollution abatement have been shown as functions of the degree of
abatement accomplished, and the nature of the economic optimum has
been shown. The methodology of a study of the economics of water-
pollution abatement in a river basin has been given, and attention has
been directed to the need for additional data in certain specific areas.
The total net cost of pollution abatement has been shown to be
critically dependent upon the effects upon water uses for recreation.
An economic optium has been shown to exist in the range of pollution
abatement corresponding to that between primary and secondary
treatment; this optimum has been defined in terms of minimum net
costs. A benefit/cost ratio exceeding unity has not been demonstrated
and it is concluded that pollution abatement cannot be justified on an
economic basis if it is assumed that such a ratio is a necessary
condition.
The total value of the various water uses in the region is estimated to
be about two percent of the area's contribution to the Gross National
Product. The annual cost of pollution from all sources, including
nature, is estimated to be equal to one-third of the total 1958 value of
the water uses and to be reducible by about 60 percent with the adop-
tion of feasible pollution abatement measures.
575
-------
=3
.Q
08
a
o
o
ft
•a
03
t>
O
Costs and Benefits of Pollution Abatement (10 millions of $)
576
-------
\
\
\
« \
8
H
0
ty
ir\
eg
O
cO
Net Costs of Pollution Abatement (10 millions of
J
a
M
&
D
577
-------
Economic justification is not a necessary prior condition to the
implementation of a water-pollution abatement program. Political
considerations are most often of primary importance. It is felt, how-
ever, that the best public interest would be served if those costs capable
of measurement were known and used as guideposts in decision making
by responsible public agencies.
The results of this study are largely summarized in graphical form by
figures 4 and 5 of the manuscripts, which are reproduced here for con-
venience. The total costs and total benefits of pollution abatement
in the Ohio Eiver Valley are shown in figure 4 as functions of the
degree of abatement accomplished; total net costs are shown in figure
5. The net costs are the total costs of noneconomic benefits and of
economic benefits incapable of measurement. (See pages 576-577.)
STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY EICHARD W. SMITH, MANAGER, NATURAL
RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED
STATES, 1615 H STREET N.W., WASHINGTON 6, D.C.
At the session of Panel III on Tuesday afternoon, December 13, I
requested permission to make a short statement on the paper of
Karl M. Mason on "The Needs and Obligations of State Agencies."
Because of lack of time, I was not given an opportunity to make this
statement. I therefore ask that the following statement be inserted
in the proceedings—following Mr. Mason's paper:*
*******
Mr. Mason's paper on "The Needs and Obligations of State
Agencies" is shocking to me because of his willingness to abrogate
to the Federal Government his responsibilities as a State stream
pollution abatement official.
Instead of saying it is the obligation of the State to set proper
standards of water quality and doing its best to enforce them, he
says, "It becomes an obligation on their (State officials) part to sup-
port vigorous action by the Federal Government in developing such
standards."
Again he states: "Water pollution control programs are so complex
that the States cannot cope with these problems without the active
assistance of the Federal Government."
Next he chides the Public Health Service because it "has been ex-
tremely sensitive to the rights of the States in water pollution control."
The Public Health Service should be sensitive to the rights oi the
States.
He ends by saying that the State officers should "support a stronger
role on the part of the Public Health Service in water pollution control
activities."
1 All statements received after the close of the Conference have been included
in this Appendix rather than elsewhere in the text.
578
-------
If this is the attitude of State officials, sworn to do their best to re-
duce stream pollution, we are indeed in a bad way. I believe, how-
ever, that Mr. Mason does not represent the views of many of the
State stream pollution abatement officials.
The States, individually or through interstate compacts, are capable
of handling the problem of enforcement, if they want to, and many of
them are doing it. The proper role of the Federal Government is to
furnish basic research and technical assistance, and with enforcement
authority in the background to be invoked only if and when the State
demonstrates either inability or unwillingness to do its own job. This
authority is in the present Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and
the act does not need to be amended.
Editor's Note: Since this statement referred to a specific paper
presented at the Conference, the author was given an opportunity to
reply. The following is Mr. Mason's statement:
The Public Health Service has generously permitted me to comment
on Mr. Smith's remarks concerning certain statements contained in
my Panel III presentation.
First of all, I would like to express my pleasure in having an official
of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce come to the defense and support of
State water-pollution control agencies. Secondly, I would like to
emphasize the fact that I am 1 of the 50 State program administra-
tors referred to so often in my paper, and I believe that few persons
familiar with Pennsylvania's water pollution control program during
the past 10 years would ever accuse us of abrogating our responsibili-
ties to the Federal Government. What, then, did I mean by the
statements quoted by Mr. Smith?
The reader must keep in mind that a 15-minute paper is necessarily
very concise and most sentences cannot be interpreted accurately if
out of context. The two short paragraphs devoted to standards point
out the danger of the States having different stream classifications or
minimum waste treatment requirements for the same water uses.
During the past decades the States haven't been able to reach an
agreement, so why not let the Public Health Service try it with our,
and others', help? They have done very well on the Standard Milk
Ordinance and Code; the National Committee on Radiation Protec-
tion has a fine set of standards in that field, and even the Atomic
Energy Commission is developing recommended regulations for State
agencies to adopt for radiological health programs. None of these
standards are Federal regulations and neither would the water quality
standards be mandatory.
I do not know where to begin on the next statement that Mr. Smith
questions; for to deny that we need the active participation of the
Federal Government in our water-pollution control programs is to
discount the invaluable services we all receive in technical assistance,
583283—61 38
579
-------
research, and training which otherwise would not be available to
State agencies.
It is true that I chide the Public Health Service for being too sensi-
tive to the rights of States—within the context of the preceding para-
graph to which that statement refers. When it is known that program
grants distributed to the State agencies by the Service are not used to
extend water-pollution control activities and, in at least one State,
are not even credited as additional funds to the unit administering
that program, then I say that's being too cooperative. My main
plea there was that unless we, the States, relinquish some of our pre-
rogatives of deciding just what we're going to do with Federal funds
when they reach our offices, we might find another agency much less
to our liking administering water pollution-control activities at the
Federal level.
Mr. Smith then quotes the last phrase in my summary which sup-
ports a stronger role on the part of the Public Health Service. Since
a summary must reflect the text, this statement must refer to the only
two recommendations for Service activities—developing acceptable
standards and coordinating water pollution control activities by re-
viewing the use of program grants—and it does.
Now, after these few quotes, Mr. Smith deplores the extension of
Federal enforcement powers for pollution abatement—and coindi-
dentally, so do I. In fact, I couldn't express most of my views better
if I'd written his concluding paragraph myself. How can I disagree
when I gave an entire page, among only four, to the importance of
enforcement by State agencies? I can only wonder, therefore, where
Mr. Smith received the impression that I was for the extension of
Federal enforcement powers—I certainly didn't say or write it.
STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY SAMUEL A. GREELEY, PARTNER, GKEELEY
& HANSEN, 14 EAST JACKSON BLVD., CHICAGO, ILL.
1. Foreword
This is a conference of great importance. Dr. Burney, after refer-
ence to President Eisenhower's veto message of February 23, 1960,
in which the President requested the Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare to arrange for a National Conference on Water Pollution,
supplemented the President's message by stating, "Such a conference
* * * will do much to build a national program against water pollu-
tion and to mobilize public opinion behind such a program."
This statement prompts two questions:
(a) What is to be the scope and nature of a national program?
(6) How is public opinion to be mobilized in support thereof?
Answering these questions will require a great knowledge and study
of water pollution and its present status, and of its fundamental and
580
-------
realistic aspects. The Public Health Service has a fine record of
achievement in advancing knowledge regarding water pollution and
its abatement.
2. What is water pollution?
Under the old common law, no one had the right to change the
quantity and character of water from its natural condition to the
detriment of others without acceptable compensation. Pollution
(and contamination) may be thought of as the causing of such changes
in the character of water. However, this law or doctrine has been
tempered by the needs of water for survival and by the relative needs
of contending parties. The relation of costs to needs and to benefits
is also a tempering factor.
