Volume 6
Chicago, Illinois
Jan. 31, Feb.1-2, Feb. 5-7,196
Executive Session
March 7, 8 and 12,1968

Pollution of
Lake Michigan and its tributary basin


 1                   WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1968

 2                         MORNING SESSION

 3                                             9:30 a.m.


 5                  MR. STEIN:  May we reconvene?

 6                  Here Is what we are going to try to do.

 7        We're going to have the Wiaconain presentation and

 8        then give the Conferees an  opportunity to discuss

 9        the Federal Conclusions and Recommendations which

10        we postponed.  We are going to push right through,

11        because we want to see what our time Is without a

12        break, and hopefully we can finish this phase of

13        the Conference without a luncheon break.

14                  With that I will call on Wisconsin,

15        Mr. Holmer.


19                  MR. HOLMER:  Mr. Stein, Conferees, I am

          going to ask Ted Wlsnlewskl as the Initial part of

 1         our preparation to read Into the record or present

          for the record certain statements of organizations

23         whose representatives were unable to be here this

24         morning.

25                   Mr. Wisnlewski.



 2                 MR.  WISNIEWSKI:   Mr.  Chairman,  Conferees,

 3        Ladles  and  Gentlemen.

 4                 There  are  several communications which the

 5        submitters  nave  asked to be read Into the record.

 6                 First  is a statement on behalf of the

 7        Wisconsin Wildlife Federation.


 9                    STATEMENT ON  BEHALF OF THE



12                 The  Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, as all

13        conservationists are,  Is greatly concerned over the

14         rapidly deteriorating quality of the waters in the

15         Great Lakes Basin.   We recognize the need for careful

16         protection  by  high standards of Interstate water

17         quality criteria. We have repeatedly expressed

18         this  concern in  hearings which have been held in

19         our State.

20                  We believe that  the primary quality

          criteria should  be to provide water-based recreation

          and production of fish for sport and human food.  We

          believe that standards on  this level will provide

          the base for effective polution control and beat

          serve the interest of all  people, to abate the

 2        damage already done.
 3                  We believe that priority should be given
 4        to the following problem areas,  which should be
 5        stopped Immediately.
 6             1.  Industrial discharge of solids.
 7             2.  Disposal of wastes high in oxygen demands.
 8             3.  Heat loading from manufacturing process and
 9             generation of electric power.
10                  The Wisconsin Wildlife Federation realizes
11        that the speed at which any clean-up or abatement
12        can be accomplished is directly related to the monies
13        spent.  We maintain that monies spent on pol:>,
14        control is a payment on an over-due debt to nature
15        and an investment in the future.  We urge that the
16        Federal Government as well as participating States
17        insure that adequate monies are made available to
18        effectively carry out a truly effective pollution
19        abatement program.
21                       Mr. Leo W. Roethe, President
                        Mr. Richard A. Hemp, Executive Director
23                       Box?
24                       Mosinee, Wisconsin    5^55

                                    '                         2877

 2                   MR.  WISNIEWSKIs The next communication

 3         is  one from the Wisconsin Resource  Conservation

 *         Council.   It is addressed to  the  Conference Chairman.


 6                                             January 31, 1968
          To- Conference Chairman
 7             Lake  Michigan  water  Pollution Conference
              c/o Sherman House
 8             Chicago, Illinois

 9         Statement by-  Wisconsin  Resource  Conservation Council
              to be included in  the record  of the conference
                    The  WRCC in  meeting at  Milwaukee, Wisconsin,

          on  January 20, 1966 passed the following resolution.
               1- re-affirms support of the four State Federal
               Conference January  31 and urges Wisconsin's
               Governor  and  State  officials to cooperate.
               2- urges  the  PWPCA  not extend  the deadline
               date of December  31, 1968,for  treatment facil-

               ities by  Indiana  steel mills.
               3* urges  PWPCA not  approve State standards
               that extend nutrient control for 10 years.

                    The  reason for #3 is the  following quote from

22         "Water Control News, "10/16/67,  Commerce Clearing House, Ino,
                    "The State programs of  Illinois,  Michigan
          and Wisconsin  which call for  a deadline for control
24         of  nutrients in Lake Michigan are incredibly short-
25         sighted and could  stamp  the seal  on the death warrant
          for Lake  Michigan,  according  to Superintendent



 2        Vinton Bacon of the Metropolitan Sanitary District

 3        of Chicago."

 4                  A Classification of "partial body contact"

 5        for Wisconsin rivers; the Fox, Oconto and Peshtigo

 6        would mean that these rivers are unfit and unsafe

 7        for total body contact.  This is not cleaning up

 8        the water but rather, it tends to legalize already

 8        existing pollutions that are well on the way to

10        destroying Lake Michigan.

11                                   Martin Hanson, Secretary

12                                   WRCC

13                                   Box 70?

14                                   Mellen, Wisconsin 5^546


18                  MR. WISNIEWSKI:  The third statement

17        comes from the City of South Milwaukee.

IB                                   February 2, 1968




                    The City of South Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
          wishes to congratulate the Secretary of the Department

          of the Interior and the governing bodies of Wisconsin,

 1                      CITY OF SOUTH MILWAUKEE
 2        Illinois,  Indiana,  and Michigan on actively pursuing
 3        the problem of water pollution of the Lake Michigan
 4        area by holding this Conference.
 s                  The City of South Milwaukee highly approves
 6        of the goals of the Federal Water Pollution Control
 7        Act and of the steps, such as this conference, being
 8        taken to implement this Act.
 9                  We are In accord with the spokesmen for
10        the several governing bodies Involved who presented
11        statements at the Initial meeting of Wednesday,
12        January 31, 1968, urging the direction this
13        Conference should endeavor to take.
i4                  We also agree wholeheartedly that It is
15        not enough to set standards and timetables for
16        achieving said standards without each individual
17        governing body taking a long hard look at their own
18        areas to see in what ways their water pollution
19        control measures may be strengthened.  Such is the
20        case with the City of South Milwaukee.
21                  We have, in the past seven years, undertaken
          various studies of ,our own sewage treatment facilities
23        to provide us with a complete appraisal of existing
24        treatment methods and recommendations for a higher
25        degree of treatment.  At this time, plans and

 1                       CITY OP SOUTH MILWAUKEE
 2         specifications are being designed for a secondary
 3         treatment facility that will conform to the standards
 4         set by w;e State of Wisconsin Department of Resource
 5         Development.  We anticipate submitting these plans
 6         and specifications to the State and Federal author-
 7         itles before July of 1968 and further to begin
 8         construction of the facilities by early 1969.
 9                   It IB our policy to comply In every way
10         with the standards that are properly set by the
11         State of Wisconsin in conjunction with the Federal
12         Government.
13                   We believe that only through active
14         participation in the establishment and implemen-
15         tatlon of sound water pollution control standards
16         can the problem of pollution be conquered, and we
17         strongly urge all governing bodies concerned in
18         the Lake Michigan area to play an active part in
19         establishing the necessary criteria for control of
20         water pollution and also to abide by these criteria
21         in evaluating and renovating their own water pol-
22         lution control facilities.
24                   MR. WISNIEWSKI:  The next communication
          is not directly addressed to the Conferees, but


 1                     MILWAUKEE HARBOR COMMISSION

 2         it Is  of interest because it shows the position of

 3         the Milwaukee Board of Harbor Commissioners relative

 4         to the problem of dredging.


 6                             STATEMENT OP


 8                         MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN


10                           January 24, 1968

11         To the Committee on

12         Buildings-Grounds-Harbors

13         Common Council

14         City of Milwaukee          Re Pile Number 65-2979-c

15         Gentlemen:

16                  The Board of Harbor Commissioners appre-

17         elates the  courtesy of Chairman Lanser, in having

18         furnished the Board copies of the letter of December 5,

          Division of Economic Development.
          1967,  addressed to your honorable committee by the

                    In the preparation of a ten-year port

          development and land use plan, the Harbor Board

          was  instructed to collaborate with the Commissioner

          of Public  Works, the Department of City Development

          and the Economic Development Division, because of


 1                     MILWAUKEE HARBOR COMMISSION

 2         related municipal planning considerations.  Such

 3         collaboration was invited by the Harbor Board and

 4         was fully received, including close consultation

 5         with the Expressway Commission and the City Engineer,

 6         so that lakefront expressway plans could be fully

 7         oriented with outer harbor plan projections.

 8                   The Commissioner of Public Works and the

 9         Director of City Development have evidenced their

10         collaboration and approval by appending their

11         signatures to the joint report which transmitted

12         the ten-year plan, which awaits hearing and detailed

13         consideration by your committee.

14                   The Economic Development Office suggests

15         that before the harbor plan achieves "long-range

               Extensive market analysis of future port
          program status" it should include the following:

18              business;

19              List of priorities with dates of implementation;

               Estimates of costs, Justified by future

21              benefits to accrue^

                    The Economic Development staff suggests


          strictest attention to the dictates of sound
          "We must approach this prospect by paying the

25         economic considerations."  we might .observe that

 1                     MILWAUKEE HARBOR COMMISSION
 2         the Harbor Board and ita staff have always been
 3         guided by the dictates of sound economic considera-
 4         tions, one evidence of which is a municipal port
 5         investment of $20 million, with a sound market value
 6         of $35 million.   Another evidence is land purchased
 7         or made at low coat, upon which market values of
 8         up to $60,000 or more per acre are now controlling.-
 9                   Fort development and the shipping business
10         are volatile, full of variables and subject to many
11         forces of change.  Lake and ocean shipping are both
12         going through a rapid-fire technological revolution,
13         which is having a considerable Impact upon ports
14         and shipping methods.  We wish it were possible to
15         match a physical development plan with a neat,
          concise package of projections, with a precise
17         sequence of events.  Unfortunately, neither the
          Division of Economic Development nor the Board of
          Harbor Commissioners possesses a crystal ball which
          foretells what Industry X, ship line Y, or warehouse Z
          will do to expand, contract or change.  We must deal
          with trends and probabilities, as all other planning
          agencies must.
                    The Board and the Port Director can see
          little justification for costly economic studies.

 1                     MILWAUKEE HARBOR COMMISSION
 2         A considerable amount of source material is .
 3         available which can be drawn upon, including our
 4         own experience and trends in the Port of Milwaukee;
 5         major traffic' studies by the U. S. Corps of Engineers;
 6         Seaway traffic studies by Stanford University and
 7         others; and recent consultant studies for other
 8         lake ports.
 9                   The data and projections of these studies
10         can be recast for interpretation by the Port of
11         Milwaukee.  We might point out that thirty years
12         ago the sizable land mass of Jones Island was
13         relatively virgin and today we could not fit a new
14         marine enterprise Into a half acre site on Jones
15         Island in proximity to deep water.  Small parcels
16         remain for development, far removed from water and
17         therefore limited in their use.  We have no fears
18         that land now or later to become available from
19         development of the North Harbor Tract won't be
20         fully utilized.  The effect of lakefront expressways
21         will, of course, be to make the Milwaukee outer
          harbor accessible as never before, and we predict a
23         high demand factor for all lands available, with
          substantial returns to the City.
                    However, problems of greater moment than

 1                     MILWAUKEE HARBOR COMMISSION
 2         those suggested by the Economic Development Division
 3         now confront the City Government and the Harbor Board.
 4         We refer to the interrelated problems of channel
 5         maintenance, disposal of dredging silt, and possible
 6         effects on water quality in Lake Michigan.  These
 7         questions are the subject of Intense study by the
 8         Corps of Engineers,  the Federal Water Pollution
 9         Control Administration, cities, states, and port
*o         authorities.  The file before you, and the ten-
11         year plan,  contemplates the building of retaining
12         structures, and the making of land, in an orderly
13         projection for future development.  In the very near
14         future, Milwaukee and every other major lake port
15         may be dealing with a question of land fills, in
16         terms of providing reservoirs for dredged material.
17         If restrictions are placed upon deposit of dredging
18         silt in deep water in the Great Lakes, there will be
19         two alternatives i
               (a)  to dispose of such silt by creating
21              reservoirs in which it can be placed, which means
               impervious walls, and which could result in the
23              making of new lands, although not necessarily of
24              the highest quality
               (b)  the second alternative will be to terminate



 2             dredging,; to let the harbors and channels silt

 3             up, and to see port cities wither on the

 4             economic vine.

 5                  The Board therefore suggests that the

 6        ten-year port development plan and the question's

 7        raised by the Economic Development Division be

 8        held in abeyance for some months, to permit

 9        further investigation of future Federal, State and

10        local policy with respect to dredging and silt

11        disposal.  The emphasis on land fills for port

12        development may change completely in the near

13        future, and we therefore suggest the City Government

14        consider this as a most Important open question for

15        continued close study and observation.  As soon as

16        preliminary judgments can be had relating to the

17        interrelationship between water pollution and

18        dredging procedures, we can then make Judgments

19        as to the procedures and alternatives which confront

26        the City in these matters.

21                                 Respectfully,

22                                 BOARD OP HARBOR COMMISSIONERS

                                   H. C. BROCKEL
                                   (Signed) H. C. Brockel

                                   Municipal Fort Director


























                  ROBERT A. EWENS

          MR. WISNIEWSKI:  This  coupletea  the

reading  of  the four communications  which were

•directed to the Wisconsin Department.

          MR. HOLMER:  Thank  you, Mr. Wisniewski.

          Mr. Robert A. Ewens, the  Executive

Vice-President of the Wisconsin  Manufacturers1

Association has a statement to present  at  this  time.




          MR. EWENS:  Mr. Chairman, ladies and


          We welcome the opportunity to appear
                                    •          •  :>     •
before this Conference as the representative of more

than 1500 Wisconsin manufacturing plants,  all

intensely concerned with the  problems of pollution.

