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

-------

-------

-------

-------

-------

-------