3. What is the present status of water pollution?
A useful appraisal of the present status of water pollution and of
pollution abatement seems to be a necessary start to the formulation
of a national program and to the mobilizing of public opinion. Many
competent sewage works have been built to abate pollution and a great
number of research projects have been made and are underway. To
illustrate, a few items pertinent to a description and appraisal of the
present status are noted as follows:
(a) The largest cities in the nation have designed and built
tremendous works for pollution abatement. These are New York,
Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Detroit.
(b) A great many sanitary districts and sewer authorities have
installed presently adequate sewage works to abate local pol-
lution.
(c) Undoubtedly State sanitary engineers are aware of many
smaller municipalities who have built and operate adequate
sewage works.
(d) Compacts, such as the Ohio River, the Tri-State and the
New England Commission have made great forward strides in
pollution control and have a great volume of experience.
Experiences such as these give much realism to the present status of
water-pollution control.
4. What are the foundamental aspects?
What fundamental aspects or considerations should guide the for-
mulation of a national program and the mobilization of public opinion.
In my view, based on responsible work on many pollution problems,
neither the building of a national program nor the support of the
public thereto will prevail unless the following fundamental considera-
tions are firmly and acceptably established:
I. Eeal need.
II. Fair financing
581
-------
5. Local versus national objectives and interests
There is no real difference between local and national objectives
and interests if local need and knowledge on the one hand and national
ability on the other are respected.
It seems clear to me that, locally, the need of water-pollution abate-
ment as related realistically to costs and benefits can best be ap-
praised and developed by those who are directly responsible to tax-
payers and users.
6. Is water pollution uniform throughout the Nation?
The answer to this question is, of course, "No." Almost the first
thing to be established in a program against water pollution is the
standard of cleanness to be maintained in each important waterway.
No single or uniform standard of cleanness is supportable. In print
No. 29 of the Kerr committee, Professor Reid, of the University of
Oklahoma, states: "In some instances, it may be found that the river
cannot economically provide for all the uses desired, and a choice
will be required as to the best possible futiire use of the river."
There is a growing number of adopted standards and of knowledge
relative to their sufficiency. A very complete compilation of such
standards is in "Water Quality Criteria" and "Water Quality
Criteria—-Addendum No. 1," by the State Water Pollution Control
Board, Sacramento, Calif., 1952 and 1954.
Standards of cleanness should be established with due regard to—•
(a) Assimilation capacities of waters receiving pollution.
(6) Realistic appraisals of waterway uses and applicable standards
of cleanness.
(c) Realization that dollars are important and that expenditures
must be warranted by needs and benefits.
7. Informing the public
It seems clear that the public should be made aware of the "haz-
ards of pollution and of workable means for control"; but, to obtain
public approval and support of pollution abatement projects, their
need must be realistically established and the expenditures therefor
must be fairly allocated. These two criteria are important consid-
erations with respect to progress in pollution abatement. Realistic
need and fair financing are important matters about which the public
should be informed.
8. Fair financing—'Two-part rates
In my opinion, it is essential that the financing of pollution abate-
ment projects and procedures be altogether fair. Reference should
be made to the so-called Joint Report of the American Bar Associa-
tion, the American Society of Civil Engineers, and six other national
groups, published in 1951. This report presents the fundamental
consideration that users or persons directly benefited on the one hand
582
-------
and property on the other should each contribute to the total annual
revenue needed for operation, maintenance, and debt service in pro-
portion to the amount which each causes to be spent. In my opinion
the resulting two-part rates are the fairest method of financing pol-
lution abatement projects.
In a paper before the Philadelphia Congress in October 1960,
Curtiss M. Everts, of the Oregon State Board of Health, states that,
among other things, State agencies are hampered in accomplishing
pollution abatement by "antiquated financing methods."
The subject of fair and unfair financing was discussed by the writer
in a paper before the bar association at their Cleveland meeting in
1947 and was reprinted and distributed by the U.S. Public Health
Service shortly thereafter as "Some Fundamental Considerations in
Revenue Financing of Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Projects
with Special Reference to Rate Structures."
9. British attitude
No brief description of the British attitude toward the water pollu-
tion problem on my part is practicable or proper. However, the
problem has been active and pressing in Great Britain for over 85
years. Their experience should be helpful in arriving at statements
and recommendations in reply to the President's message.
There is a very competent book published in Great Britain and
written by Louis Klein, chief chemist of the Mersey River Board,
entitled "Aspects of River Pollution." A quotation from chapter 14,
Standards for Rivers, Sewage Effluents and Trade Effluents, is perti-
nent to this Conference, as follows:
Before making bylaws, a river board must carry out a thorough survey of the
river or rivers for which standards are required. Data needed for this purpose
would have to include flow measurements and analyses of the stream at a number
of points and information on the volumes and character of all sewage effluents and
trade effluents discharging to the stream. A decision would have to be made on
the quality of water needed in the river, or in different parts of the same river and,
in this connection much would depend, to use the words in section 5 of the act,
on "the extent to which the stream is or may in the future be used for industrial
purposes, fisheries, water supply, agriculture, transport, or navigation.
10. Statements by Secretary Flemming
The Secretary gave a preview of this Conference in his remarks to
the Water Pollution Control Federation in Philadelphia on October 4,
1960. He suggested an opinion that this Conference would—
(a) Specifically identify the controversial issues.
(b) Hear opposing views.
(c) Make specific recommendations.
He then suggested that action is required to—•
(d) Establish national goals in research.
(e) Apply the results of research.
(f) Get industry and government to act.
583
-------
He expressed a conviction that action by the Federal Government
is required and recited seven important areas of Federal action. He
suggested four recommendations for legislation as follows:
I. Make enforcement procedures available to the Federal
Government but only upon request by a State;
II. Improve enforcement procedures by providing for their
initiation by a municipality adversely affected by pollution;
III. Clarify and strengthen the Secretary's role in the enforce-
ment process;
IV. A "draft bill" which would amend the definition of "inter-
state waters" to include waters which flow across or form
a part of a State boundary.
The foregoing, I think, should be carefully adjusted to the funda-
mental aspects stated above.
11. Statement by Water Pollution Control Federation
The Board of Control of the W.P.C.F. in session in Philadelphia,
Pa., on October 6, 1960, adopted a policy statement in 13 sections.
This is an important contribution meriting full consideration in the
deliberations of this Conference. Some of the sections of this state-
ment appear to conform to the fundamental aspects, such as the
following:
2. That the type and extent of treatment and control for any specific situation
must be determined after consideration of the technical factors involved.
3. That the responsibilities for the adequate treatment and control of wastes
to overcome pollution must be shared individually and jointly by industry and
local, State, and Federal Governments.
********
6. That the administration of State and interstate pollution control programs
should remain in the hands of State and interstate water pollution control agencies
which must be supported by increased budgets and adequately staffed by well-
trained and compensated engineers, scientists, and other personnel.
12. Statement of water pollution control administrators
These administrators at their meeting in Chicago on January 26
and 27, I960, arrived at a considerable number of comprehensive
"Conclusions and Kecommendations" in the field of water pollution
control. Several statements in this document seem to conform to
and support the fundamental aspects of the problem such as the
following:
(a) With reference to this Conference, two things were said to
be of paramount importance:
1. Adequate financing.
2. Meticulous planning.
(b) That the States have primary responsibility in pollution
control,
(c) That Federal Government authority * * * be exercised
only after other enforcement agencies have failed * * *
584
-------
Many other of the conclusions and recommendations of the State
and interstate water pollution control administrators deserve study
in the preparation of statements to satisfy the request in the Presi-
dent's message.
13. Summary statement
Answering the request of President Eisenhower for advice relative
to Public Law 660 and his veto of an amendment thereto calls for
thoughtful, competent, and responsible effort. Inherent in the prob-
lem is the relation between the roles of Federal, State, and local
agencies. This is a matter of profound concern about which there are
differing opinions in other areas of national practice. On this account,
the conclusions of this Conference will be important. But within
the specific field of water pollution to which this Conference is directed,
some fundamental aspects are recommended for consideration as
described in the foregoing and summarized as follows:
(a) No solution of the water pollution problem will receive or
merit adequate public support unless a realistic need is established
and unless the method of financing is fair.
(6) Locally acceptable standards of cleanness for each waterway
should be prepared and used as guides for needed abatement
projects.