          Wisconsin is justifiably  proud of its

position within the American  economy as both an

agricultural and an industrial state.   Wisconsin

industry has flourished not only because of the

aptitude and ingenuity of its industrial leaders,

but also to a great extent because  Wisconsin

 1                           ROBERT A. EWENS
 2         facilities for "The Good Life", including the
 3         availability of abundant and beneficial water and
 4         other recreational resources, have attracted to
 5         Wisconsin in increasing numbers manufacturing
 6         subsidiaries of many out-of-state companies.
 7                   I may say that of the Fortune 500 largest
 8         corporations in America, 107 have established plants
 9         in our state.
10                   Wisconsin industry is vitally Interested
11         in preserving those resources as a major factor In
12         the successful growth of its industrial economy.
13                   The report of the Wisconsin Department
14         of Resource Development establishing standards
15         and setting deadlines for compliance on Interstate
16         waters has been on file with the Federal water
17         Pollution Control Administration since last June.
          Its recent approval by the Department of the
19         Interior permits the acceleration of prompt and
          efficient effort by both government and Industry
 1         to attain the standards of water quality desired
          within the allotted time.
                    It is worthy of note that of the 17 sources
24         of Lake Michigan pollution identified and scheduled
25         for remedial action in the report, only five are

                  ROBERT A. EWENS
industrial installations:
     One involves a problem of septic tank overflow
     upon which action is already in process;
     One Involves the primary treatment of an
     Industrial discharge by October 1970;
     One involves the neutralization of acid
     cleaning wastes for which no present recommenda-
     tion is made;
     Two involve the discharge of manufacturing
     wastes for which adequate treatment is scheduled
     before October 1970.
          Of the remaining 12 identified sources,
9 are municipal sewage operations, almost all of
which Involve the separation of combined sewers,
probably the most frustrating and most expensive
water pollution problem facing the Nation today.
These are scheduled for final compliance by 1977.
          The remaining three are a private school,
a commercial laundry and a public restaurant, all
involving sewage and septic tank improvements.
          The full picture of Wisconsin's part in
the Lake Michigan problem is not complete, however,
without reference to
     (1) The Menomlnee River, a boundary river


 1                          ROBERTA.  BWENS

 2             between WlaconBin and Upper Michigan which

 3             supports four Installations identified as

 4             potential polluters of  the lake.   Two are paper

 5             companies Involved in the proper  disposal of

 6             fiber,  bark and chemical waste for which no

 7             additional requirements are presently recommended.

 8             The remaining two are municipal sewage systems

 9             facing  secondary treatment and combined sewer

10             problems scheduled for  correction In 1970 and

11             1977* respectively.

12             (2) The great industrial complex  along the

13             Fox River which empties into that extension of

14             Lake Michigan known as  Green Bay  — an area of

15             which we in Wisconsin are doubly  proud (the

16             second  basis of our pride is its  paper Industry

17             which,  in the light of this Conference is

               receiving as much publicity as our other great

               asset — the Green Bay Packers).,  Surveys of

               the pollution problems  of this area are approach-

               ing completion and promise to be  both extensive

               and comprehensive.  This particular area has been

               among the most active and progressive in the

               Nation  in combatting the problems of water quality

               over the past several decades, with many millions


 1                           ROBERT A.  EWENS

 2              expended in plant Investment voluntarily and

 3              without  governmental harassment for the abate-

 4              ment of  a unique  pollution problem.  Our great

 5              paper industry which will be the subject of a

 6              separate report before  this Conference has worked

 7              and continues to  work intensively to preserve

 8              to Wisconsin the  heritage of water resources

 8              amenable to public and  private use and enjoyment.

10              (3) Probably the  most obvious ommission in the

11              picture  of Lake Michigan water quality is the

12              contribution of Wisconsin agriculture, and Indeed,

13              of agriculture throughout the Great Lakes area,

14              to the pollution  of our Inland seas.

15                   To  date, we  have no reliable method of

16.        identification* or measurement of this source of lake

          pollution,  nor to be equally frank, do we. have any

          workable program to combat the problem.


                    Except, perhaps, what we have known all

          along — proper agricultural husbandry. .

                    Having been  advised that any substantial

22                         ,«
          rainfall within 48 hours following the application

          of agricultural fertilizer will result in a run-off

          and  lops of up to 60 percent  of the nutrient value

          of that application, one might anticipate that

 1                           ROBERT A. EWENS
 2         agriculturists would schedule their fertilizing
 3         operations either long before or immediately fol-
 4         lowing a cloudburst.
 5                   The reliability of rainfall forecasts over
 6         a three-day period is a question for meteorologists --
 7         not for farmers nor, indeed, for this assembly.  We
 8         are faced with the fact that the present state of
 9         weather and agricultural science offers little
10         immediate hope of solving this aspect of our pollu-
11         tion problem.
12                   The burden, therefore, falls upon the
13         municipalities and upon industry.  Their pollutants
14         are readily identifiable, accurately measureable,
15         and to some extent combatable.
16                   Our main concern is that in imposing that
17         burden, economic sanity should prevail — for under
          our present system of municipal financing. Industry
19         must carry a double burden in the field of pollution
          abatement t
               (1) The massive investment required for cor-
               rectlve measures within the manufacturing
               process itself.
               (2) The substantial participation as major
               taxpayers in most communities In the financing


 1                          ROBERT A.  EWENS

 2             of Improvements  of municipal sewage facllltlee.

 3                  This  double cost cannot be passed on to

 4        any worthwhile  extent in the form of increased

 5        prices for Industrial products.   Under our traditional

 6        and, I trust, eternal system of  free enterprise and

 7        free competition,  Wisconsin manufacturers saddled

 8        with a large and sudden Increase in their cost of

 9        production cannot effectively peddle their goods in

10        competition with manufacturers in other areas currently

11        free of comparable expenditures.

12                  In addition, the problems and the cost of

13        abatement of pollution vary not  only from industry

14        to industry, but within the same industry in different

15        locations.  The technology of pollution abatement in

16        the Oary steel  mills  is vastly different than that

17        applying to the commercial duck farms near Racine,

18        Wisconsin.  As  the problems and the solutions vary,

19        so does the cost of improvement vary from plant to

          plant and from state  to state.

21                  The  final question is  the Individual

          company's ability to  absorb or pass on the added cost

          of pollution control, and upon that question hinges

          the success or bankruptcy of that company.

                    The  cost, therefore, we urge, must be


 1                           ROBERT A. EWENS

 2         Imposed gradually and reasonably.  To use an analogy

 3         to our friends In the dairy industry:

 4              An economical cow can be expected to produce

 5              about 900 gallons of milk in the period of a

 6              year.  If she doesn't, she should be culled

 7              from the herd.  Try to pump that same gallonage

 8              out of her in a week or a month, and you will

 9              wind up with a dead cow.

10                   The moral applies equally to the manufac-

11         turing Industry.  A well-managed company that has

12         managed to stay in business under present economic

13         conditions should be expected to solve its problems

14         of pollution over a period of time without suffering

15         a fatal blow to its financial statement.  Try to force

16         the financing of pollution control in a shorter period,

17         and you will wind up with a dead company.

18                   Part of the problem of industrial pollution

19         turns on the adequacy of municipal facilities to

20         handle the waste of the entire municipal population

21         of which Industry is an important part.

                    This is clearly Illustrated by the problems

          of Peter Cooper Corporation in Oak Creek, Wisconsin,

          which has for some time been committed to connect to

          the South Shore Metropolitan Sewage facilities.  The


 1                           ROBERT A.  EWENS

 2         extension  of  those facilities  to the plant has been

 3         delayed, however,  pending proper financing — a part

 4         of which is involved in  a long-pending application

 5         by the  commission  for Federal  assistance.   If we

 6         read the signs  accurately, the financing and the

 7         solution of this particular problem will be achieved

 8         before  the year's  end, two years ahead of the Wisconsin

 9         deadline.

10                   Part  of  the problem industry faces in its

11         efforts to combat  pollution can be traced to questions

12         of charging technology in the  pollution field and,

13         until recently, the lack of local standards to be

14         achieved.

15                   This  is  Illustrated  by the circumstances

16                                     •"  '
          of J. I. Case in Racine, Wisconsin, which voluntarily

          and without governmental urging Installed an air

          cleaning system in Its foundry operations employing

          the best known  technology then available,  and now

          finds itself  apparently  contributing to the pollution

          of Lake Michigan via the discharge of fine black sand

          collected  through  its excellent air cleaning instal-

          latlon. This problem has fortunately now been ellm-

          inated  by  trucking the filtered residue to an approved

          dump site  where perhaps  some new aspect of pollution


 1                           ROBERT A.  EWENS

 2         will later be discovered.

 3                   Thla company in particular has long worked

 4         with State, County and local authorities to solve

 5         problems of disposal of non-sewage waste, run-off

 6         from downspouts and the erosion of lake frontage

 7         through the natural interaction of wind and wave.

 8         Having been "burned" in the  course of voluntary

 9         corrective measures, the company might be expected

*0         to sit back and wait for explicit governmental direc-

11         tion.  Such is not the case, however.  J. I. Case has

12         further developed its continuing program of correction

13         and improvement, with the assistance of high grade

14         professionals, and has submitted its future plans to

15         the Wisconsin Department of  Resource Development for

16         further suggestions and approval while continuing its

17         day-to-day efforts to solve  problems of air and water

18         pollutions within its plant  and in the Racine community.

19         One of its problems is the preservation of its

20         Lake Michigan shoreline, seriously eroded as a result

21         of natural phenomena, and the reconstruction of that

          shoreline, a problem involving.some rather tricky

23         legal problems of title vis-a-vis the State Government.

24                   With continuing cooperative effort, however,

          J. I. Case anticipates complete solution of known

 1                           ROBERT A. EWENS
 2         pollution problems within the established 1970
 3         deadline at a cost now estimated in excess of
 4         $3 million in direct company expenditure alone.  What
 s         its cost of municipal improvement will be is still a
 6         matter of conjecture.
 7                   We therefore in Wisconsin hope to apportion
 8         the financial burden of pollution abatement equitably
 9         between industry and the rest of the tax-paying public
10         so we may preserve and expand Wisconsin industry as
11         a major basis of our economy.
12                   We ask only that we be permitted to approach
13         our problems in the light of our own peculiar circum-
14         stances — circumstances which may at first glance
15         appear similar to those pertaining In our sister
16         states here represented, but markedly distinguished
17         by our topography, our location, our type of industry
18         and our economy from those in Illinois and Indiana
19         and, to a lesser degree, from those in Michigan.
20                   Wisconsin Industry has demonstrated and
21         here reaffirms its willingness and its ability to
22         work cooperatively with its state authorities and
23         with its counterparts in the other Lake Michigan
24         States toward the goal we all seekz
25              The preservation and enhancement of our common

 1                           ROBERT A. SWSNS
 2         heritage in Lake  Michigan and in the other
 3         interstate waters which serve and support our
 4         pursuit and enjoyment of the good life in
 5         Wisconsin.
 6                   Thank you  very much for the opportunity
 7         to address you.
 8                   MR.  STEIN:  Thank you, Mr. Ewena.
 9                   Any  comments or questions?
10                   MR.  KLASSEN:  I am interested and I would
11         like the speaker's opinion  or comment on the etate-
12         ment at the top of Page 5.   I raise this point,  and
13         I would like his  comment on it.
14                   It tells about a  company staying in busi-
15         ness and "should  be  expected to solve its problems
16         of pollution over a  period  of time"—I want to add
17         this is a little  vague—"without suffering a fatal
18         blow to its financial statement."
19                   I want  to  ask this speaker if he feels
20         that a company should refrain from spending money
21         for water pollution  control and at the same time be
22         paying dividends  to  the stockholders?  Is this part
23         of what you mean  by  a blow  to its financial
24         statement?
25                   In other words,  is, in your opinion, it


 1                           ROBERT A. EWENS

 2         compatible for a company to say, "We can't finance

 3         Improvements or put In adequate treatment works

 <         and at the same time pay dividends to it» stook-

 5         holders"?

 6                   MR. EWENS;  No, I didn't mean that.  I

 7         meant that the company should not be operating on

 8         a deficit basis.  I have no connection with dividends.

 9                   But speaking of dividends, It Is a funda-

10         mental of economics that you have got to have capital

11         for Improvements, and capital is only attracted to

12         Industry If there Is a potential Income to be realized.

13                   What I am urging this group Is give us

14         time, like all Improvements In any capital structure,

          in Improvements in the manufacturing process.

16                   I was Interested In reading in the paper

          coming down on the train to Chicago this morning

          that one of the reasons why Mr. Khudsen has left

          the Executive Vice-Presidency of General Motors to

          be jme the President of the Ford Motor Company was

          that In his opinion General Motors' management was

          in error in not planning longer than four years In

          advance as to what General Motors was going to do.

                    And so what I am urging on this pollution

          problem, industry will solve it, but it has to have


 1                           ROBERT A. EWENS

 2         time and financing to do so.

 3                   MR. KLASSEN:  Do you have any estimate on

 4         the time that we should wait?  We have kind of waited

 5         a long time already.

 6                   MR. EWENS:  I quite agree with you, but I

 7         don't think you oan generalize on time.  I think each

 8         individual plant has to be studied separately.

 9                   MR. STEIN:  Are there any further comments

10         or questions?

11                   MR. MITCHELL;  On the top of Page 7 y;ou

12         indicate that we should "apportion the financial

13         burden of pollution abatement equitably between

14         industry and the rest of the tax-paying public."

15         I might direct your attention to a new law we

16         passed in Indiana which allows our industrial people

17         to construct waste treatment facilities and then not

18         have those placed on your property tax rolls, which

19         gives them an incentive to construct those waste

20         treatment facilities.  And we found that in working

          with some of our Industrial people that there has

          been a renewed interest in them meeting their obli-

23         gation.

                    MR. EWENS:  Thank you, sir.  I want a

          copy of that law, and I will get it.

   I                                                           2901

 1                          ROBERT A. EWENS

 2                  MR. STEIN:  Are there any further comments

 3        or questions?

 4                  Mr. Holmer.

 5                  MR. HOLMER:  I want to thank the other

 6        Conferees for asking the questions that were on my

 7        mind.

 8                  MR. STEIN:  Mr. Poston.

 9                  MR. POSTON:  I have a question, particularly

10        since Mr. Klassen asked about time of compliance with

11        recommendations and abatement.

12                  On Page 2 you indicate that there are 17

13        sources of Lake Michigan pollution identified and

14        only 5 of these are Industrial sources.

15                  MR. EWENS:  Yes, sir.

16                  MR. POSTON:  I know that in this Conference

17        we are talking about the total of the Lake Michigan

18        Basin, and in this respect I think those on the

          Fox River would be considered as pollution sources

          that affect Lake Michigan, at least from the etand-

          point of phosphates, nutrients, I wondered if these

          industries are aware of their effect on the lake

          and have intents to take remedial actions also.

                    MR. EWENS:  I am sure they are, and. I--am sure

          the gentleman who will speak here for the Paper

 1                           ROBERT A. EWENS

 2         Industries can answer you more directly on that.

 3                   MR. STEIN:  Mr. Ewens, I certainly agree

 4         that Industry should be given a reasonable time, and I
 s         think the Conferees, both In a State program and In
 6         our Federal-State program, have generally given
 7         Industry a reasonable time.  I think we have a record

 8         here, at least In the Federal enforcement cases, of

 9         dealing with some 1200 Industries throughout the
10         country,ancl I didn't hear too many complaints when the

11         time schedule was set as to the time.
12                   But once a reasonable time schedule Is set,

13         I wonder what the record of Industry should be In

14         meeting that time schedule?
15                   MR. EWENS:  If It Is reasonable, I think
16         it should be complied with.
17                   MR. STEIN:~ I think it should.  But I
18         think if we look at the record, you will find a
19         considerable amount of pressure for extensions and

20         slippages, and this is something I think that has to
21         be kept In mind.  Once a reasonable time schedule is

22         set, I think industry has an obligation to meet it.
23                   MR. EWENS:  I quite agree if the test of

24         reasonableness is applied.

25                   UR. STEINi  Yes.

 1                           ROBERT A. EWENS
 2                   MR. HOLMERi  Mr. Bwens, I have one more
 3         question.  This is of a philosophical nature, but
 4         going to the heart of your statement.  Should a
 5         firm which is operating at a deficit be permitted
 6         to continue to operate if it has not met its pollu-
 7         tion abatement responsibilities to the community?
 8         Do you view pollution abatement as a high priority
 9         expenditure on the part of the company and one of
10         the first obligations of the company?
11                   MR. EWENSi  I do indeed.  1 certainly don't
12         think that extensions should go on indefinitely for
13         a company that is eternally running in the red.  I
14         think it should be a No. 1 consideration on pollution.
15                   MR. STEIN i  Are there any further comments
16         or questions?

                    MR. STEIN:  Thank you very much.
                    (No response.)
19                   Mr. Holmer.
                    MR. HOLMER:   Representative of some of
          the industries on the Pox River and all of the
          Pulp and Paper Industry in the Lake Michigan Basin
          is Richard Billings, of Neenah, Wisconsin.
24                   Mr. Billings.
                    MR. STEIN:  While Mr. Billings is coming up,

 1                           RICHARD BILLINGS
 2         I would like  to welcome him.  Again he  represents
 3         an industry with a  tremendous pollution problem,
 4         represents people sometimes who have had philosophic
 5         differences with the regulatory agencies, and he also
 6         represents an industry that has to, If  they are going
 7         to comply with what the regulatory agencies are going
 8         to ask, spend considerable amounts of money.
 9                   I might say, though, given these things,
10         it has been a pleasure to work through  the years
11         with Mr. Billings because we know he has had complete
12         candid exchange of  views and information both from
13         government sources  and industry sources.  I would
14         like to say in the  most hotly contested cases we
15         have never found any difficulty in getting Information
16         on waste discharges or production from  the pulp and
17         paper industry, and I xtont think they have had any trouble
18         getting that  information and exchange of views from
          us.  I think  in every recorded case, we have been
          able to work  out solutions.
21                   I think Mr. Billings is to be commended for
          the highest type of industrial statesmanship in what
23         admittedly very often is a very difficult area.
24                   Mr. Billings.
                    MR. BILLINGS i  Thank you very much, Mr. Stein.


 1                          RICHARD BILLINGS

 2        That la truly praise from Olympus.



 5                          REPRESENTING THE



 8                  MR. BILLINGSi  Mr. Chairman,  Conferees,

 9        Ladles and Gentlemen.

10                  My name la Richard M. Billings.  I am

11        Assistant to the Vice-Preeident - Research and

12        Engineering, of Kimberly-Clark: Corporation.  I am

13        making this statement as spokesman for  the paper

14        companies representing 80 .percent of the pulp and

15        paper production in the Wisconsin segment of the

16        Lake Michigan drainage basin.  The companies are

17        listed at the end of this statement.

18                  Of the Nation's 4? paper •producing States,

19        Wisconsin ranks first in sales, first In tonnage pro-

          duced, first in capital investment, first in taxes

          paid, and number of people employed.  It has been  a

22        principal Industry of the State since before 1900.

23        It has assets of over nine hundred million dollars

          and employs one out of every 11 Industrial workers

          in Wisconsin.  Its continued growth and well-being

 1                           RICHARD BILLINGS

 2        are  vitally dependent upon its continuing ability to

 3        sake economic use of the water resources upon which

 4        ita  processes depend.  It is concerned with the

 s        quality of the water coming to it as well as the

 6        effect of its effluents on the onflowing river.  It

 7        haa, therefore, been a leader for many years in the

 8        study and solution of water quality problems, and in

 9        the  abatement of pollution.

10                   Wisconsin was one of the first States to

11        become concerned with water quality and its management.

12        Legislative action was recorded as early as 1899*

13        3he  Committee on Water Pollution was created by the

u        legislature in 1927 and was one of the first inter-

15        departmental pollution control agencies in the U. S.

16        It has developed a broad range of basic data and has

17        been a national leader in the development of water

18        quality control and pollution abatement programs,

19                   Bie Wisconsin Division of Resource Develop-

20        ment (successor to the Committee on Water Pollution)

21        thus has in its files today a record of stream condi-

22        tions in Wisconsin extending over a period of 39 years.

23        It is intimately familiar with the history of popula-

24        tion growth, expansion of manufacturing, and their

25        effect upon water quality.  The state is also familiar

 1                          RICHARD BILLINGS
 2         with the economic implications  of any water quality
 3         control  measures.   It  is,  therefore,  uniquely quail*
 4         fled to  establish practical and enforceable water
 5         quality  standards for  Wisconsin's interstate waterways
 6         and  for  the  intrastate waters which form a part of
 7         interstate drainage basins.
 8                  She Wisconsin pulp and paper Industry has
 9         a  long history  of active participation in pollution
10         reduction and control.  It established a liaison
H         committee at almost the same time that the State
12         Committee on Water  Pollution came into being.  Hie
13         industry committee  has acted in an advisory capacity
14         to the State and has enabled the State to broaden its
is         efforts.
16                  In addition,  the paper Industry has for
17         many years Joined forces with the State in making
18         cooperative  river surveys.  This assistance of
19         Industry engineers, chemists and technicians*has
20         made possible State surveys of  river  flows and currant
21         measurements, of biological studies and chemical
22         analyses to  a greater  extent than would have been
23         possible otherwise.
24                  In 1939,  thirteen Wisconsin mills formed
25         the  Sulfite  Pulp Manufacturers  Research League,  which

 I                          RICHARD BILLINGS
 2         has since expanded its scope to cover all chealcal
 3         pulping processes*  The League, which la financed
 4         by the paper Industry, established and operates a
 5         unique research laboratory.  It has done the research
 6         and accumulated the basic information upon which the
 7         Individual mills have developed specific pollution-
 8         abating by-products and proceaaea.  fhe League Itself
 9         has also originated or pioneered the following pol-
io         lutlon abatement facilities or practicess
11              1.  Developed the process for producing Torula
12              yeast from spent sulflte liquor.  The flrat
13              such yeast plant In Wisconsin was started by
u              the League.
is                   I might add that this la the flrat of its
IB         kind In the Western Hemisphere.
17              2y  Developed the theory and procedures that
18              have made possible the yearly utilization of
19              millions of gallons of spent sulflte liquor
20              as roadbinder.
21              3.  Pioneered the first successful spent calcium
22              base sulflte liquor evaporation system in the
23              country, thus developing the basic Information
24              necessary, to construct today's Installations
25              employing this abatement process.

 1                          RICHARD BILLINGS
 2             4.  Worked out with the inventor a practical
 3             method of utilizing hydroelectric turbine
 4             installations for the reaeration of  rivers,
 5             Tone of oxygen added to Wisconsin atreams each
 6             day of the critical summer period are the direct
 7             result.
 8                  Current basic studies aimed at  pollution
 9        abatement include methods of production of wood sugars,
10        adheslves, and diaperaants.  Processes such as reverse
11         osmosis have attracted national attention resulting
12        in a contributing FWPCA grant for feasibility studies*
13         Electro-dialysis, developed by the League for the
14         paper Industry, has proven adaptable for  pollution
15         abatement in the dairy industry.
16                   Most Wisconsin pulp and paper mills belong
17         to and finance the efforts of the national Council
          also pioneered in the treatment  of pulp and paper
          for Stream Improvement, founded in 19^3, which has
          mill wastes.  The specific application of clarifiera,
          aerators, activated sludge ponds,  spray disposal
          systems, aerated and stabilization lagoons to pulp
23         and paper mill wastes is  in most instances the result
          of recommendations and advice  of the  National Council
          Staff of engineers and chemists


 1                            RICHARD BILLINOS

 2                    information on pollution abatement develop-

 3         ments  la also exchanged regularly between companies.

 4         For  this reason,  the  axilla of the Industry across the

 5         Nation act as a broad testing ground and reservoir

 6         of abatement experience.  In the highly competitive

 7         pulp and paper Industry of today, pollution abatement

 8         Is one field where no competitive barriers exist.

 9                    The Institute of Paper Chemistry In Appleton

10         furnishes  bioassay and biological stream surveys

11         which  are  of tremendous importance in the Industry's

12         efforts to minimize and control pollution.

13                    In the  area of biological stream surveys,

14         in the last ten years alone,  the Institute has

15         studied Intensively 7*500 miles of streams, rivers,

16         swamps and lakes  across the length and breadth of

17         the  Nation.

18                    The cost of the foregoing efforts to the

19         industry has been high.  The Wisconsin Department of

          Resource Development's annual summary of capital

21         expenditures for  paper Industry facilities which

          resulted in or were Intended to result in reductions

23         in pollution — this  is the old Fora B and now F0j?a

24         WB-8 -~ indicate  that 36.6 million dollars was spent

          in the last ten years, and that research costs were

 1                           RICHARD BILLINQS
 2         7.5 million  dollars  over this  period.   This la only
 3         part  of  the  story, however.  Yearly operating costs
 4         of the average  effluent treatment installation run
 s         about 15 per cent of the original capital expenditure.
 6         These costs  continue as long as a mill Is In operation.
 7                   The opening section  of the Federal Water
 8         Pollution Control Act states:
 9              "..., it is  declared to be the policy of congress
10              to  recognize, preserve, and protect the primary
n               responsibilities and rights of the States in
12              preventing and  controlling water pollution, to
13               support and  aid technical research relating to
14               the prevention  and control of water pollution,
15               and to  provide  Federal  technical  services and
16               financial  aid to State  and Interstate agencies
17               and to  municipalities in  connection with the
18               prevention and  control  of water pollution."
19                                               (33 U.S.C.A.I 466)
20                   This  statement of  policy,  which emphasizes
21          the secondary nature of Federal Involvement in the
22          area  of  water quality control,  is fundamental to
23          the consideration of the questions here presented
24          and to any recommendations,which you aa Conferees
25          ultimately make.

 1                           RICHARD BILLINGS
 2                   With respect to interstate waters, the
 3         Federal Act provides that the States shall
 4              "adopt (A) water quality criteria applicable to
 5              interstate waters or portions thereof within such  .
 6              State, and (B) a plan for the Implementation and
 7              enforcement of the *;, criteria adopted ..."
 8                   Action by the Federal Government is
 9.        restricted where effective State programs and standards
10         of water quality exist.  All of the States present
H         here as Conferees have in fact developed and submitted
12         the requisite standards and programs within the time
13    "    required.
14                   Since the development and submission of the
15         Wisconsin program, members of the Wisconsin paper
l6         industry have continued to work on pollution-abatement
17         projects consistent with the Wisconsin program, even
18         though Federal approval was not received until last
19         week.  As evidence of this continuing effort, statements
20         by or on behalf of paper companies at the hearing on
21         the lower Fox River held January 18, 1968, in Appleton,
22         Wisconsin, are appended hereto as exhibits.
23                   Mr. Chairman, I would like to have these
24         added to the minutes at this time.
25                   MR. STEIN:  Without objection, these will

 1                            RICHARD BILL BIOS

 2          be  included as  exhibits.

 3                   MR. BILLINGS:   In view of the record of

 4          action by the States  in response to the provisions

 5          of  the Federal  Act, we feel that the timeliness of

 6          this  Conference is open to question.

 7                   Wisconsin  standards and plans for enforce-

 8          Bient  were submitted only  last June, and were approved

 9          only  last week.   Certainly insufficient time has

10          elapsed to  determine  the  adequacy of Wisconsin's

n          program for abatement and whether or not any delays

12          are being encountered.  These are two of the three

13          statutory mandates to this conference.   The other,

14          occurrence  of pollution of Interstate waters, might

is          be  a  more relevant subject of Inquiry after State

16          standards and enforcement procedures had been in

17          operation long  enough to  determine their effect on

18          present pollutional situations, which are already well

19          documented.

20                   The House Appropriations Committee, in a

21          report dated July 20, 1967,  says:

22               "As the power to control water quality and

23               quantity Is  not  only the power to  make or break

24               business and agriculture but is a  power over the

25               life of the  Nation itself, it is essential that

 !                           RICHARD BILLINGS

 2               the  Federal  water  Pollution Control Admlnis-

 3               tratlon  not  only closely  coordinate its plans

 4               and  activities with  all the Federal agencies

 5               involved,  but also with each of the States,

 6               local  jurisdictions,  and  private interests

 7               affected by  the  program.   The imposition of

 8               restrictions and controls without full and

 9               equitable  consideration of the essential and

10               varied interests involved in water supply,

11               Including  priority of use and riparian rights,

12               could  have a most  serious adverse effect on

13               the  various  segments of the economy dependent

14               upon water for their existence."

is                         (90th  Congress  1st Session

IB                         H.R.  Report #505, Page 80)

17                   This  statement  constitutes a solemn warning

18          of  the  dangers  of action  without adequate considera-

19          tion and  understanding  of the  future consequences and

20          the evaluation  of potential complications.

21                    It  is certainly relevant in considering the

22          report  of the Federal Water Pollution Control Admlnls-

23          tration of  January, 1968, entitled, "water Pollution

24          Problems  of Lake  Michigan and  Tributaries" which

25          purports  to be  the,working document for this Conference.


 1                          RICHARD BILLINGS

 2         This  report,  to  the extent that it makes reoommenda-

 3         tions of standards and necessary treatment,  is certainly

 4         premature.  Further, we respectfully submit  that It

 s         constitutes a perfect example  of that kind of approach

 6         which the Appropriations  Committee, in its statement

 7         warns us to avoid.