(c) In adopting standards of cleanness and abatement projects,
due regard should be given to assimilation capacities, realistic
appraisals of waterway uses and needs, and to a reasonable regard
to overall economy and dollar conservation.
In closing, I congratulate and compliment the U.S. Public Health
Service for its able promotion of a great National Conference on
Water Pollution and for its many contributions to the advancement of
good sanitation.
STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY JOHN E. HULL, GENERAL, U.S. ARMY
(RETIRED), PRESIDENT, MANUFACTURING CHEMISTS' ASSOCIATION,
INC., WASHINGTON, D.C.
As president of the Manufacturing Chemists' Association, speaking
to the American Institute of Chemical Engineers on December 7, 1960,
I stated that the MCA Water Pollution Abatement Committee is now
formulating a set of principles as follows:
The surface waters are one of the Nation's most valuable,
renewable natural resources. This vital resource must not be
destroyed by uncontrolled stream pollution. The chemical
industry, as well as all other industry, has a great stake in this
water resource. Growth and development depend upon it.
Proper control of stream pollution is one of the obligations
of responsible corporate citizenship.
585
-------
Avoiding harmful pollution is a necessary business cost. As
with other aspects of business, qualified people with clearly
defined responsibilities must be assigned to bring and keep
pollution under control.
Adequate waste control facilities must be included in the design
and construction of new plants and major additions to existing
plants.
Adequate research in waste control is essential.
The chemical industry recognizes the community nature of
water pollution control and desires to cooperate fully with the
control agencies that are responsible for safeguarding the health
and welfare of the people.
When new laws and ordinances are being considered, the
chemical industry pledges itself to be a constructive contributor
in promoting measures which will be sound, effective, and equita-
ble.
The employees and the general public should be kept informed
on the waste treatment and stream pollution control program
underway at each plant. Knowledge of and acceptance by the
public is the measure of success of a control program.
Information on waste treatment should be exchanged with
other industries working in the field. Waste control personnel
should be encouraged to prepare and present appropriate waste
treatment papers. Those people with experience with the many
complex problems should be encouraged to support and partici-
pate in the activities of the waste-control organizations serving
in the field.
The solution of stream pollution problems of the individual
companies is not a determining factor in competitive production
and, therefore, the knowledge pertaining to solution of these
problems should be freely shared.
I believe it is clear from the foregoing that we fully appreciate the
importance of an adequate supply of water of quality appropriate for
its intended use; as one segment of industry, we will continue to exert
our best efforts toward this goal. While we recognize the problems
incident thereto are substantial, and somewhat pressing in terms of
careful and thorough planning, we reject the idea that these problems
are already of crisis proportions.
We know that informing the public is necessary and desirable.
Since each one of us as a member of the public body in the end must be
convinced to bear the required cost, we pledge to aid in disseminating
accurate well-founded information but we decry overemphasis or the
sounding of unwarranted alarms.
Needs for the future to insure continuing progress are primarily in
the technical area, for the most part demanding research. Most
pressing of all is the answer to the question: "How clean does water
586
-------
need to be?" This has yet to be established. Quality criteria should
be developed in relation to water use. It is economically wasteful—
and wasteful of time and talent—to meet arbitrary requirements more
stringent than necessary. Following close upon the definition of
water quality is the problem of identification and quantitative analysis
of critical substances. Such activities perforce call for greater num-
bers of trained personnel. It is logical to look to the Federal Govern-
ment for leadership and coordination of these technical advances, in
view of their broad utility and applicability.
Just as we visualize gain from centralization of research effort on
problems which are technically similar, we are firm in the conviction
that decentralization of enforcement authority should be preserved,
to reside insofar as possible in the States or local communities. The
problems of administration and control differ from one watershed or
river basin area to another. The best assurance that they will receive
appropriately singular judgment, taking due account of the impact on
the area in question, will come from responsibility resting within the
hands of those directly representing the population of this same area.
We believe the fine record of State regulation, together with interstate
compact authority on problems affecting more than a single State,
warrants continuance of this design.
Echoing the theme of Mr. A. E. Forster's address to the Conference,
the chemical industry will continue to need water for its very survival.
Also, we are conscious that industry's employees, just as much as other
segments of society, are vitally interested in recreational and agri-
cultural uses, and in plentiful supplies of healthful potable water.
We shall work unremittingly to accord proper balance to all needs of
water as responsible corporate members of the communities in which
we operate.
STATEMENT SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE CONSERVATION AND MAN-
AGEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS OF THE UNITED STATES BY
DONALD J. HARDENBROOK, CHAIRMAN, CONSERVATION COMMITTEE
WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT THROUGH COMMUNITY
WATERSHED ASSOCIATIONS
Our general viewpoint on matters involving water and soil conser-
vation is that natural watersheds are, in most cases, the most feasible
units for conservation, development, and wise utilization of these
renewable natural resources. It is also our belief that the water-
shed development concept should embrace the whole complex of
renewable natural resource problems, including abatement of pollu-
587
-------
tion, erosion prevention, protection of municipal and industrial water
supplies, upstream water flow retardation, flood control, drainage
and irrigation where necessary, recreation, and forest and range
management.
In watershed development, we believe that local responsibility for
action should be assumed by community watershed associations,
soil conservation districts, or other voluntary local and State groups.
Such watershed associations are ideal vehicles for permitting industri-
alists, bankers, businessmen, sportsmen, farmers, clubwomen, members
of youth groups, and other individuals to cooperate together in solving
problems related to adequate water supplies and flood control.
Where a unified approach on a large stream basin is most feasible,
we advocate that a federation of community watershed associations
on a State or interstate compact basis be encouraged to develop and
carry out necessary plans. Wherever necessary to permit the ef-
fectuation of these principles, the various States should consider the
adoption of suitable legislation recognizing watershed development as
a State or interstate compact responsibility.
Therefore, we wish to express support for the viewpoint expressed
by Mr. Edward R. Thornton, President, New England Interstate
Water Pollution Control Commission, opposing expansion of Federal
regulatory authority.
II
WATER-QUALITY MANAGEMENT IN INDUSTRY
In the field of water-quality management, industry is spending
millions of dollars for research and for the application of existing
knowledge in the form of control devices. One very large modern
industrial plant, constructed in recent years, was engineered so that
it returns water of better quality to the adjacent river than the water
it withdraws from the river. In-plant control is recognized as the
first line of defense against water pollution, and great progress has been
made in many individual plants in rearranging manufacturing pro-
cesses so as to minimize waterborne industrial wastes. Other pre-
ventive work has included a search for materials that do not contain
substances deleterious to water quality. For example, one automobile
manufacturing company reports that, by cooperative efforts with its
supplier-vendors, phenols have been removed from such purchased
materials as coolants, drawing compounds, preservatives, and paint
strippers. This has resulted in an elimination of phenols from plant
waste effluents. Industrial water-cooling towers have been adapted
to serve a dual purpose as bio-oxidation towers to purify plant effluent
and reduce pollution. Another promising new development involves
recent experiences with oxidation ponds as an economic alternative
to more elaborate treatment plants. These oxidation ponds, also
588
-------
known as aeration lagoons or stabilization basins, have great possi-
bilities for small industrial plants and small communities. Solar
radiation and algae team up to neutralize the wastes.
Industry supports the National Technical Task Committee on
Industrial Wastes, comprised of representatives of 36 major using
industries. The Task Committee exchanges information on industrial
wastes problems and formulates a priority list of research projects
in the water quality control field for the consideration of the Surgeon
General of the U.S. Public Health Service. At its meetings, the
various industries report the progress each is making. Some excerpts
from these reports are suggestive of developments in this field :
Beet Sugar Industry
"The industry continues to add facilities which will improve the
quality or reduce the quantity of waste water discharged from the
sugar and byproduct processing plants. The reduction in the
pollutional characteristics of the waste waters is accomplished in
various ways.
"During the past year, three new byproduct plants have been built
to produce dried molasses beet pulp. New screening facilities have
been provided at six plants to remove additional organic solids from
waste waters for process use and other purposes. More interest is
being shown in the use of algae in treatment ponds."