 8                  Nowhere In the  PWPCA report Is there an

 9         indication that  any study of the cost of Implementing

10         its recommendations or the benefits to be expected

11         therefrom has been made.   Neither is there any con-

12         slderation of the economic burden on those who would

13         be required to implement  them.

14                  We  take serious exception to the recommenda-

15         tlona contained  in the Report  (pp 65 et seq) and

16         particularly  to  general recommendations Nos. 4 and 5

17         and by implication the principle expressed in No. 2,

18                  These  recommendations appear to require an

19         arbitrary degree of treatment  whether or not the

           magnitude of  the discharge is  gallons per day or

21         millions of gallons per day, whether the receiving

           stream is a trickle or a  torrent,  and whether it is

           in the center of a forest or the heart of a  city.

           Such  recommendations attempt to enforce a standard

           treatment, even  when the  stream classification,  no


 1                            RICHARD BILLINQS

 2          matter how stringent,  is being met without it.  This

 3          is  requiring treatment for treatment's sake.  It

 4          would require the spending of substantial sums of

 5          money which in many instances would create little

 6          or  no benefit to anyone.

 7                    The recommendations of the PWPCA for

 8          uniform treatment, regardless of need, will have

 9          the same effect as uniform effluent standards.  This

10          would appear, therefore, to be in direct violation

11          of  the intent of Congress, which in considering the

12          problem of pollution and pollution abatement,

13          rejected uniform effluent standards in favor of

14          stream classification, as the wisest and most

15          appropriate avenue to  the optimum use of our Nation's

16          streams.

17                    We also question the inclusion of the

18          arbitrary timetable calling for plans within six

19          months and completion  within thirty-six,  This is

20          totally unrealistic.  Intelligent plans for treatment

21          must be based on laboratory and pilot plant studies.

           The adaptability and workability of new principles

           must be demonstrated before they can be planned on

           a production scale. The PWPCA itself has made

           numerous grants calling for studies expected to

























                  RICHARD BILLINGS
require two years or more for completion.  These

grants Include Project WPRD 60-01-6?, a study and

evaluation of four alternative biological procedures

for treating combined municipal and pulp anU paper

mill wastes by the Green Bay Metropolitan Sewerage

District and four paper mills, and WPRD 12-01-68

with the Pulp Manufacturers Research League for the

evaluation of the treatment of pulp mill wastes by

reverse osmosis.

          Hie arbitrary timetable approach for all

recommended action in the entire Lake Michigan

basin area if nothing more endangers the development

of sound technical information, discourages thorough

planning, and encourages careless expenditure of

government and private funds.  It also Ignores the

relative importance of specific problems or projects,

and the very real need for priorities in their planning

and completion.

          To the extent that these remarks may have

seemed critical, I trust that they will be accepted

as being constructively critical and will be helpful

to the Secretary and the Conferees in arriving at

recommendations on how best to proceed toward the

attainment of common goals.


 1                            RICHARD BILLINQS

 2                    We believe that economic studies and cost-

 3          benefit comparisons are essential to an intelligent

 4          attack on water quality problems.  Pollution control

 5          is  far too serious and costly to be undertaken without

 6          first making such evaluations.

 7                    We believe that great opportunities for

 8          progress lie in the development of newer, more

 9          efficient, and less costly methods of treatment and

u>          waste disposal.  We offer the results of our research

11          in  these areas to all who may benefit, and urge you

12          to  encourage, in every way possible, more and broader

13          research of this nature.

14                    Our criticism of the PWPCA report is not

15          directed at those who prepared it, since we do not

16          know the nature and scope of their assignment.  Our

17          suggestions are based on the premise that as the

18          basic working document of this Conference, it contains

19          serious omissions and makes arbitrary recommendations

20          without factual support either in terms .of need,

21          economic feasibility, or time required.  We urge you

22          to  recommend that these omissions be rectified.

23                    We agree wholeheartedly that there is need

24          for continued active effort to control and abate

           pollution and we welcome the growing public awareness

























                  RICHARD BILLINGS
of the existence and complexity of the problems.

          In conclusion, while we will oppose

strenuously the establishment of programs without

regard for actual need, and those that impose

arbitrary criteria, standards, timetables, and

regulations, we are prepared to throw the weight

of our industry behind the development of well-

considered and practical pollution control programs.

          We will continue to give strong financial

support to research in pollution control techniques.

We welcome the assistance and will cooperate with

Federal, State and local governments in the develop-

ment of new and advanced control methods.  As such

methods come into being, we will continue to adapt

them to our specific problems and bring new installa-

tions into operation.  While much has been done, we

agree that more can be done.  We urge, however, that

these steps be made wisely, not in haste, and only

after full consideration is given to the consequences.




 1                           RICHARD BILLINGS













14                   (The exhibits submitted by Mr. Billings

15         are as follows:)


17                CHICAGO, ILLINOIS    JANUARY 31, 1968




21                               EXHIBIT I

22                               to the




 1                           RICHARD BILLINGS


 3                    STATEMENTS BY OR ON BEHALF OF

 4                      PULP AND PAPER COMPANIES

 5                      PRESENTED AT THE HEARING

 6                       ON THE LOWER POX RIVER

 7                          JANUARY 18, 1968

 8                             BEFORE THE





                           GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN

                     My name la Martti Lundstrom.  I am Mill

           Manager of American Can Company's mill In Green Bay.

           At Green Bay our company operates a Sulphite and

           Groundwood Pulp Mill, a Paper Mill and related Con-

           verting Operations producing sanitary tissues, paper

           towels and napkins.  At this operation we employ

           approximately 1,200 people with an annual payroll

           between $9 and $10 Million.  In addition we operate

           a Pulp and Paper Mill at Rothschild, Wisconsin and

           Paper Mills, at Ashland, Wisconsin and Menomlnee,


                     Our company has had a long history In

           cooperating with State authorities and In the

 1                            RICHARD BILLINGS
 2          Implementation of a progressive water pollution
 3          abatement program.  As an example, the American Can
 4          Company in 1953 installed spent sulphite liquor
 5          evaporators resulting in an immediate reduction of
 6          about 50 pezO>ent in the amount of BOD discharged
 7          from the sulphite pulping operation.   During the
 8          ensuing years there has been a continuing downward
 9          trend in BOD discharge from this source.  In recent
10          years the capacity of the evaporators has been
n          increased by improved instrumentation and controls,
12          increased heating capacity, installation of an
13          improved chemical cleaning system and a flash cooler.
u                    Most recently, improved collection of spent
15          sulphite liquor has been realized through a change in
16          processing this product.
17                    In 1960 the American Can Company put into
18          operation a settling lagoon system, the primary
19          purpose of which was to bring fiber losses to a
20          level below 1 per §ent of total mill production.
21          Figures given in the Annual Survey Reports received
22          from the former Committee on Water Pollution (State
23          of Wisconsin) show that our total fiber losses have
24          consistently been less than the 1 percent goal.  As
25          an example the years 1965, '66 and *67 show 0.87pex _cent

 1                            RICHARD BILLINQS

 2          0.86 peiCJsent and 0.83 per: .pent respectively.  Figures

 3          taken from in-plant measurements during the past six

 4          months indicate the settling lagoons are 90 per; $ent

 s          plus effective in removing settleable solids.  This

 6          per pent efficiency would indicate that the lagoons

 7          are performing as they were intended.

 8                    Also in I960 we installed our original

 9          spray dryer for processing concentrated spent sulphite

10          liquor.   This capacity for producing spray dried

11          products was doubled in 1965 by the installation of

12          a second spray dryer.

13                    In June of 1966 a paper machine was shut

14          down.  One of the principal reasons for discontinuing

is          operations on this machine was the high fiber loss

16          during its normal operation.  Economic studies

17          indicated we could not Justify the cost of modernizing

18          this machine and its stock system in order to slgnifi-

19          cantly reduce this fiber loss.  The shutdown of this

20          machine showed an immediate and substantial reduction

21          in the amount of settleable solids being sent to the

22          lagooning system.

23                    The foregoing installations have all pro-

24          vided the means for reducing wastes discharged from

25          our mill.  However, we are continuing our studies


 1                            RICHARD BILLINGS

 2          toward further improvement.  The remaining signi-

 3          ficant source of BOD discharged from our mill is

 4          the weak and unoollectable spent sulphite liquor.

 5          As part of our program to deal with this material we

 6          have Joined with three other mills in the Green Bay

 7          area and with the Green Bay Metropolitan Sewerage

 8          District in a joint industry-municipal project for

 9          treatment of mill effluents which are presently not

10          amenable to processing.  Pilot plant studies have

11          indicated that the Joint treatment of the effluents

12          involved looks favorable.  If successful, there is

13          good prospect for construction of a full scale plant

14          to handle these effluents.  When and if such a plant

15          is put into operation, a further substantial reduction

16          in the BOD load from our plant can be expected.

17          American Can Company will carry its fair share of

18          the capital and operating costs of such a plant.

19          1A8/68


21          BEFORE THE




25          JANUARY 18, 1968

 1                           RICHARD BILLINQS


 3         STATEMENT OP





 8                   The Charmin Paper Products Company  operatea

 9         two mills manufacturing sulphite pulp and  sanitary

10         paper products at two locations within the City  of

11         Green Bay.  They are known as the Bast River  Mill

12         and the Pox River Mill.  Our Little Rapids Mill,

           located at West De Pere on the Fox River,  was shut

           down on a permanent basis in October of last  year*

15         The Little Rapids employees were transferred  to  our

16         Green Bay Mills.

17                   Since first testifying for my ccripany  on

18         pollutional matters in 19^8 and 19^*9, Charmin's

19         physical plant and capacity has more than  doubled.

20         Employment has Increased from 815 to 1560.  During

21         this period, over ten million dollars has  been spent

22         in the construction and operation of our pollution

23         abatement facilities.



 !                            RICHARD BILLIN0S


 3                    First, I would like to briefly describe

 4          our efforts and performance to reduce the oxygen

 5          demand on the Fox River.  At the 1949 Hearings,

 6          Charmin committed itself to the construction of a

 7          treatment plant knowing full well that the then known

 8          methods for treating spent sulphite liquor were only

 9          in an experimental stage.  We constructed a Yeast

10          Plant to utilize the wood sugars in the liquor pro-

11          dueIng feed and food yeast.  This plant cost over

12          three million dollars and eventually attained pollu-

13          tion abatement levels approximating 45 per cent to

M          50 per cent biochemical oxygen demand reduction.

15          After operating more than twelve years, the Yeast

16          Plant was shut down early in 1967*  Paper mill

17          expansions begun in the early I960 ls had to be

18          supported with increased pulp capacity.  It was not

is          practical to process the added spent liquor in the

20          Yeast Plant.  We proposed and obtained State approval

21          to construct an evaporate and burn plant.  This plant

22          began operations in 1963.  Initially, it was operated

23          in conjunction with the Yeast Plant.  Later, with

24          Improved techniques, we obtained better biochemical

25          oxygen demand removal by eliminating the Yeast Plant

 1                           RICHARD BILLINGS

 2         from the process*

 3                    Our spent liquor collection  facilities

 4         initially  Installed in conjunction with  the  Yeast

 s         Plant have been modified to handle the increased

 6         liquor flow.  Biochemical oxygen  demand  removal in

 7         any treatment system is proportional to  efficiency

 8         of spent liquor collection.   Our  collection  facilities

 9         compare favorably with the best in the Industry.   The

10         liquor collection and treatment facilities along  with

11         other Improvements In Pulp Mill operations,  have

12         reduced total biochemical oxygen  demand  by 70 per cent.

13         Thla compares with the 3^ per cent reduction reported

14         in 1957 &nd the 66 per cent reduction  achieved in

is         1965.

16                    Further Improvements are dependent upon

17         completion of several construction projects  now

18         underway and development of treatment  methods capable

19         of handling condensate from the evaporators  and

20         dilute wash waters from the Pulp  Mill.

21                    Charmin has long felt that biological

22         processes  will attain the highest level  of treatment

23         efficiency of dilute wastes.  We  first initiated

24         research on this concept by Jointly treating yeast

          plant effluent combined with  domestic  wastes in 1958.


 1                            RICHARD BILLINGS

 2          The work was done at our expense In co-operation

 3          with the Oreen Bay Metropolitan Sewerage District

 4          on pilot plant trickling filters.  This effort was

 s          discontinued in 1961 because It proved only partially

 6          successful.  Reports of this Investigation were

 7          submitted to the State Committee on Water Pollution

 8          at that time.  A new approach, again at Charmin

 9          expense, was begun in late 1964 utilizing the more

10          modern activated sludge process on condensate and

11          dilute wash waters in combination with domestic wastes.

12          The domestic wastes provide the dilution and the

13          nutrients in the form of phosphorous and nitrogen

14          necessary for successful treatment.  The laboratory

15          and pilot plant results were sufficiently promising

16          to Interest the three other pulp and paper mills in

17          the Green Bay area.  Together with the Oreen Bay

18          Metropolitan Sewerage District, the four mills are

19          carrying out a co-operative research program financed

20          in part with a Federal Government Demonstration and

21          Research Grant.  After the technical and engineering

22          aspects of the Joint treatment approach have been

23          worked out, further hurdles must be overcome before

24          this effort can be consummated.  However, there is

25          prospect for the construction of a super plant designed

 !                            RICHARD BILLINGS
 2          to treat a combined effluent load, Industrial and
 3          domestic, In the Green Bay area.  We estimate that
 4          such a plant will help us attain up to 85 per cent
 5          reduction of our total pollutlonal load,  This is
 6          equivalent to secondary treatment and the highest
 7          practical degree attainable with present day tech-
 8          nology.
12                    By collecting excess process water at the
13          East River Mill and pumping It through a pipeline in
14          our tunnel to the Fox River Mill, we have eliminated
15          the discharge of all wastes--biochemical oxygen
16          demand and suspended solids—from the East River.
17          Since 1964, all of our mill effluents from the East
18          River Mill and the Fox River Mill pass through a
19          single effluent measuring station at the Fox River
20          Mill.  This station is equipped with modern sampling
21          and analysis equipment.
22                    With our system of fiber and water conaer-
23          vatlon in papermaklng operations, our suspended solids
           loss from papermaking have for many years been well
25          below the State Committee on Water Pollution Standard

 -.                            RICHARD BILLINOS

 2          of one pound per thousand gallons and 1 per cent of

 3          production.  Our records Indicate our paper-making

 4          losses are consistently around 1/2 of 1 per cent.

 5                    In September 1965, we started up a flotation^

 @          oentrifugafelon-lncineration system to dispose of fines

 7          from the Pulp Hill.  Aa is usual with new installations,

 8          we experienced some operation difficulties in each of

 9          the thi?@Q distinct sections of the system.  Flotation

10          and incineration appear now to be under control.  We

u          continue to have some problems with centrifugatlon.

12                    Early in November 1967, we Initiated a new

13          program to invest an additional $920,000 in pollution

14          abatement facilities at our Oreen Bay Hills.  This

is          new program scheduled to be completed by May 1, 1968

16          will allow us to reach 75 per cent biochemical oxygen

17          demand reduction.  The program consists oft

18               ... more settling tanks, a second centrifuge,

19               additional flotation and screening equipment

20               all directed to reducing the fiber content of

21               waste water,

22               ... additional equipment to recover and treat

23               more spent sulphite liquor from pulp making, and

24               ... a number of small but Important process

25               changes at the East and Fox River Hills, such as

 1                           RICHARD BILLINGS
 2              better collection of overflows, new instru-
 3              mentation, piping changes and reduced water
 4              usage.
 5                   A separate appropriation for approximately
 6         $260,000, is being formulated and will be approved
 7         In the next few months.  These funds will be spent
 8         on further reducing paper machine losses and in-plant
 9         water conservation measures.
10                   When these programs are completed late In
11         1968 or early 1969, suspended solids losses from our
12         pulp and paper mill operations are expected to b@
13         somewhat less than 3/4 of 1 per cent of production.

15         SUMMARY

 7                   In summary, we believe the record confirms
           that Charmin has consistently and progressively
19         carried out its 1949 commitments.  Further, by mid-
           1968, we will have achieved a 75 per cent biochemical
           oxygen demand removal.  Our goal In 1972-1973 will
           be 85 per cent or 1?0,000# of biochemical oxygen
           demand removal per day which is equivalent to
           secondary or complete treatment.  This will result
           in effluent discharge of 30,000 to 35,000 pounds of


  1                           RICHARD BILLINGS

  2         biochemical  oxygen  demand per day.   Such a degree

  3         of treatment,  if uniformly attained by all parties

  4         concerned, will result  in a  substantial up-grading

  5         of the Pox River and Green Bay  to a level meeting

  6         the water quality standards  proposed by the State

  7         of Wisconsin.


  9                           January 30, 1968


 11         Mr. Freeman  Holmer

 12         Director, Wisconsin Department

 13           of Resources Development

 14         1 West Wilson  Street

 15         Madison, Wisconsin    53702

 16         Dear Mr. Freeman:

 17                   Combined  Paper  Mills,  Inc. wishes to file

 18         this written statement  in response  to your notice on

 19         investigation  and hearing and a report on an investl-

20         gatlon of the  pollution in the  lower Fox River and
           Green Bay made during  the period 1966-67 dated
22         January  4,  1968.   Our company does  not  take issue

23         with the survey findings as  summarized  In Item 18

           on  Page  5 of  the above  report.   We  wish to indicate

           our interest  and intend to cooperate with the

 1                            RICHARD BILLINGS

 2          Department In all matters pertaining to stream

 3          pollution.

 <                    Our company Is an old mill, just under 80

 5          years old, and has had all the problems associated

 6          with Improving water pollution conditions In an old

 7          mill.  Since the first orders Issued in 1949, we

 8          installed four additional eavealIs and in 1955

 9          installed a primary clarlfler.  After working with

10          various manufacturers of sludge thickening equipment,

11          we finally installed an Eimco Rotobelt Sludge Filter

12          in 1959, the first application of this type of equip-

13          ment of delnk sludge thickening in the Industry.

14          The total cost of the equipment at this time was just

15          under $300,000.00.

16                    Further studies were then instituted for

17          treatment of the deinking waste water to provide

18          secondary treatment for the total mill effluent.

19          Because of the problems associated with the treatment

20          of deinked effluent, this study required two complete

21          summers and part of a third.   The primary problem

           associated with this study was the excessive foaming

23          conditions resulting from the use of a relatively

24          high useage of synthetic detergent.  From the data

25          obtained, the Chester Consulting Engineers

























                  RICHARD BILLINQS

of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, were retained to study

the data and make recommendations as to the aroope

of the facilities necessary to suocessfully treat

the total effluent.

          Because of the very large size equipment

necessary to handle this type of effluent and since

the State of Wisconsin passed a law limiting the use

of certain types of detergent, our company decided

to cease the deInking operation and substitute this

with a revolutionary new process for producing a

mechanical type of pulp based on the mechanical

refining of aspen wood chips after a treatment with

a weak chemical solution at relatively low temperatures

The process was chosen because it was based on the

use of wood readily available in Wisconsin and also

gives a very high yield.  As a result, the company

ceased deinking operations by August, 1966, and

replaced this with the cheml-mechanical pulping

operation on a small commercial basis.  Initial work

on studying the characteristics of these wastes was

started to determine what process would provide the

best treatment.  We now know that the volume of

effluent is considerably less on a per ton basis than

it was for the deInking process and that the suspended

  1                           RICHARD BILLINGS

  2         solids are also less than what they were for the

  3         deinking process.  This summer we expect a full sized

  4         plant in operation and will continue our study to

  5         determine the process to use to tr©@,t the effluent/

  8                   The company is installing two additional

  7         hydro electric generators at the present time which

  8         will have provisions for air venting the same as

  9         provided for at three of our present turbines which

 10         are used to aerate the water passing through the

 11         turbines during the critical river flow periods when

 12         approximately 3/4 of a ton of oxygen per day is added

 13         to the water.

 14                                          Very truly yours,

 15                                   COMBINED PAPER MILLS, INC.

 16                                   R. A. VOGT

 17         RAV:Jmb




21                         APPLETON, WISCONSIN


23                           January 18, 1968

                     I am G.K. Dickerman, Technical Assistant


 1                            RICHARD BILLINGS

 2          To The President,  Consolidated Papers,  Inc.,  with

 3          headquarters in Wisconsin Rapids.   Consolidated owns

 «          and operates a bleached aulfite pulp mill situated

 5          on the Pox River in the heart of the City of Appleton.

 6          This plant is capable of producing 150 tons of pulp

 7          a day and employs  264 men, has an annual payroll of

 9          $1,900,000, and paid $90,000 in property taxes in 1966„

 9                    The very substantial pollution abatement

10          program which has  been carried out at our Appleton

11          mill strongly supports the written statement of

12          corporate policy which says in part, "As good

13          corporate citizens, we continue to accept our

14          responsibility to preserve and protect natural

15          resources and environment in the areas in which we

16          operate."  In keeping with this policy, we do want

17          to see the water quality of the Lower Pox River

18          brought up to the standards for Industrial and

19          cooling water, as  well as partial body contact and

           public/water supplies, which classification has been

           proposed between Appleton and Green Bay.  We would

           take issue, however, with those who suggest that

           this section of river be classified primarily for

24          fish and aquatic life, since this nullifies the basic

           "multiple use" concept.

 1                           RICHARD BILLINGS
 2                   i would like to tell you something of what
 3         we have done to improve the water quality of the Fox
 4         River below our Appleton Division, commonly known as
 5         the Interlake mill.  Following the public hearings
 6         held In Green Bay In December 1948 and 19*19, we
 7         submitted plans for an abatement program as directed
 8         In Order 2-49JA-5.  The plan as approved by the State
 9         Committee on Mater Pollution called for the installa-
10         tlon of an evaporator and facilities for burning the
11         concentrated spent sulflte liquor in a furnace
12         especially modified for this purpose.  There was no
13         design or engineering experience to draw on in this
14         country for this unique evaporator; therefore, we
15         had to go to Sweden to obtain a design suitable to
16         our special requirements.  We estimated our pollution
17         load would be reduced by 40 per cent.
18                   This pioneering installation was completed
19         and started up on January 12, 1933*  The cost of
20         the evaporator with associated equipment came to
21          $673,000.  Although the economics were unfavorable,
           the abatement efficiency exceeded expectations and
23          the BOD discharge was reduced from 45 tons a day as
24          shown in the 1949 survey to less than 20 tons, or
25          slightly more than 50 per cent.

 1                            RICHARD BILLINGS
 2                    In April, 1957* there was another Pox River
 3          hearing, this time In Appleton.  It was followed by
 4          Order 3-57J-27 dated October 10, 1957* requesting
 S          that we submit plans for further reduction.  This time
 6          It was stated that our reduction should be on the
 7          order of 70 per cent to 75 per cent of the base load-
 8          Ing.  Studies which had been carried out by the mill
 9          technical staff with the assistance of the Institute
10          of Paper Chemistry resulted In the design of Improved
11          collection facilities.  The plans were approved and
12          the facilities were put into operation in the spring
13          of 1961.  We soon realized that additional evaporation
14          capacity would be needed to take care of the improved
15          collection.  We installed an additional evaporator
16  .        at a cost of $220,000.  It was started up on October
17          12, 1962.
18                    Since then we have installed a third
19          evaporator, and although there has been no official
20          determination, we estimated that we have now reduced
21          the dally BOD discharge to approximately 12 tons.
22          These later gains are of less spectacular amounts
23          than the gains of 15 years ago* because the better a
24          mill*s performance becomes, the harder it is to take
25          off another increment of pollution.

 1                            RICHARD BILLINQS

 2                    This recent addition to our evaporating

 3          capacity allows us to collect 75 per cent of the

 4          spent liquor dissolved solids with an estimated 70

 5          per cent reduction in BOD loading.  This met the

 6          objective of the State Board of Health and the

 7          Committee on water Pollution as expressed in the

 8          series of orders numbered 3-57J issued October 10,

 9          1957, from which I quote:  "It appears that a minimum

10          overall reduction of 70 per cent to 75 per cent from

11          raw waste load is needed to gain improved conditions

12          in the receiving water."  End of quote.

13                    I want to emphasize that this program would

14          not have been possible based on the original concept

15          of burning all the concentrated liquor.  We could not

16          have supported the cost and, furthermore, we were

17          unable to find a satisfactory solution to the problem

18          of fly ash which was critical due to the mill's

19          central city location.  Fortunately, an Intensive

20          program of research and sales effort led to the

21          development of a by-product market which has been

           consuming all of the spent liquor we can collect and

23          convert to dry or concentrated form.  Our total

24          expenditure at this plant for pollution abatement

25          facilities, including the third evaporator addition

 1                            RICHARD BILLINGS
 2          installed In 1967, now amounts to over $2,250,000.
 3          It Is interesting to compare this figure with our
 4          total investment for the remainder of the mill of
 5          $5-1/2 million.
 6                    Only by making heavy expenditures in
 7          developing our own technology where none existed,
 8          were we able to meet the objective of 40 per cent
 9          reduction in compliance with Order 2-49JA-5 issued
10          February 21, 1950.  Expansion of the facilities at
11          additional heavy cost enabled us to meet the escalated
12          objective of 70 per cent to 75 per cent reduction
13          from the raw waste load.  Our progress, while sub-
14          stantlal, has been difficult because Inter-lake's
15          major facilities essential to the production of pulp
16          are old and obsolete.  Nevertheless, our mill has
17          managed to continue in operation through a time when
18          other mills using the same pulping process have been
19          closing one by one at an accelerating rate.  We know
           only too well that the cost of pollution abatement
           facilities has been an Important factor in each closing
           In some instances the sulfite mills are replaced with
           facilities for producing kraft pulp, but such a move
 4          is not feasible in our Appleton location.  We must
           conclude that it would not be good business Judgment

 1                            RICHARD BILLINGS

 2          to plan additional major capital expenditures to
 3          meet further escalated targets in the reduction of
 *          BOP loadings at the Interlake mill.
 5                    We recognize further reduction in BOD
 6          loadings may be necessary to reach the water quality
 7          standards proposed for the industrial and cooling

 8          water classification.   Further reduction by our
 9          Appleton mill must come through treatment of the
10          very dilute wastes and at the moment this presents
11          an unsolved problem.   Presently, we are conducting

12          pilot studies in our mill on the reverse osmosis
13          or industrial kidney process which is under develop-
14          ment by the Pulp Manufacturers' Research League.
15          This will be followed  by a large-scale demonstration

16          of a commercial-size unit to be built with funds
17          supported in part by the Federal Water Pollution
18          Control Administration under a research and demonstra-
19          tlbn grant made to the Research League.  The process
20          appears too costly for general application, but we
21          hope it may prove practical for the concentration

22          of certain wastes so as to make more intensive use
23          of our existing facilities.

24                    It has also  been suggested that reductions

25          in BOD can be accomplished through the formation of

 1                            RICHARD BILLINOS
 2          a metropolitan water treatment district with
 3          facilities for Joint secondary treatment.  We believe
 4          that this should be given careful study by a planning
 5          agency qualified to do the Job.  Secondary treatment
 6          or its equivalent on all industrial wastes on the
 7          Lower Fox may be necessary but it appears thoroughly
 8          impractical, both technologically and economically,
 9          on an individual basis.  We submit that any further
   w                         .  -               •
10          effort should be directed toward a facility designed
11          for Joint treatment of municipal and industrial waste.
12                    Furthermore, we suggest that any such project
13          study be expanded to Include an overall study of the
           hydrology and water quality of the entire Lower Fox.
15          We must have a sufficiently accurate analysis of the
           whole situation to assure sound forward planning of
           capital needs.  Computer technology now makes such
           analysis feasible through simulation models of
19          hydrology and water quality.  We believe such a
           study is essential to meet the long-range objectives
           proposed by the Department of Natural Resources.
                     In summary, we are proud of what we have
23                                     .
           done at Consolidated's Interlake mill.  We have
           consistently met the targets set for BOD reduction.
           We have gone ahead with substantial installations on

 1                            RICHARD BILLINGS

 2          our own initiative several times when we were

 3          already in full compliance with the orders of the

           Division of Resource Development or its predecessor

 5          agency,






11                    Green Bay Packaging, Inc. operates a

12          neutral sulfite semichemical pulp and paperboard mill

13          in the City of Green Bay, withdrawing water for pro-

14          ceasing from the Fox River and discharging the water

15          after use.  This mill operation is presently under

16          Order 3-57J38AA issued by the Committee on Water

17          Pollution July 27, 1965 to reduce the quantity of

18          5 day Biochemical Oxygen Demand by 75 per cent to
           ,682 pounds per day.

           an order to the Company in 1957* no technically

           feasible method of accomplishing this goal was known

           which would permit the mill to continue its operation,

           Green Bay Packaging consequently was compelled to

           seek time extensions to investigate developing

 1                            RICHARD BILLINOS

 2          Technology.   Meanwhile  our Company  supported

 3          laboratory development work on what appeared to be

 *          th@ most promising process to aocompllsh our particu-

 5          lar needs.  We then proposed to the Committee a plan

 6          for expanded pilot plant work, which provided for

 7          the design and construction of the first pilot scale

 8          project of the Atomized Suspension Technique as

 9          applied to pulping liquor combustion.  After approval

10          by the State, we constructed and operated this pilot

11          plant.  This experience dramatically demonstrated a

12          risk that our industry has repeatedly faced at great

13          expense, namely that laboratory success does not

14          necessarily mean practical large scale success.  Our

15          pilot plant encountered massive corrosion difficulties

16          that were impossible to overcome.  We were compelled

17          to scrap the entire plant as well as the immediate

18          possibility of meeting the Committee order by use

19          of this method.