Canning Industry
Trickling filter experiments: "An investigation has been made of the
use of shredded tree bark as a filter medium in trickling filter treat-
ment of liquid canning wastes * * *"
Spray irrigation disposal of cannery wastes: "Spray irrigation is
increasing in use as a method of disposing of liquid cannery waste.
Under suitable conditions this method prevents stream pollution and
odor problems * * *"
Meat Industry
"The meat industry is progressing on a broad front in the fields of
waste prevention, waste utilization, and treatment. The use of re-
circulated settled effluents as flushing and spray water in inedible
operations has markedly improved effluent characteristics at many
plants * * *"
Poultry and Egg Processing Industries
"The past year has seen continued advances in waste prevention,
utilization, and treatment in the poultry industry. Construction of
new, larger plants to replace small, inefficient processing plants has
brought waste treatment into the realm of economic feasibility in
many instances * * *"
589
-------
Dairy Industry
"During 1959 the big emphasis on waste treatment in the dairy
industry was in the field of disposal by land irrigation. In the State
of Wisconsin, definite figures are available on dairy plants using irri-
gation disposal methods. Prior to 1957, there were 16 ridge and furrow
irrigation installations in Wisconsin. During 1958 and 1959, to date,
an additional 18 spray irrigation systems have been installed, along
with 8 ridge and furrow installations. It is also known that there
has been a large increase in the number of these irrigation projects in
the State of Minnesota, although exact figures are not available * * *"
Steel Industry
"The following report deals primarily with research supported by
the American Iron & Steel Institute at Mellon Institute.
"An investigation of the behavior of suspended solids is one of the
principal projects of the fellowship * * *"
"The actual effects of suspended solids on stream water has been
the subject of considerable speculation. A long-term study is planned
to evaluate the effects of suspended material in terms of particle size,
turbulence, photosynthesis, and the like in natural streams. Quanti-
tative data in this field is essential to rational regulation of the dis-
charge of suspended solids * * *"
Bituminous Coal Industry
"Progress has continued in the bituminous coal industry's fight to
reduce or ameliorate its waste discharges. There are two general
areas in which these activities have been conducted.
"Considerable and continued progress has been made in the abate-
ment of the flow of black water (suspended solids) from coal prepara-
tion plants. This is particularly true in West Virginia and in Virginia,
where a great amount of effort and money has been expended to re-
design and rebuild waste disposal systems so that the effluent will
comply with State requirements.
"Research work has been continued on the acid mine drainage
problem. Of greatest importance is a continuing project to operate a
(deep) coal mine in such manner that a minimum of acid will be carried
out in the mine drainage. This experiment, undertaken about 3 years
ago with the guidance of the coal industry's research group at Mellon
Institute, has continued to look encouraging. We can, however, draw
only some encouragement, rather than conclusions, from the results,
as this program must be continued for a period of 5 to 10 years before
data of an indicative nature can be expected."
Coke, Industry
"Considerable progress was made by the coking industry during
1958-59 in the reduction of water pollution and air pollution arising
590
-------
from effluents from the byproduct coking works. In regard to the
liquid effluents, several of the byproduct coking plants installed re-
circulating quenching stations or improved the existing ones so as to
reduce the volumes of waste water from the quenching of the hot coke.
In some of the plants the still wastes which contain some phenol were
used as quenching water, and this reduced the quantity of phenols
going to the public waterway. Another important improvement was
the installation at several byproduct coking plants of improved types
of dephenolizers or the reconditioning of old dephenolizers so as to
remove more of the phenols from the feed liquors.
"* * * 'WTien it is realized that the construction and installation of
a modern dephenolizer with the necessary instruments which are re-
quired 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."
Petroleum Industry
"The petroleum industry has continued to expand its broad activity
in water and air pollution abatement in the past year. Much of this
work was reported during meetings of the American Petroleum Insti-
tute Committee on Disposal of Refinery Wastes which met in New
York in May and again in Denver in October 1959, with approximately
60 oil industry representatives in attendance at each meeting.
"During the year the committee (CDRW) issued a revised new
edition of volume 1 of the API Manual, 'Waste Water Containing
Oil.' This edition contains new information on industry practice in
vapor recovery in oil—water separators, air flotation techniques, and
flow measurement procedures * * *
"A technical symposium held during the May 1959 meeting devel-
oped that approximately 12 full-scale biological oxidation treatment
plants have been installed in refineries in the United States and Canada
since the first such commercial installation in 1954."
Gas Industry
"During the past 15 to 20 years, and especially during the last
5 to 10 years, the commercial gas industry has changed very largely
from the use of gas manufactured from coal and oil to natural gas.
With the completion of the 'Big Inch,' the 'Little Inch,' and other
transcontinental pipelines, natural gas is now available in nearly
591
-------
all the large cities of the United States. This has eliminated most of
the waste treatment problems. Those which remain fall almost
entirely into two categories.
"One of these is the disposal of the waste products resulting from
the manufacture of peakload and standby gas. The principal waste
product resulting from these operations is tar, a product with which
our industry has had long experience. For many years these tars
have been treated with various products to break the tar water
emulsions, and the tar has either been sold for further processing by
chemical companies or for use as a roadmaking material, while the
remaining water has been treated to eliminate traces of tar before
discharge. Since the total volume of gas manufacture is only a small
fraction of what it used to be, and since this manufacture is normally
carried on for only a few days each year, the waste disposal problem
is only a fraction of what it used to be.
"The other basic type of problem has to do with disposal of muds
and brines used in the drilling for gas wells, or produced by the wells.
The muds are not usually discharged to streams, but are retained for
use in the drilling work. Considerable progress was made during
1958-59 by the commercial gas industry in the development of
methodsfor ponding and underground disposal of the salt brines * * *"
Chemical Manufacturing
"The chemical industry has been implementing its program of
inplant waste reduction, which has materially assisted in the overall
pollution reduction program. In this work many new phases of
control are being utilized which, with new approaches to treatment
of certain discharges, have entirely removed them as a pollutant.
As an example of the latter, the incineration of phenolic wastes in
the furnace of a waste heat boiler completely solved the problem.
"New waste treatment plant construction has been accelerated
which has had its effect on reduction of pollution. These have been
mainly biological oxidation systems.
"More and more consideration is being given to joint facilities
with municipalities for combined treatment of both municipal and
industrial waste. In some the industrial waste is treated in the
municipal plant. In others, notably the American Cyanamid plant
at Bound Brook, N.J., now in operation, and that of Union Carbide
Chemicals Co. at West Charleston, W. Va., now under design, are
systems where the municipal wastes are treated in the industrial
plants. Along with these, investigations have shown that certain
toxic wastes previously thought untreatable biologically are now
being destroyed where mixed with sanitary sewage in the regular
biological treatment facilities.
"Close cooperation between the chemical industry and regulatory
agencies has been shown to work out to the benefit of both, as has
592
-------
been developed in the Kanawha Kiver valley. Here the industries
have worked with the Commission in the development and carry-
through of a program of river study and control * * *
"For the chemical industry, the Manufacturing Chemists' Associa-
tion has set up a program with the Franklin Institute of Philadelphia
for research on taste and odor in water."
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard
"There have been a number of significant research and applied
developments in the field of pollution abatement in the pulp and paper
industry during 1959. These have come in such areas as sludge
dewatering, color removal, secondary treatment and in the field of
chemical recovery of pulpmill effluents. The progress made in these
fields is described below.
Sludge dewatering: "The problem of disposing of the hydrous
sludges resulting from the clarification of pulp and papermaking
effluents is perhaps the most troublesome one still confronting the
industry. The difficulty in dewatering these sludges may be attrib-
uted to the high quantity of colloidal sols present.
"During the past several years, the National Council for Stream
Improvement (NCSI) has been studying the applicability of centrifuge
methods for the efficient dewatering of these materials. Both labora-
tory tests and plant-scale work at various types of pulp and paper
mills has been conducted with encouraging results * * *
Color removal: "The national council has been working on the
problem of removing color from kraft mill bleaching effluents for
some years. During the past several months a new process has been
developed which removes 75-95 percent of the color in the caustic
extract effluent and can be integrated with the mill recovery
process * * *"
Secondary treatment: "The pulp and paper industry as a whole is
doing an excellent job with respect to the removal of settleable solids.