                     Following this experience, Green Bay Paokag-

           ing continued its program of evaluating, In detail,

           every process that appeared to offer an answer to

23                               •
           the problem. We also became the first semichemlcal

           pulp producer to join the Pulp Manufacturers Research

           League to review the potential applications of their

 1                            RICHARD BILLINGS

 2          work to our needs.

 3                    The League at that time was considering

 4          the installation of a commercial-scale Electrodialysls

 s          pilot plant and this seemed applicable to our par-

 6          ticular problem.  We assigned a chemical engineer

 7          to work full time on this project with the League

 8          technical staff at their laboratories in Appleton.

 9          Results eventually forced the conclusion that Electro-

10          dialysis, at this stage of development could not be

11          fitted to our process conditions.

12                    Our technical staff continued its evaluation

13          of other developing methods.  In 1963 application

14          of the fluid bed combustion process to neutral sulfite

15          semi chemical pulping liquors had been reported.  We

16 ,         undertook pilot plant work to learn in detail the

17          effects the use of this process would have to reduce

i8          BOD and how it could be technically adapted to the

19          process requirements of our mill.  Analysis of the

20          pilot plant results Indicated that; fluid-bed com-

21          bastion could do the job, and with the State's

22          approval Green Bay Packaging in 1965 contracted

23          for the design and construction of its present fluid-

24          bed combustion plant.  This plant was started up in

25          July of 1966 and as is often the case with a new


 1                            RICHARD BILLINGS

 2          process, encountered a series of process design

 3          problems.  We established reliable process control

 4          during the second quarter of 1967*  Operational

 5          experience as well as equipment and process  improve-

 6          ments are continuing to improve stability,

 7                    To keep close watch on how well the new

 8          plant can do its, Job, we expanded our effluent

 9          sampling program during 1967*  We first increased

10          sampling to a weekly 72 hour composite sample.  Then

11          last December, we again expanded the sampling to

12          composite 10 samples each hour 24 hours per  day, 5

13          days per week.   The data obtained in 1967 is sum-

14          marlzed In the attached table and reflects the

15          effect of the fluid-bed combustion plant.  The plant

16          eliminated the discharge of more than twenty three

17          million pounds of pulping liquor solids representing

18          approximately six million pounds of BOD during the

19          year.

                     The present plant is the first of  its

           design, and as such, required months of process

           analysis and modification work.  Variability of BOD

           results reflect  the many interruptions required for

           process adjustments or equipment modifications that

           could not be made without temporary shutdowns.  This


 1                            RICHARD BILLINGS

 2          phase  of  development  Is  nearlng completion,  and we

 3          expect to eliminate the  need for such downtime,

 4          except for unexpected mechanical breakdown.   As the

 5          fluid-bed installation achieves this condition, we

 6          are confident  that the improved plant reliability,

 7          expanded  liquor and product storage, and further

 8          experience,  will enable  us to meet the ordered

 9          value  consistently during 1968.

10                    This progress  in eliminating the effects

11          of collectible liquors has been substantial and very

12          expensive.  Difficult as it has been. It represents

13          the most  simply solved part of the total effluent

14          problem because we have  dealt with relatively con-

15          centrated BOD  contributing materials.  We hope to

16          achieve  further significant reductions in the

17          effluent  BOD.   At this time however, no practical

           method is known to us by which we can separate the

           undesirable  organics  from the tremendous volumes of

           recycled  process water in which they are dissolved.

           Means  to  accomplish this separation are being studied*

           in the League  laboratories and Green Bay Packaging

           is a participant in the  League's large scale Reverse

           Osmosis project to demonstrate the practicality of

           such studied.   Another possibility now in the


 1                           RICHARD BILLINOS

 2         preliminary stage of Investigation la to send these

 3         dilute waters to a bio-oxidation plant capable of

 4         processing such weak wastes along with municipal

 5         sewage.  Green Bay Packaging is actively participating

 6         along with other major pulp and paper mills, the Green

 7         Bay Metropolitan Sewage District, and the Federal

 8         Water Pollution Control Administration to demonstmt©

 9         the technical and economic feasibility of this approach,

10         These are long term development projects however, and

11         the reliable data needed, assuming a successful com-

12         pletion of either or both projects Is not expected

13         until 1970 or 1971.

14                   These methods to remove additional BOD

15         already show evidence that they will be more costly

16         to remove each pound of BOD than the methods we have

17         used to date.  Whether such costs are supportable is

18         a question that will not be resolved until these

19         projects or others like them are fully investigated.

           Planning, when it can be based on factual information

21                                   '
           will require logical and clearly defined goals.  The

           substantial increase in cost to achieve each new

           improvement will simply not permit errors in decisions,

           Large capital expenditures and major increases in

           operating costs that produce no marketable product

 1                           RICHARD BILLINGS
 2         will not allow a company to continue to provide
 3         employment and strength to Its community.
 4                   Green Bay Packaging, Inc. has demonstrated
 5         a substantial effort.  We have achieved significant
 6         results In the elimination of pollutlonal effects of
 7         our collectible pulping liquors.  We will continue
 8         such efforts In attacking the as yet unanswered
 9         problems of dilute wastes.  We remind the Division
10         of Resource Development that this area of the problem
11         will yield only to new methods.  It will take deter-
12         mination, time and expense to Identify, develop and
13         put such new methods to commercial use.
14            ^       Green Bay Packaging will actively continue
15         Its present program and Its forward progress In
16         accord with both the letter and the spirit of the
17         State's stream protection program.
                               Respectfully submitted,
                               William R. Nelson
                               Director, Research & Development
                               Green Bay Packaging, Inc.
23         WRN:kh

25         1A8/68


Op. Days
30' "
26. «

Fluo -.
Op. Days

To Fluo
*, 962, 400

- 96

#/BOD/24Hrs .
79,200 .

#BOD/24Hrs .

. 6?
#/M Gals.
_ 2.20


 1                           RICHARD BILLINGS


 3                              STATEMENT

 4                                 by

 5                           ROBERT P. BALCH

 6                    Hearing in Appleton, Wisconsin

 7                State Division of Resource Development

 8                           January 18,  1968


10                   My name is Robert P. Baloh.  I am a

11         Research Associate and Group Leader of the Aquatic

12         Biology Group at The Institute of Paper Chemistry,

           Appleton, a graduate school and research center.

                     I have a Bachelor Degree and Master of

           Science Degree from Michigan State university in

           Aquatic Biology, and have been employed as an Aquatic

           Biologist by the Institute for 17 years.

                     I have been engaged in biological water

           quality studies in the Lower Fox River and Green Bay

           since 1955.  It is noteworthy that the 1955 Pox River*

           Green Bay biological water quality study, which forms

           in large part, the baseline with which recent studies

           are compared, was a Joint effort with Kenneth M.

           Hackenthun, then state public health biologist, and



 1                            RICHARD BILLINGS

 2                    I have personally conducted,  or supervised,

 3          six biological water quality studies of the Lower Fox

 4          River and Green Bay.  These have been made at

 5          regular intervals between 1955 and 196? on behalf of

 6          a group of Pox River Valley pulp and paper companies.

 7                    My immediate reason for appearing at this

 8          hearing is to provide additional data that may be

 9          helpful to aquatic biologists from the  State Division

10          of Resource Development in review of their conclusions

11          drawn in the biological portion of their water quality

12          study dated January 4, 1968 and entitled, "Report on

13          an Investigation of the Pollution in the Lower Fox

14          River and Green Bay made during 1966 and 1967".

15                    This group of Fox Valley pulp and paper

16          mills has authorized the Institute of Paper Chemistry

17          to make the data available to State personnel for

18          their use and I discussed the data with the State

19          biologist this last Tuesday.

20                    On Page 14 of the State Report the condition

21          of the biological complex existing in that portion

           of the river in the vicinity of Appleton Palisades*

23          Appleton Yacht Club is described as containing "no

           above mentioned report, the author interprets  this
           clean water organisms.'.'  On Page 17 and ^7 of the


                  RICHARD BILLINOS
condition to indicate a deterioration of water quality
in this section of the river since intolerant or
sensitive ("clean water") animals were present in
this area in 1955 and not apparently, in 1966.
          •Rie data reported by the State biologists
support their conclusion.  However, since the 1955
study, my studies of 1957, 1959> 1961, 1964, and
1967 have all shown the presence of a significant
number of several different kinds of intolerant or
sensitive organisms to be present in the Appleton
Palisades-Appleton Yacht Club portion of the Lower
Pox River.
          Further, the Division of Resource Develop-
ment report states that a total of 67 bottom samples
distributed over 23 Fox River Stations were the
basis for their 1966 biological study of the Fox River.
The Institute's 1967 study Included a total of 302
samples from 43 Lower Fox River stations including
27 samples which were from the Appleton Palisades-
Appleton Yacht Club area alone,  in addition, five
other studies, all Indicating the presence of an
intolerant or sensitive animal population in this
area, have been made.
          It is evident from an Inspection of

                  RICHARD BILLINGS
available data that these sensitive organisms were
present on the bottom of the river during six studies
Including those made in 1964 and 196?.  It is probable
that additional samples collected by the State
biologist would have established their presence there
in 1966.
          There is no question that the density and
diversity of this Intolerant or sensitive bottom-
dwelling Invertebrate animal population in the
Appleton Palisades-Appleton Yacht Club portion of
the river are reduced as compared to that population
present upstream from municipal and industrial dis-
charges , in areas of comparable hydrology, in the
Neenah and Menasha channels.  There also can be no
question that an established resident population of
intolerant organisms also has been present in the
Appleton Palisades-Appleton Yacht Club portion of
the Lower Fox River on at least six different occasions
between 1955 and 1967.
          In addition to the differences between the
1966-1967 State report and my reports, noted for
that section of the Fox River immediately upstream
from Appleton, there are some differences regarding
the State's finding pertaining to that section of

 1                            RICHARD BILLINGS

 2          the Lower Fox River between the College Avenue Bridge

 3          and the Kimberly Dam* downstream from the City of

 4          Appleton.

 5                    On Pages 14 and 15 of the State Report,

 6          conditions of the biological complex in this area

 7          are reported.  A comparison of their 1966 data with

 8          mine for 1967 indicates a difference in the water

 9          quality between these two reports.  The additional

10          data presented here indicate that the water quality

11          of that section of the river between College Avenue

12          Bridge and the Kimberly Dam has not deteriorated

13          as described in the State Report.

14                    Appended to this statement is a summary

15          of the data that we have assembled in our most recent

16          survey, along with a list of the companies.that have

17          underwritten the costs of this work.








                Biological Study of the Fox River and Green Bay

                               Project 1861

                       List of Sponsoring Companies
 1.   American Can Company

 2.   Bergstrom Paper Company

 3.   The Charmin Paper Products Co.
       (The Procter & Gamble Company)

 4.   Combined Paper Mills, Inc.

 5.   Consolidated Papers, Inc.

 6.   Fox River Paper Corporation

 7.   Gilbert Paper  Company

 8.   Green Bay Packaging Inc.

 9.   Kimberly-Clark Corporation

10.   Nicolet Paper  Company

11.   Riverside Paper Corporation

12.   John Strange Paper Co.

13.   Thilmany Pulp & Paper Company
Neenah, Wisconsin

Neenah, Wisconsin

Green Bay, Wisconsin
Cincinnati, Ohio

Combined Locks, Wisconsin

Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin

Appleton,  Wisconsin

Menasha,  Wisconsin

Green Bay, Wisconsin

Neenah, Wisconsin

West DePere, Wisconsin

Appleton,  Wisconsin

Menasha,/ Wisconsin

Kaukaun'a, Wisconsin
                                  - 5 -

                                             LOVER FOX RIVER annUS - 1967

                    A Buaoaxy of D&ta Pertaining to. the Macroscopic  Bottom Dualling Invertebrate Fauna
Station  Station
number   Mileage
             Station Description













fcO-Ul.5  Vicinity of Heenah,  Manaaha
          channel* In Lake Hlnnabago

 39.J    Heanah channel - vicinity Heeaab

 38.5  .  Manaoha channel upstream from

 37.9    Little Lake Butte dea Morta -
          downstream from Heenah ohannal

 37.6    Little Lake Butte dea Morta -
          extreme south end

 37.3    Little Lake Butte daa Morta -
          power trananlaalon tovera






Little Lake Butte dee Horti -
 mldvay between K.C. Lakevlev
 and C.&R.H. rail trestle
Little Lake Butte dee Morte -.
 vicinity C.&N.H. rail trestle
Little Lake Butte dee Morta -
, mldlake

Little Lake Butte dea Morta -
 midway between C.&H.W. rail
 trestle & Stroebe'a Island '

Little Lake Butte ties Morta -
 south end of Stroebe's Island

Little Lake Butte dea Morta -
 power transmission lines -
 Streets'a Island

Little Lake Butte des Morta -
 Stroebe'a Island - north end

Little Lake Butte dea Morta to
 Fox River transition cone
  "HO quantitative aanplea.
   Combined qualitative and quantitative data.

  °Saaple datar questionable.
                                                      timber of Genera
                                                                   Average Itinber
                                                                     of Organltaa
                                                                   per Square Foot





• 11





.."••>* -

vary £ Intel-
Intol- Tol- Tol- erant
•rant erant erant Oenara
5 857 316 5
-• -* -' 87
"-• •• •* 28
-* -* -* 89
•* -* -* 0
.» .•••'.• a

- ' 9 88 20*

0 3 2« 11

-• -* •« 50a

. Claaiiflcatlon
Eaat shore -
unbalanced. Center
of lake 4 weat shore
- eemlpolluted
Wost shore -
polluted, Eaat
shore & mldlaka -
West shore &
mldlake - polluted
Eaat shore —
ob      3*     ab     o
 9     9

68   219


Sen! polluted


                                                                                                           Oray board house
                                                                                                           .vicinity - serai-  •
                                                                                                           polluted, downstream '
                                                                                                           gray board houaa -

                                                           LOWER FOX .RIVER STUDIES - 1967
                                  A Sumnary of Data Pertaining to the Macroscopic Bottom-Dwelling Invertebrate Fauna
                                                                                  Average Number
                                                                                     of Organisms
                                                               number of Genera   per Square Foot
Station  Station
 Bumber  Mileage















                         Station Description

                   Applaton — follsades to Lutz

                   Appleton — College Avenue Bridge -

                   1/2-Mile downstream — College Avenue
           28.5    Vicinity of the Appleton Sewage









Sunset Point — Klmberly

Klmberly Dam — Immediately upstream

Vicinity Riverside Sanitarium, shortly
 downstream from Combined Locks

Midway between Riverside Sanitarium
 and Riverside fork - Kaukauna

Riverside "Park — Kaukauna

1.5-MHeu downstream — Kaukauna

Midway between Kaukauna & Raplde

Immediately upstream — Raplde Croehe

Midway between Raplde Croehe &
                   1 Mile downstream - Wrights-town

                   Midway between Wrlghtstown &
                    Little Rapids
Very Very
Tol- Intel- Tol- Tol-
erant erant erant erant
jl .» .» -a
8 -» -ft -*
9 -* -* -*
9b 0 422 26
12 ' - -« . -« -a
llb 0 2228 206
8 '-• -» -•
% Intol-
Genera Stream Classification
Unbalanced (right bank)
Semipolluted (left bank)
Semipolluted (left bank)
Left bank & midstream - semipolluted
Right bank (100-yd. downstream from
sewage outfall) - semipolluted
Right bank - polluted
                                                                                                                    Left bank - semipolluted

                                                                                                                    Semipolluted (left bank)
2 •




t*if IM » y**>A^**^v* \ JJCA <
Polluted (right b(

*Ho quantitative samples.
^Combine! qualitative and quantitative data.

Station  Station
  Ho.    Mileage
                                             LOWER FOX RIVER 8TU1UE8 - 1967

                   A Sunoary of Data Pertaining to the Macroaoqple Bottom-Dwelling Invertebrate Fauna
Station Description
   23      12.1   Immediately upstream - Little
                   Rapids Dam

   2b      11.9   Shortly downstream - Little Rapid*   1*

                  Opposite Hickory Grove.Sanitarium

                  Midway between Little Rapids and
                   Hickory Grove Sanitarium

                  2.3 Miles downstream from Little
                   Rapids Dam

                  Junction of Lost Dauphin Road
                   and County Highway D

                  Da Fere.radio towers

                  St. Herbert College Campus

                  Immediately downstream Da Fere Dam

                  Downstream De Fere Dam 3/8 mile

                  Ashwaubenon Creek Slough — Buoy
                   19, 20

   26E      l».3   Dutchman's Creek Slough
   260      3*1   Opposite Ft. Howard Paper Co.

   27E      0.8   City of Oreen Bay - near mouth
                   of East River
   27F      0.0   City of Oreen Bay — mouth of Fox •    0
                   River at power plant
Ho. of Genera





Average Number
of Organisms
per Square Foot

— *
• 0


— •



 1                            RICHARD BILLINGS


 3                      STATEMENT OP R. M. BILLINGS


 5                        RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING

 6                       KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION



                        OP THE LOWER POX RIVER






14                           APPLETON, WISCONSIN

15                            January 18, 1968


17                    My name Is Richard Billings.  I am assistant

18          to the Vice President of Research and Engineering of

           Kimberly-Clark Corporation.  I am appearing before

           you today to outline briefly the stream Improvement

           programs now In various stages of planning and

           completion at the Kimberly-Clark mills situated on

           the Pox River.  As these additions and changes are

           accomplished, pollution from these mills will be

           progressively reduced.  This will be an Important

 1                            RICHARD BILLINGS
 2          contribution to the total effort being made through-
 3          out our Valley — a total effort designed to signlfl-
 4          cantly improve the Fox River.
 s                    The effect of these improvements should be
 6          felt this coming summer, and will become increasingly
 7          apparent in the following years.  It will take time,
 8          however, to bring the Lower Fox into year around
 9          compliance with the standards recommended by the
10          Division of Resource Development.  Pulp and paper
11          has been manufactured in our Pox Valley for nearly
12          a hundred years.
13                    The majority of the mills are old mills
i4          and pollution reduction is much more difficult to
15          achieve with old mills than with new ones.  Today
16          concern for pollution abatement has become increasingly
17          widespread.  Advanced abatement methods can now be
18          incorporated in the design of a new plant from the
19          very beginning.  This was not true when many of the
20          Valley's existing mills were built.  Because it was
21          not, we are faced with the problem today of pains -
           takingly working out individual solutions for each
23          old plant.  These solutions must be tailormade to
24          the physical layout and location of a plant, to the
25          plant1s technological development and to the economic

 !                            RICHARD BILLINOS
 2         climate  in which  it exists.   Sometimes  a practical
 3         solution cannot be found  and  the  operation must be
 4         -discontinued.  Whatever the solution may be,  it does
 5         not  come easily or quickly.
 6                   Further, it has been demonstrated that it
 7         requires at  least three years to  conceive  and develop
 8         a program from the laboratory until,  having passed
 9         through  the  pilot plant,  full-scale design, construe—
10         tion and shake-down stages, it emerges  as  an  operating
n         unit.  Even  after operations  start, a period  of months
12         must elapse  before the  "bugs'* are all eliminated and
13         the  new  system is brought up  to design  efficiency.
14         ifte  treatment  facilities  already  in operation and
15         the  increasing frequency  of start-up-of new ones,
IB         bear testimony to the fact that the paper  industry
i?         has  long been  hard at work to meet  today's demands
18         for  improved streams.
19                   But  Just as today's improvements are the
20         results  of  yesterday's  preparations, so today we
21         must plan for  tomorrow  — and each  tomorrow with
22         its  Increase in population and production  will
23         likewise Increase the challenge.   Installations
24         which  we make  today must  be flexible and adaptable
25         and  expandable*   We cannot afford to spend huge sums

 1                            RICHARD BILLINGS
 2          on equipment which will do the job now but which,
 3          before long, will have to be abandoned because of
 4          obsolescence.  We who have the assignment of improving
 5          our streams through reducing pollution must look
 6          carefully down each street — every street — to see
 7          that it does not come to a dead end.  And the streets
 8          are not marked.1
 9                    One avenue that appears at this time to
10          hold much promise is the one which leads to Joint
11          treatment of industrial and municipal wastes.  Pollu-
12          tlon is everybody's problem and today's conditions
13          are due to population growth as well as to industrial
14          expansion.  No plan for the future of an area can
15          ever be complete unless it includes practical provision
16          for waste disposal.  The Fox Valley Council of Govern-
17          ments is launching such a study — the first of its
18          kind in the area.  Engineers have been engaged and
19          a comprehensive review of present and future municipal
20          and industrial requirements will be undertaken.  Local
21          funds have been approved,, application for a Federal
22          grant has been made and approval is expected shortly.
23                    First, however, there is much to be done
24          and much is being done at individual mills to solve
25          the problems of today. Each solution will be made

 1                            RICHARD BILLINGS
 2          with an eye to the future.  For no natter what the
 3          Council of Governments study reveals* or what break -
 4          through* are made by research, or what reductions
 s          in pollution are accomplished by industries and
           municipalities, that which we do today must be
 7          considered only as the step that precedes the steps
 8          which come tomorrow and in the future.
10          Pollution Abatement at Kimberly
12                    The KlBberly mill has been reducing the
13          spent sulfite. liquor pollution of the Fox River
14          since 1949.  Progress has been steady, but because
15          the sulfIte pulping operation at Kimberly is over
16          seventy-five years old and the mill is an old one,
17          progress has been made one step at a time.  First
           increased to 30 per cent, then to 70 per cent for
           was a reduction of 40 per cent, later this was
           the seven months of the year when warm water and
           low flow give rise to the most critical pollution
           problems, then to 70 per cent the year around, and
           today the oxygen demanding load which each gallon
           of the river is expected to assimilate is 75 per cent
           less than it was during the period of August 1 to

 1 T                                                          2965

 1                          RICHARD BILLINGS

 2         November 30, 19^8, used by the  State  as  a basla  for

 3         comparison.

 *                  These reductions were brought  about by

 5         attacking the problem from several  angles.  The

 6         actual amount of sulf ite  pulp produced has been  cut

 7         back  until today normal operation Is  40  per cent less

 8         than  It was  In the summer of 1948*  Huge storage ponds

 9         holding a total of 30 million gallons of epent liquor

 10         were  constructed so  that  the abatement target could

 11         be maintained during every day  of the year.  Theae

 12         ponds, by providing  temporary storage during low

 13         flow, prevented overload  of the river at any time.

 14         A roadblnder program was  instituted at considerable

 15         cost  and millions of gallons of the concentrated spent

 16         liquor were  disposed of on country  roads to lay  the

 17         dust  and reduce the  maintenance.

 1                   In spite of this progress,  it  became evident

           over  two years ago that conditions  in the river  were

           still not good enough to  insure the presence of

           dissolved oxygen at  all times in the  Lower Fox

           during all hot days  of summer.   At  a  meeting held

           with  the Committee on Water Pollution in December

           of 1965, Kimberly-Clark agreed  to study  the possibility

           of substituting some other pulping  process giving

 1                            RICHARD BILLBJOS
 2          less pollution than the sulfite process.
 3          Kimberly-Clark further stated that if the change to
 4          another process did not prove feasible and no other
 s          suitable method of further reducing pollution could
 6          be found during this time, the corporation would
 7          discontinue sulfite pulping operations at Kimberly
 8          at the end of two years.  Activity has been intense*
 9          Pilot plant production of trial pulps and mill scale
10          trials of purchased pulp have been made.  The
11          economic possibilities of various pulping processes
i2          have been investigated.  The feasibility of converting
13          the old sulfite mill has been the subject of engineer-
14          ing study.  Alternatives have been weighed.
15                    By last winter it had become apparent
16   ,       that no alternate method of pulping would utilize
17          the existing equipment and satisfy the other require*
18          merits for a mill situated as Kimberly is and producing
19          the types of paper that Kimberly does.  No new research
20          development had appeared that could be immediately
21          applied to the Kimberly problem.  If pollution were
22          to be further and significantly abated, the only
23          solution available was to cease operation of the
24          sulfite mill entirely.
                     This is not the answer we wanted.  The

 1                            RICHARD BILLINGS
 2          elimination of many jobs will affect the economy
 3          of the Village and the reduction In purchases of
 4          pulpwood, power, finishing supplies and maintenance
           materials will affect a much greater area,  the cost
           is high to Kimberly-Clark also.  The existing system
 7          pumps wet pulp directly from the cooking area to the
 8          paper machines, thus eliminating the costly drying
 9          and repulping steps.  Conversion to purchased pulp
10          required that equipment be purchased and Installed
11          for unloading dry baled pulp, conveying It to and
12          from storage and then repulping it to the water
13          suspension required for use in paper manufacture,
14          This new equipment has cost the Klmberly mill $192,000.
15                    Sooner or later the sulfite mill would
16          have been shut down anyway because old equipment
17          becomes steadily more obsolete and difficult to
18          maintain.  Four of our six digesters, however, would
19          be all that would be necessary to maintain our
           would have made It possible for us to continue
           present 80 tons per day production schedule and
           operations for from five to seven years longer.  We
           would have preferred to keep the pulp mill in opera-
           tion as long as possible because even at present
           pulp prices, it will cost us $300,000 more a year


 1                            RICHARD BILLINGS

 2          to operate the Kimberly mill on dry pulp purchased

 3          from elsewhere than on wet pulp manufactured at

 4          Kimberly.  Also, the next five to seven years of the

 5          Intensive research effort going on nationally Into

 6          ways of abating pollution, might turn up a method

 7          that would be applicable to the Kimberly problem.

 8          So, I repeat, shutdown Is not the answer we wanted,

 9          but It Is the only one we could find If pollution

10          from Kimberly were to be further significantly

11          reduced at onoe.

12                    The phasing out of the operation is going

13          along on schedule.  Installation of new equipment Is

14          complete.  Trial runs are about to start.  To lessen

15          the Impact of the shutdown on the employment and

16          economy of the Village, plans were made months ago,

17          The timing has been set to take full advantage of

18          the summer vacation period and of the attrition nor-

19          mally expected.  Nevertheless, over fifty people who

           have been hired during the last two years will be

           laid off and others will take poorer paying Jobs,

           Entirely aside from the economic aspects, the impact

           of demotion upon the individual is severe.