In certain areas, however, dissolved oxygen problems exist in the
stream which necessitate further treatment of these effluents. A
number of biological treatment approaches are being tried to reduce
the biochemical oxygen demand of these effluents."
General research developments: "Aquatic biology problems are
being studied for the industry at the University of Georgia, Oregon
State College, North Carolina State College, and the Institute of
Paper Chemistry."
Textile Industry
"The interest reported in 1958 in research in textile waste treatment
has been accelerated by findings in more practical and economical
approaches to the solution of abatement problems.
"Excellent research results in a contact aeration method at one
textile plant show that biochemical oxygen demand removals up to
593
-------
90 percent have been obtained in experimental plant runs of mixed
mill waste sewage. Great savings and economy in plant construction
are indicated in these processes, as well as in the biosorption method
* * * »
"Many textile plants are placing more emphasis on in-plant reduc-
tion of waste as an approach to solving pollution problems. Plants
located on large streams are giving critical consideration to the sub-
stitution of starch with synthetic sizing agents in slashing operations.
"At one textile plant the pollution load to stream has been reduced
about 50 percent by spraying the mill waste on a large, isolated field,
letting it trickle to the stream.
"An important note which may be considered an advance in waste
treatment, particularly in the South, is a better understanding and
awareness of the problems involved, and closer cooperation with
regulatory agencies in seeking solutions to the mill waste treatment
problems."
Automotive Industry
"A survey of industrial waste activities during 1959, in the auto-
motive industry has been made by the Advisory Group on Industrial
Wastes and Water Kesources of the Automobile Manufacturers
Association. Results of the survey are furnished herewith for infor-
mation of the Task Committee.
"Automotive companies have continued active progress in the
control of wastes which are typical for the industry. Furnished below
is an outline of facilities placed in operation during the past year,
and some of these being planned."
Facilities installed: "Facilities to treat process wastes from painting
and assembly operations have been installed at the assembly plant at
St. Louis, Mo. The facilities are for batch treatment of wastes, and
include two 80,000-gallon reaction tanks and two 500,000-gallon
lagoons.
"Five assembly plants have installed air flotation units for treat-
ment of water-dispersible paints. Four of these plants are in the
Detroit area: Plymouth, Dodge, Chrysler, and Windsor. One is in
Newark, Del.
"The Newcastle, Ind., plant has installed an air notation system
for treatment of soluble oil wastes.
"One additional treatment tank was installed at Mahwah, N.J.,
assembly plant for treatment of spray booth waste water.
"A new industrial waste treatment plant has been placed 'on
stream' at the diesel equipment division, Grand Rapids, Mich., for
the treatment of plating wastes and oily wastes.
"Chevrolet division has placed in operation facilities for oil separa-
tion and solids sedimentation at an aluminum foundry.
594
-------
"A new industrial waste treatment plant is now in operation at
Fisher body division, Willow Kun, to handle general manufacturing
wastes formed in the manufacture of 'Corvair' bodies.
"Chevrolet division has also provided waste treatment facilities for
Corvair production at Willow Kun * * *."
Development activities: "A significant development covering a new
approach to the reduction of hexavalent chromium by exposure to
power house flue gases containing SO2 was reported at the 1959
Purdue conference by Mr. J. Canan, Brown-Lipe-Chapman Division,
Elyria, Ohio. An installation utilizing this method has been in
successful operation for a number of months.
"Several divisions are currently designing or constructing new
treatment facilities."
Another important function of the National Technical Task Com-
mittee is the formulation of industrial waste guides for each industry.
The most recent publications are industrial waste guides for the milk-
processing industry, the cotton textile industry, and the cane sugar
industry. This is part of a twofold publicity program on the part of
NTTCIW to achieve the following purposes: (1) to bring about
adequate awareness within industry, and (2) to effect an understanding
outside of industry on problems, accomplishments, and all other
aspects of industry's role in improving the quality of the Nation's
water resources.
Other activities of this Task Committee include stimulation of
interest in programs for training industry personnel to provide the
competencies needed for carrying out industrial waste-control pro-
grams, and cooperation with the U.S. Public Health Service in basic
data programs and studies at the Sanitary Engineering Center.
Industry is vitally interested in the wise use of our water resources
and is actively cooperating with both voluntary and regulatory groups
in the cause of pollution abatement. As the material set forth above
demonstrates, there are many technical and economic problems
involved. Any statement of objective that could mislead the public
into believing that such technical and economic problems are not
involved would be unfortunate for the goal of real progress. There-
fore, we wish to express disagreement with some of those at the
Conference who believed that reference to such problems should be
omitted from a statement of objective.
STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE NATIONAL TECHNICAL TASK COM-
MITTEE ON INDUSTRIAL WASTES CONCERNING RECOMMENDATION
No. 1 OF PANEL III
At the annual meeting of the National Technical Task Committee
on Industrial Wastes on December 15, 1960, there was discussion of
583283—61 39 595
-------
the problem which developed in the final plenary session of the Na-
tional Conference on Water Pollution of combining the No. 1 recom-
mendations of Panels I and III.
Time limitations and other factors at the plenary session were not
conducive to the reaching of a properly considered decision.
As a result, dissatisfaction was expressed by many that recommen-
dation I as drafted by Panel I was also adopted by Panel III in place
of their original draft.
In the interest of reconciling the points of view expressed by Panels
I and III and at the same tune attempting to preserve the sense of
the participants at the Conference, we would respectfully suggest ac-
ceptance of the following consolidated statement which preserves the
meaning and intent of the original recommendation I of Panel I and
recommendation I of Panel III:
"We recommend that the Conference express its conviction that
the goal of pollution abatement is:
"(a) To protect and enhance the capacity of the water re-
sources to serve the widest possible range of human needs; and
"(b) That this goal can be approached only by accepting the
policy of keeping water clean, consistent with the variabilities
within and among different river basins."
STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY KENNETH H. SPIES, PORTLAND, OREG.,
ON BEHALF OF POLLUTION CONTROL COUNCIL,
PACIFIC NORTHWEST BASINS
PLANNING FOB MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER
SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS
The problem is essentially one of planning cooperatively to make
the best use of our water resources to assure for the future, an ade-
quate supply of water safe for human consumption and an adequate
supply of clean water to support industrial development.
While the Water Supply Act of 1958 fulfilled a part of this need
insofar as Federal water-development projects were concerned, a new
and supplemental authorization is needed to enable the Public Health
Service to cooperate with State and interstate agencies in planning
for the development and use of water resources for domestic, municipal,
and industrial purposes.
The objective of this proposed authorization would be to make the
extensive facilities of the Public Health Service available to State and
interstate agencies to enable them to develop new methods, and
undertake the technological and economic studies and research
596
-------
required to solve the complex metropolitan, regional, and interstate
water problems.
Water Pollution Control
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956 established a
good foundation to meet and solve the complex problem of pollution
control in the Pacific Northwest as well as the Nation. It is desirable
however to provide for increased financial assistance to municipalities
and other political subdivisions for the construction of sewage-treat-
ment work. It is also desirable to extend the financial support to
State and interstate water-pollution control agencies to enable them
to maintain effective pollution-control activities and to continue the
cooperative State-Federal pollution-control activities programs.
Research,
There are increasing signs that unless major technological break-
throughs are achieved within a few years, an increased portion of our
waters will become unfit for use even with the full application of
present-day knowledge for treating sewage and industrial wastes.
Answers to these problems must be obtained in the immediate
future. The speed and accuracy with which the problems are solved
depends entirely on the accumulation of new knowledge obtained
through research and investigations.
There is therefore an immediate need for the provision of funds to
expand the research program. In addition, one of the proper places
in which answers to problems of the Pacific Northwest may be sought
would be through the establishment of a Pacific Northwest Regional
Laboratory of the Public Health Service.
Low Flow Augmentation in Federal Construction Projects
Water quality is usually adversely affected by extremely low
waterflows particularly during periods of high-water temperatures.
Increasing the quantity of water in streams during periods of low
flow will bring about a general improvement in the quality of these
waters which is so important in maintaining them in a satisfactory
condition for the propagation of fish and aquatic life, for recreational
enjoyment, and for use as domestic and industrial water supplies.
Consideration should be given to the provision of general authority
to the Federal construction agencies to include low-flow augmentation
as an authorized function in planning water development projects.
Because benefits from low-flow augmentation are general, widespread,
and nonspecific, the provisions required to provide them should be
considered as nonreimbursable in Federal projects.
There is one important policy point with respect to this matter.
The provision of augmented flows is not to be used for the abatement
597
-------
of water pollution in lieu of full and complete sewage and waste-
treatment facilities by cities, industries, or others concerned.
STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY R. HOBART SOUTHER, GREENSBORO, N.C.
Much has been said about the need for funds for more research
by the Federal agencies. In my opinion the present funds would be
more successful if greater emphasis was given to the research directly
applicable to pollution abatement.
I would like to state that industry has contributed far more in
research toward cleaning up the streams of the nation than the
governmental agencies. Federal research funds now are largely spent
on basic research rather than on the applied research which would
give more direct benefits to both industry and municipalities. Lower
cost methods of waste treatment are needed to obtain universal
acceptance by industry and thus ensure a complete cleanup of the
nation's streams. Industry is moving forward in both research and
construction to solve its problems, particularly the textile industry
which I represent.
An article, "Latest Word on Low-Cost Mill-Waste Disposal," in
June 1960 Textile World states "Local and State laws are getting
tough about mill-waste disposal. It's a hard problem. But today,
with new methods and better equipment, waste disposal isn't the
costly job it once was." The great progress being made in acceptance
and application of the lower-cost waste-treatment processes, based on
prolonged bio-aeration, may be found in more detail in American
Dyestuff Reporter, October 3, 1960, and Proceedings NTTCIW, 1959,
page 54.
These new waste-treatment processes developed by industry
approach the lower cost oxidation pond treatments, and further
additional applied research by Federal and State agencies in prolonged
bio-aeration methods is suggested.
APPENDIX II
A. List of Exhibits Shown at the Conference
Pennsylvania Stale Department of Health. An exhibit showing the
effects of a stream improvement program on a typical community.
The Water Pollution Control Federation. An exhibit showing the
work of the Water Pollution Control Federation in promoting and
advancing water pollution control activities.
American Water Works Associatiort, Inc. A display of aids for the
management and engineering of water supplies.
598
-------
Corps of Engineers—Department of the Army. An exhibit portraying
the importance of pollution abatement in comprehensive river-basin
development, along with flood control, navigation, public recreation,
hydroelectric power development, fish and wildlife, water supply, and
other beneficial purposes.
Department of the Interior—Geological Survey. An exhibit portraying
the activities of the Geological Survey in water resources investigations,
with particular reference to chemical quality of water and sedimen-
tation.
Conference Book Service. A comprehensive exhibit of professional
books of special interest to technical and administrative personnel
engaged in water pollution control activities.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare—Public Health
Service—National Conference mi Water Pollution. An exhibit an-
nouncing the Surgeon General's call for a National Conference on
Water Pollution and showing the major river basin areas in the
United States.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare—Public Health
Seivice—Sanitary Engineering Center. An exhibit illustrating new
techniques for the isolation, identification, evaluation, and treatment
of new wastes entering our streams.
Interstate Commission on the Potomac Ewer Basin. An exhibit
depicting the commission's work in water pollution control in the
upper basin and in the Washington metropolitan area.
Potomac River Development Association. An exhibit portraying the
development of the Potomac Eiver basin and the benefits to be
derived therefrom.
Department oj Interior—Bureau of Reclamation. An exhibit por-
traying the multiple-purpose benefits of water development, with
emphasis on water pollution control.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare—Public Health
Service—National Water Quality Network—Sanitary Engineering
Center. An exhibit demonstrating the coverage of the Public Health
Service National Water Quality Network, and levels of radioactivity,
coliforms, organic chemicals, and other materials discharged into our
watercourses.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare—Public Health
Service—Sanitary Engineering Center—Mobile Water Laboratory. The
Public Health Service mobile trailer laboratory used throughout the
United States for short-term stream survey.
B. Films Shown at the Conference
A selection of motion picture films, describing various aspects of
water pollution control, were shown each day of the Conference:
Clean Waters.—16-mm., color, sound, 25 minutes. Produced by
General Electric Co. Presents facts on America's waters, water
599
-------
pollution and sewage treatment. Film was a prize winner in com-
petition with other documentary films produced by industry.
^.eorge Washington's River.—16-mm., color, sound, 28 minutes.
Produced for the Public Health Service as a general-purpose feature
to generate public awareness of the menace of water pollution. Uses
Potomac River and the Nation's Capital as examples. Available
on loan from State game and fish, public health and water pollution
control agencies, or for purchase from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
Good Riddance.—16-mm., color, sound, 30 minutes. Produced for
the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission in Cincinnati.
A documentary of the Ohio basin from Lake Chautauqua, N.Y., to
Cairo, 111., portraying traditional problems of water pollution along
with new developments in control of pollution. Film is in two seg-
ments and can be shown as separate 14.5-minute features.
Health and the Cycle of Water.—16-mm., black-and-white, sound,
20 minutes. Produced for the cast-iron pipe industry. The film
describes the water system of the fictitious town of Centerville.
Animated diagrams are used to illustrate the town's water-treatment
system.
Pennies for Health.—16-mm., black-and-white, sound, 15 minutes.
Produced for the National Water Institute. Distributed through
Modern TV, 927 19th Street, N.W., Washington 6, D.C. Sum-
marizes the problem of a fixed water supply being expanded to meet
increasing needs of both growing population and expanding industry.
Progress in Action.—16-mm., color, sound, 14 minutes. Produced
for the Metropolitan Sewer District of St. Louis, Mo. Film tells
the story of the overall sewer and water systems of the St. Louis
metroplitan area.
The Eiver.—16-mm., black-and-white, sound, 32 minutes. Pro-
duced in 1939 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. A classic
documentary of the Mississippi River, tracing its history and its
tributaries; shows how erosion resulted from destruction of the
forests; and emphasizes the need for conservation and rehabilitation.
Water, Friend or Enemy.—16-mm., color, animated sound, 10
minutes. Produced by Walt Disney. Film tells the story of water
supply and protection for the individual home in a rural community
where water sources are wells and springs.
Water, Let's Keep It Clean.—16-mm., color, sound, 20 minutes.
Produced by the Department of Game and Fish, State of California,
Sacramento. Calif. Contains colorful aerial views of effects of
polluting outfalls on clean streams, plus vivid examples of destruction
of aquatic life by chemicals poured into streams by industry.
600
-------
APPENDIX III
Conference Participants
A. CONFERENCE STEERING COMMITTEE
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUS-
TRIAL ORGANIZATIONS—George H. Taylor
AMERICAN MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION—Justus H. Fugate
AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION—Dwight F. Metzler
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS—Edward J. Cleary
AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION—Morrison B. Cunningham
ASSOCIATION OF STATE AND TERRITORIAL HEALTH OFFICERS—
Russell E. Teague, M.D.
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES—Felix E. Wormser;
Alt., Richard W. Smith
CONFERENCE OF STATE SANITARY ENGINEERS—David B. Lee
CONSERVATION FOUNDATION—Roger Hale; Alts., Stephen W. Blodgett
and W. T>. Bowman
COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS—Page L. Ingraham
EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE—L. W. Cadwallader
ENGINEERS JOINT COUNCIL—Richard D. Hoak; Alt., John C. Geyer
GENERAL FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS—Mrs. E. Lee Ozbirn
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GAME, FISH, AND CONSERVA-
TION COMMISSIONERS—Harry Cornell
IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA, INCORPORATED—Frank Gregg
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES—Mrs. Arthur
E. Whittemore
MANUFACTURING CHEMISTS' ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED—
Kenneth S. Watson; Alt., George E. Best
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY OFFICIALS—Bernard F. Hillen-
brand
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA—Donald J. Hardenbrook; Alt., Daniel W. Cannon
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS—
Gordon K. Zimmerman
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR STREAM IMPROVEMENT—George E.
Dyke
NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL OF AMERICA—C. R. Gutermuth
NATIONAL TECHNICAL TASK COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRIAL
WASTES—A. J. Steffen; Alt., Leland C. Burroughs
NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION—Louis Clapper
RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE, INCORPORATED—Irving K. Fox;
Alt., Francis Christy
SOIL CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF AMERICA—H. Wayne Pritchard
STATE AND INTERSTATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINIS-
TRATORS—David F. Smallhorst; Alt., Milton P. Adams
UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS—Hon. Richardson Dilworth
WATER AND SEWAGE WORKS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION,
INCORPORATED—Harry E. Schlenz
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADVISORY BOARD—Seth Gordon and
John S. Samson
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FEDERATION—Ray E. Lawrence
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE—Dr. Ira N. Gabrielson
ME MBERS-AT-LARGE—Charles A. Bishop, Robert F. Boger, Dr. Gordon M.
Fair, Blucher A. Poole, and J. V. Whitfield
601
-------
B. WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADVISORY BOARD
Chairman (ex officio)
BURNEY, DR. LEROY E., Surgeon General, Public Health Service, U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington, D.C.
Members
BORUFF, DR. CLAIR S., Technical Director, Hiram Walker and Sons, Incor-
porated, Peoria, 111.
DALY, JOHN CHARLES, New York, N.Y.
GORDON, SETH, Conservation Consultant, California State Department of
Fish and Game, Sacramento, Calif.
LONG, FRANK E., Chairman, Wyoming Stream Pollution Control Advisory
Council, Buffalo, Wyo.
McCANN, HON. THOMAS A., Mayor, Fort Worth, Tex.
SAMSON, JOHN S., Chairman, Nebraska State Water Pollution Control
Council, Omaha, Nebr.
TEAGUE, DR. RUSSELL E., Commissioner, Kentucky State Department
of Health, Frankfort, Ky.
WISE, WILLIAM S., Director, Connecticut State Water Resources Commission,
Hartford, Conn.
Executive Secretary
AYERS, ROBERT C., Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control, Public
Health Service, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Washington, D.C.
C. PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS
A
AANDAHL, HON. FRED G., Assistant Secretary for Water and Power Develop-
ment, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
ACKERMAN, DR. E. A., Executive Officer, Carnegie Institution of Washington,
Washington, D.C.
ADAMS, MILTON P., Executive Secretary, Michigan State Water Resources
Commission, Lansing, Mich.
AYERS, ROBERT C., Executive Secretary, Water Pollution Control Advisory
Board, Public Health Service, Washington, D.C.
B
BANKS, HARVEY 0., Director, California State Department of Water Re-
sources, Sacramento, Calif.
BARNHILL, JOHN T., Program Officer, Division of Water Supply and Pollution
Control, Public Health Service, Washington, D.C.
BERGER, BERNARD B., Chief, Research Branch, Division of Water Supply
and Pollution Control, Public Health Service, Cincinnati, Ohio
BEST, GEORGE E., Secretary, Water Pollution Abatement Committee, Manu-
facturing Chemists' Association, Washington, D.C.
BIEMILLER, ANDREW J., Director, Department of Legislation, American
Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations, Washington, D.C.
602
-------
BISHOP, DR. CHARLES A., Director, Chemical Process Development, U.S.
Steel Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pa.
BLATNIK, HON. JOHN A., Representative, 8th District, Minnesota; Chair-
man, Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors, House Public Works Committee,
Washington, D.C.
BLODGETT, STEPHEN W., Secretary, The Conservation Foundation, New
York, N.Y.
BOGER, ROBERT P., Publisher, Engineering News-Record, New York, N.Y.
BORUFF, DR. GLAIR S., Technical Director, Hiram Walker and Sons, Inc.,
Peoria, 111., Member, Water Pollution Control Advisory Board
BOWMAN, W. D., Associate Director of Research, The Conservation Foundation,
New York, N.Y.
BRANDT, DR. KARL, Member, Council of Economic Advisers, Washington,
D.C.
BROWN, CARL B., Watershed Program Specialist, Office of the Assistant Ad-
ministrator for Watersheds, Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
BURGESS, IAN K., Conference Staff, Engineering, Public Health Service,
Washington, D.C.
BURNEY, DR. LEROY E., Surgeon General, Public Health Service, U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington, D.C.
BURROUGHS, LELAND C., Assistant to the Vice President—Manufacturing,
Shell Oil Company, New York, N.Y.
BUTRICO, FRANK A., Executive Secretary, National Conference on Water
Pollution, Public Health Service, Washington, D.C.
CADWALLADER, L. W., Vice President, Potomac Electric Power Company,
Washington, D.C.
CANNAN, DR. R. KEITH, Chairman, Division of Medical Sciences, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C.
CANNON, DANIEL W., Conservation Committee, National Association of
Manufacturers, New York, N.Y.
CASE, HON. FRANCIS, United States Senator, South Dakota; Member,
Senate Select Committee on National Water Resources, United States Senate,
Washington, D.C.
CHRISTY, FRANCIS, Research Associate, Resources For The Future, Inc.,
Washington, D.C.
CLAPPER, LOUIS, Acting Conservation Director, National Wildlife Federation,
Washington, D.C.
CLEARY, EDWARD J., Executive Director and Chief Engineer, Ohio River
Valley Water Sanitation Commission, Cincinnati, Ohio
CORNELL, HARRY, Chief, Fish Division, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, Raleigh, N.C.
COTTAM, DR. CLARENCE, Welder Wildlife Foundation, Sinton, Tex.
CRAMER, HON. WILLIAM C., Representative, 1st District, Florida; Member,
Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors, House Public Works Committee,
Washington, D.C.
CUNNINGHAM, MORRISON B., Superintendent and Engineer, City Water
Department, Oklahoma City, Okla.
CURLEY, FRANK E., Partner, Hawkins, Delafleld, and Wood, Municipal Bond
Attorneys, New York, N.Y.
CURRAN, JOHN, Legislative Representative, American Federation of Labor-
Congress of Industrial Organizations, Washington, D.C.
603
-------
D
DALY, JOHN CHARLES, Member, Water Pollution Control Advisory Board,
New York, N.Y.
DEAN, DR. L. A., Research Investigations Leader, Soil and Water Conservation
Research Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C,
DILWORTH, Hon. RICHARDSON, Mayor, Philadelphia, Pa.
DURHAM, CHARLES J., Conference Staff, Information, Public Health Service,
Washington, D.C.
DYKE, GEORGE E., Chairman, Board of Governors, National Council for
Stream Improvement, New York, N.Y.
E
ELIASSEN, DR. ROLF, Professor of Sanitary Engineering, Massachusetts In-
stitute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.
ENGLE, HON. CLAIR, United States Senator, California; Member, Senate
Select Committee on National Resources, United States Senate, Washington,
D.C.
ENGLER, HERSHEL, Conference Staff, Engineering, Public Health Service,
Washington, D.C.
FABER, HARRY A., Research Grants Administrator, Division of Water Supply
and Pollution Control, Public Health Service, Washington, D.C.
FAIR, DR. GORDON M., Professor of Sanitary Engineering, Harvard University,
Cambridge, Mass.
FINLEY, STUART, Documentary Film Producer, Washington, D.C.
FLANNERY, JAMES J., Economist, Technical Services Branch, Division of
Water Supply and Pollution Control, Public Health Service, Washington, D.C.
FLEMMING, HON. ARTHUR S., Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Washington, D.C.
FORSTER, ALBERT E., President, Hercules Powder Company, Wilmington,
Del.
FORSYTHE, ROBERT A., Assistant Secretary for Legislation, U.S. Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington, D.C.
FOX, IRVING K., Vice President, Resources For The Future, Inc., Washington,
D.C.
FUGATE, JUSTUS H., City Commissioner, Wichita Kans.
G
GABRIELSON, DR. IRA N., President, Wildlife Management Institute,
Washington, D.C.
GEYER, DR. JOHN C., Chairman, Department of Sanitary Engineering and
Water Resources, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.
GILBERTSON,WESLEY E., Chief, Division of Engineering Services, Public
Health Service, Washington, D.C.
GILL, JAMES M., Plant Manager, Ethyl Corporation, Pittsburg, Calif.
GLEASON, M. JAMES, Multnomah County Commissioner, Portland, Oreg.
GORDON, SETH, Conservation Consultant, California State Department of
Fish and Game, Sacramento, Calif.; Member, Water Pollution Control Ad-
visory Board.
GREEN, RICHARD S., Chief, Basic Data Branch, Division of Water Supply
and Pollution Control, Public Health Service, Washington, D.C.
604
-------
GEEENE, EDWARD A., Conference Staff, Information, Public Health Service,
Washington, D.C.
GREGG, FRANK, Executive Director, Izaak Walton League of America, Inc.,
Glenview, 111.
GUTERMUTH, C. R., Natural Resources Council of America, Washington, D.C.
H
HALE, ROGER, Vice President, The Conservation Foundation, New York, N.Y.
HALL, WARNER W., Conference Staff, Information, Washington, D.C.
HARDENBROOK, DONALD J., Chairman, Conservation and Management of
Natural Resources Committee, National Association of Manufacturers, New
York, N.Y.
HARLAN, JAMES R., Conservation Consultant, Division of Water Supply and
Pollution Control, Public Health Service, Washington, D.C.
HAZEN, RICHARD, Partner, Hazen & Sawyer, Consulting Engineers, New
York, N.Y.
HILLENBRAND, BERNARD F., Executive Director, National Association of
County Officials, Washington, D.C.
HOAK, DR. RICHARD D., Senior Fellow, Mellon Institute, Pittsburgh, Pa.
HOLLIS, MARK D., Assistant Surgeon General and Chief Engineer, Public
Health Service, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Wash-
ington, D.C.
HO WELLS, DAVID H., Chief, Construction Grants Branch, Division of Water
Supply and Pollution Control, Public Health Service, Washington, D.C.
HTJBBARD, EARLE C., Director and Executive Secretary, North Carolina
State Stream Sanitation Committee, Raleigh, N.C.
HUTCHINGS, ROBERT S., Conference Staff, Information, Public Health
Service, Washington, D.C.
I
INGRAHAM, PAGE L., Direcor of Research, The Council of State Governments,
Chicago, 111.
K
KEHOE, DR. ROBERT A., Director, The Kettering Laboratory of the College
of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio
KERR, HON. ROBERT S., United States Senator, Oklahoma; Chairman, Senate
Select Committee on National Water Resources, United States Senate, Wash-
ington, D.C.
KLASSEN, CLARENCE W., Director, Division of Sanitary Engineering, Illinois
State Department of Public Health, Springfield, 111.
KRAUSE, KEITH S., Chief, Technical Services Branch, Division of Water Sup-
ply and Pollution Control, Public Health Service, Washington, D.C.
LAWRENCE, RAY E., President, Water Pollution Control Federation; Partner,
Black & Veatch, Consulting Engineers, Kansas City, Mo.
LEAKE, DR. CHAUNCEY D., Dean and Professor of Pharmacology, College
of Medicine, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
LEE, DAVID B., Director, Bureau of Sanitary Engineering, Florida State Board
of Health, Jacksonville, Fla.
LIGHT, DR. ISRAEL, Conference Staff, Information, Washington, D.C.
LONG, FRANK E., Chairman, Wyoming Stream Pollution Control Advisory
Council, Buffalo, Wyoming; Member, Water Pollution Control Advisory
Board
LYNCH, R. G., Columnist, Milwaukee Journal, Milwaukee, Wis.
605
-------
M
McCALLUM, GORDON E., Chief, Division of Water Supply and Pollution
Control, Public Health Service, Washington, D.C.
McCANN, HON. THOMAS A., Mayor of Fort Worth; Member, Water Pollution
Control Advisory Board; and Member, U.S. Conference of Mayors; Fort Worth,
Tex.
MASON, KARL M., Director, Bureau of Environmental Health, Pennsylvania
State Department of Health, Harrisburg, Pa.
METZLER, DWIGHT F., Director, Division of Sanitation, Kansas State Board
of Health; Chairman, Conference of State Sanitary Engineers, Topeka, Kans.
o
OZBIRN, MRS. E. LEE, President, General Federation of Women's Clubs,
Washington, D.C.
P
PALANGE, RALPH C., Conference Staff, Engineering, Public Health Service,
Washington, D.C.
PARTAIN, LLOYD E., Curtis Publishing Company, Philadelphia, Pa.
PASEK, LEONARD, Assistant to the President, Kimberly-Clark Corporation,
Neenah, Wis.
PEARSON, DR. ERMAN A., Associate Professor of Sanitary Engineering,
University of California, Berkeley, Calif.
POOLE, BLUCHER A., Technical Secretary, Indiana State Stream Pollution
Control Board, Indianapolis, Ind.
POWERS, THOMAS J., Consulting Director, Dow Industrial Service Division,
Dow Chemical Company, Cleveland, Ohio
PRITCHARD, H. WAYNE, Executive Secretary, The Soil Conservation Society
of America, Des Moines, Iowa
PUTNEY, BRYANT, Conference Staff, Information, Public Health Service,
Washington, D.C.
R
RICHARDS, ROLAND, Conference Staff, Engineer, Washington, D.C.
ROHLICH, DR. GERARD A., Professor of Sanitary Engineering, University
of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis.
S
SAMSON, JOHN S., Chairman, Nebraska State Water Pollution Control
Council, Omaha, Nebr.; Member Water Pollution Control Advisory Board.
SANDERS, RICHARD T., Director, Division of Legislative Drafting and
Codification of Statutes, North Carolina State Department of Justice, Raleigh,
N.C.
SCHAD, THEODORE M., Staff Director, Senate Select Committee on National
Water Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C.
SCHLENZ, HARRY E., President, Pacific Flush Tank Company; Vice President,
Water Pollution Control Federation, Chicago, 111.
SMALLHORST, DAVID F., Director, Division of Water Pollution, State
Department of Health, Austin, Tex.
SMITH, RICHARD W., Manager, Natural Resources Department, United
States Chamber of Commerce, Washington, D.C.
STEFFEN, A. J., Chairman, National Technical Task Committee on Industrial
Wastes, Chicago, 111.
STEIN, MURRAY, Chief, Enforcement Branch, Division of Water Supply and
Pollution Control, Public Health Service, Washington, D.C.
606
-------
SVORE, JEROME H., Regional Program Director, U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Region VII, Division of Water Supply and
Pollution Control, Dallas, Tex.
T
TAYLOR, GEORGE H., Department of Research, American Federation of
Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations, Washington D.C.
TEAGUE, DR. RUSSELL E., Commissioner, Kentucky State Department of
Health, Frankfort, Ky.; Member, Water Pollution Control Advisory Board.
TOWNE, W. W., Chief, Field Operations Section, Technical Services Branch,
Division^of Water Supply and Pollution Control, Cincinnati, Ohio
W
WARRICK, LOUIS F., Executive Secretary, National Technical Task Committee
on Industrial Wastes, Washington, D.C.
WATSON, KENNETH S., Consultant, Water Management and Water Control,
General Electric Company, Schenectady, N.Y.
WEBER, EUGENE W., Special Assistant to the Director of Civil Works, Office
of the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C.
WHITE, DR. GILBERT F., Professor of Geography, University of Chicago,
Chicago, 111.
WHITFIELD, J. V., Chairman, State Stream Sanitation Committee, North
Carolina Department of Water Resources, Raleigh, N.C.
WHITTEMORE, MRS. ARTHUR E., Chairman, Water Resources Committee
and Director, League of Women Voters of the United States, Hingham, Mass.
WILSON, CHESTER S., Attorney, Formerly Commissioner, Minnesota State
Department of Conservation, Stillwater, Minn.
WISE, WILLIAM S., Director, Connecticut State Water Resources Commission,
Hartford, Conn.; Member, Water Pollution Control Advisory Board
WOLMAN, DR. ABEL, Professor of Sanitary Engineering, The Johns Hopkins
University, Baltimore, Md.
WOODRUFF, JAMES W., JR., Chairman, U.S. Study Commission, Southeast
River Basins, Atlanta, Ga.
WORMSER, FELIX E., Consulting Mining Engineer, Greenwich, Conn.
ZAPP, DR. JOHN A., Director, Haskell Laboratory, E. I. du Font de Nemours,
Newark, Del.
ZIMMERMAN, GORDON K., Executive Secretary, National Association of
Soil Conservation Districts, Washington, D.C.
o
607
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
------- |