                     In spite of these and other problems we

           will meet our promised deadline of May 31st.  Prom

 1                            RICHARD BILLINGS
 2          that date on we expect to hold the Biochemical
 3          Demand of discharges from the Klmberly mill to leas
 4          than 10 tons of oxygen per day, and we are already
 s          partially compensating for this by the several tons
 6          of oxygen which we add by turbine aeration during
 7          the critical summer months.
 8                    Work la In progress on reducing settleable
 9          solids in the mill waste waters.  Discontinuing
10          sulfite production will reduce woodroom losses and
11          eliminate the discharge of fibers and fines resulting
12          from sulf ite cooking and bleaching.  More efficient
13          internal handling of waste streams and the separation
i4          of flows of relatively clear water which require no
15          treatment will be possible*  New water and waste
16          balances will be undertaken for the mill as soon as
17          operations have settled down after the changeover to
18          purchased pulp in June.
19                    We believe that the primary philosophy of
20          pollution abatement should be one of maximum recovery,
21          thus requiring a minimum of ultimate disposal.  One
22          of the more difficult wastes to reclaim and to reuse
           In papermaking Is the waste water from the coating
24          process.  Very promising progress Is being made In
           the Kimberly-Clark Research and Engineering Department

 1                            RICHARD BILLINOS
 2          at Neenah, Wisconsin, on a separate treatment for
 3          this waste stream.  If the laboratory tests are
 4          borne out, a major obstacle to the reduction of
 5          paper mill pollution will have been removed.  The
 6          process would make possible the removal and recovery
 7          of large amounts of clay and would reduce the diapers-
 8          ing power of the starch and protein binders.  This
 9          reduction in dispersing power of the coating wastes
10          would, in turn, Improve the efficiency of any final
11          settling process used on paper mill effluents.  This
12          new process thus may reduce pollution in two ways.
13                    Laboratory testa are being substantiated
i4          in a bench scale pilot plant now.  If these tests
15          are successful, a continuous pilot plant will be
16          constructed at the Kimberly mill.  It will take about
17          eighteen months to complete the pilot plant studies.
18          In the meantime, wastes stream separation, reoircula-
19          tlon and disposal needs will have been determined by
20          mill personnel and the results of the two programs
21          will be combined to establish the size and nature
22          of treatment facilities required.  Ihe Pox Valley
23          Council of Governments survey will be completed by
24          that time and the decision will then be made as to
           whether the Kimberly mill becomes a part of a Fox Valles

 1                           RICHARD BILLINGS
 2         project, or Installs treatment facilities  of  its  own.
 3                   Our recommended timetable would  be  as follows:
 4              May 31, 1968 - Close down the Kimberly sulflte
 5              pulp mill
 6              Dec. 31, 1969 - Submit outline to  DRD as to
 7              proposal for treatment facilities  either:
 8                   a)  As a joint venture
 9                   b) As separate treatment at the  Kimberly mill
10                   If a joint venture, the Kimberly mill will,
11         of course, expect to meet the joint schedule.
12                   If separate treatment at the  Kimberly mill
13         is decided upon, the timetable would continue as
14         follows:
15              March 1, 1970 - Submit detailed plans to DRD
16              One year after DRD approval - construction to
17              be completed and facilities placed In operation.
19          Pollution Abatement at the Heenah Mills
21                                LAKEVIEW
22                    The  new clarlf ier at the Lalceview mill will
23          begin operation this spring.   Shipment of the last
24          of the equipment will be made within the next few
25          weeks.  The clarifier climaxes  a program of stream


 1                            RICHARD BILLINQS

 2          improvement that has extended over a period of ten

 3          years.  In 1964, a disc filter was installed to

 *          remove fibrous material from the waste stream passing

 $          to Little Lake Butte dea Horts.  This installation

 6          reduced the losses to the lake by 28 per oent.  The

 7          material so recovered Is returned to the process, the

 8          greater portion thus becoming usable again.  This !•

 9          the hope and goal of moat In-plant recovery processes.

10                    The cost of the clarlfier now being installed

11          at Lakeview is an entirely different matter.  The

12          sludge separated has no use and must be removed.  To

13          date, therefore, no way has been found of returning

14          a penny of the quarter of a million dollars spent

15          in the elarifler installation*  m addition, It will

16          add materially to the annual operating coats of the

17          Lakevlew mill.  Interest on the investment, clarlfier

18          operation and sludge disposal coats are expected to

19          approach $50,000 per year.  For as long as that mill

 0          continues to exist, a great many additional boxes

 1          of Kleenex tissues will have to be sold to pay for

           the clarlfier and its operation.

                     It was decided to Install the olarifler

           after nearly four yeara of investigation of various

           methods of reducing pollution to Little Lake Butte des


 1                            RICHARD BILLINQS
 2          This installation reduced the losses to the lake
 3          by 28 per cent.   The material so recovered is
 4          returned to the  process, the greater portion thus
 5          becoming usable  again.  This is the hope and goal
 6          of most in-plant recovery processes.
 7                    The cost of the clarifier now being
 8          installed at Lakeview is an entirely different
 9          natter.  The sludge separated has no uae and must
10          be removed.  To  date, therefore, no way has been
11          found of returning a penny of the quarter of a
12          million dollars  spent in the olarifier installation.
13          In addition, it  will add materially to the annual
14          operating costs  of the Lakeview mill.  Interest on
15          the investment,  olarifier operation and sludge dia-
           posal costs are expected to approach $50,000 per year.
17          For as long as that mill continues to exist, a great
18          many additional boxes of Kleenex tissues will have
19          to be sold to pay for the clarifier and its operation.
                     It was decided to install the clarifier
           after nearly four years of investigation of various
           methods of reducing pollution to Little Lake Butte
           des Morts.  No further in-plant methods such as the
           disc filter or added reciroulation and use of water
           were found that were adaptable.  Tests involving

 1                            RICHARD BILLINQS

 2          lagooning at first appeared promising.  Over a two-

 3          year period, however  thla method proved to be
 4          unsatisfactory In the limited areas available, due
 5          to the unpredictable occurrence and length of
 6          Wisconsin's wet and dry spells.
 7                    When operation of the clarifier has
 8          settled down, we expect that the Biochemical Demand
 9          of discharge to the river will be less than three-
10          quarters of a ton of oxygen per day, and over 90 per
11          cent of the aettleable solids will be eliminated.

13                           BADGER QLOBE MILL

15                    This mill located in the center of Neenah
16          has maintained its discharge to the river at less
17          than 1 Ib. fiber/1000 gal. of effluent for over
           fifteen years and at the same time has maintained,
           or in some years actually decreased, the total gallons
           dijcharged to the river.  Formerly a four-machine
           mill, two machines have been shut down in the last
           four years.  These were the oldest in Kimberly-Clark
           and therefore were unable to meet the competitive
           demands of today.  They also had the very high
           losses of fiber that characterize old machines.

 1                           RICHARD BILLINGS
 2         BO their shutdown further reduced the total fiber
 3         loss from the mill.  During this same period,
 4         separation has been made of waste waters in which
 s         fiber concentrations are high, and these go to the
 6         sanitary sewer while the dilute waters go to the
 7         river.  A new vacuum save-all designed to recover
 8         fiber is performing efficiently.
 9                   Recent installations of new diversion gates
10         and semi-automatic control are assuring that present
11         control limits of less than 1 Ib/lOOO gal. suspended
           material in the effluent will continue to be maintained
13         BOD from the mill is less than 400 Ibs/day.
15         Pollution Abatement at the Neenah Paper Company
17                   When this mill was purchased by Kimberly-
18         Clark in 1956, it was over 80 years old.  Discharges
19         of waste-containing waters at that time emptied into
20         the river through one hundred and fifty-three different
           pipes, and total losses could only be roughly
22          estimated.  Since then we have gradually been
23          modernizing equipment and in the process we have
24          been working out a comprehensive effluent control
25          system in which the discharge points have been reduced

 1                           RICHARD BILLINGS
 2         from 153 to four*  The flret complete survey of the
 3         mill losses by Kimberly-Clark Indicated a daily
 4         solids loss to the river of 3,135 IDS. and BOD in
 s         excess of 2000 IDS.  Since that tine. In spite of
 6         increased production/ the total loss to the river
 7         per operating day has been reduced to an average of
 *         less than 1000 Ibs. of fiber and 300 Ibs. BOD.  This
 9         has been accomplished chiefly by in-plant additions
10         of two filtration and one flotation save-alls, and
11         by the rerouting of pipelines to reuse water.  As
12         at the Lakevlew mill, we see no further in-plant
13         improvements to be made at this time.  Study is
14         underway of the problems involved in collecting,
15         at a single point, the four process water discharges
16         mentioned about and of installating facilities so
17         that this water may be screened before it passes to
18         the river.  This step will eliminate the chief source
19         of pollution still remaining from the Neenah Paper
           Company plantj namely, fiber losses occurring when
           grades are being changed or when the mill is being
           shut down.  It should be pointed out that the fibers
           removed by the screen will not be suitable for reuse,
           and so must be disposed of otherwise.  The screening
           system at Neenah Paper Company, therefore, like the

 1                           RICHARD BILLINGS
 2         Lakeview clarifler, is strictly an added cost of
 3         doing business.
 *                   A pilot plant screen unit is now testing
 5         the proposed process, and several months will be
 6         required to determine its effectiveness and any
 7         operating problems.  If this proves as successful
 8         as we are confident that it will, engineering of a
 9         full scale collection and screening unit will be
10         completed and plans submitted to the DRD by December 31
11         1968.  Installation should be complete nine months
12         after DRD approval is received.
13                   This has been a brief background of the
14         accomplishments that have been made; Bf the problems
15         that are still confronting us, of the steps that are
16         in progress to correct these problems and a timetable
17         for the completion of these steps.

19                    STATEMENT FOR LOWER FOX RIVER
20                     D.N.R. HEARINGS - APPLETON
21                           JANUARY 18, 1968

                     Mr. Chairman, Members of the Natural
           Resources Board, Fellow Citizens:
                     My name is Robert E. Driessen.  I represent


 1                            RICHARD BILLINGS

 2         Thllmany  Pulp  & Paper  Company,  an Integrated kraft

 3         pulp and  paper mill  located at  Kaukauna,  Wisconsin.

 4         I am Technical Assistant  to the Vice President-

 5         Manufacturing  and  my primary responsibility Is  the

 6         company's stream Improvement program.   For the  past

 7         25  years,  I have been  a Registered  Professional

 8         Engineer  In the State  of  Wisconsin.

 9                    Thllmany Pulp & Paper Company,  established
           In  1883,  considers  Itself fortunate In being situated
11          In  the  Fox River  Valley  and In being able to play a

12          significant role  in  Its  growth.   Presently 1,600

13          Individuals pool  their dally efforts to produce

14          800 tons  of kraft pulp and paper,  acquiring the

           Income  to participate In the highly regarded community

16          life of the Valley.

                     Thllmany uses  less than 1 per cent of the

           average dally flow of the Fox.  The Incoming water

           Is  processed through mechanical  clarlflers and Is

           chemically treated when  used In  pulp washing, bleaching,

           paper manufacturing  or for process stream and power


                     The pulping process Is of the kraft type,

           making  It possible to utilize 99 per cent of all

           of  the  raw material.  The bark must be removed from

 !                            RICHARD BILLINGS

 2          the logs,  but is collected and burned In one of the

 3          boilers.   Cooking liquor Is concentrated by evapora-

 4          tlon and burned to recover the chemical.  By-products

 s          of turpentine and soap skimmings are collected and

 6          marketed.   Non-usable residual chemicals are aocumu-

 7          lated at  the source and trucked to company-owned

 8          landfill  areas.

 9                    In the paper mill, each of the eight paper

10          machines  Is equipped with its own vacuum filtration

n          system to minimize fiber, filler, and color loss.

12          Subsequent to the Individual primary filters is the

13          secondary salvage system comprised of a very large

14          disc-type Saveall designed to further minimize the

is          same losses.  Ninety per cent of the process water

16          i§ then channeled to the lagoon sedimentation system

17          where suspended solids are settled and where natural

18          aeration  occurs over the 20-acre surface area provided.

19          Incidentally, since 1958, the treatment system has

20          included the effluent from the City of Kaukauna

21          sewage plant.  This will terminate during 1968 upon

22          completion of their secondary treatment facilities.

23          Settled solids are removed from lagoons by dredge

24          pumping to a five-acre drying bed, from which the

25          sludge is removed and trucked to landfill area.  This

 1                            RICHARD BILLINOS

 2          comprises the basic system for handling and treating

 3          effluent losses.
 4                    To show the effectiveness of the system

 5          described, I would like to refer to the Department
 6          of natural Resources, Division of Resource Develop*

 7          ment Report of January 4, 1967, which, in our
 8          opinion, substantiates the resulting performances,

 9          Referring to Table 2, which covers DO and BOD and
10          coliform count during 1966 and 196?, it is noted

11          that no significant differential exists in dissolved

12          oxygen or BOD at locations on the river immediately

13          above and below Thilmany.

14                    Table 3> which compares DO and BOD during

15          the years 1964, 1965, and 1966 again indicates no
           significant differences between readings taken above
           and below Thllmany properties.  Table 6, the biologl-
           oal study, appears to confirm the data in Tables 2
           and 3, as relatively no change is indicated when
           data is compared on samples taken above and below
           Thllmany on July 21, 1966.
                     Current plans are directed at continued
           reduction of losses at the source, the elimination
24                                   .
           of special discharges and the greater reuse of
           process water resulting In decreased suspended solids

 1                           RICHARD BILLINOS
 2         and BOD  being discharged to the lagoon system.
 3         Refinement of techniques la expected to result In
 4         further reclamation of by-products.  Twenty-nine
 s         active projects comprise the present program designed
 6         to accomplish these objectives,
 7                   Ifctllmany has Just announced the planned
 8         addition of a new paper machine with supporting
 9         facilities,  nils will complete the most recent
10         five-year expansion and modernization program as
11         covered in letters to you on December 29, 1967 and
12         May 24, 1965 in accordance with Order No. 3-57J-30
13         of October 10, 1957*  Incorporated in the design of
14         the new machine will be applications of the  latest
15         technology for minimizing material loss and  for
16         water conservation.
17                   In summary, I would  like to state  that
           improvements directly and indirectly related to
           Thllmany has spent over $3,500,000 in capital
           elimination of material losses to the river.
           Operating costs of treatment facilities'cost the
           company approximately $100,000 per year.  Budgeted
           capital expenditures for 1968 total $200,000.
           Detailed reports covering the above have been
           supplied to you on a regular basis.


 1                            RICHARD BILLINtfS

 2                    The results  attained from the above have

 3         been gratifying  and concentrated attention will be

 4         aimed at  increasing the efficiency of the highly

 5         regarded  existing treatment  system.

 6                    One final point I  would 11 Ice to make.  A

 7         vital need exists to coordinate the  efforts of the

 8         municipalities and industries  with all parties

 9         involved  in the  control and  use of the waters in

10         the Wlnnebago watershed.   An example is the recent

11         action  of the Fox Valley Council of  Governments

12         decision  to survey the existing facilities and

13         determine the future treatment requirements of a

14         portion of the Valley.  "Die  singular goal should be

15         the best  use of  total  dissolved oxygen available

16         and development  of the full  natural  reaeratlon.

17         potential of the entire Wlnnebago watershed especially

18         during  the short, critical summer period.

                      For example, during  1967,  TOxilmany monitoring

           of DO at  locations above and below the mill revealed

           satisfactory conditions until  mid-July, at which

           time the  stream  flow was reduced by  1/2 and the DO

           almost  Immediately decreased from ^  to 1 mg/liter.

           The above occurred at  a time when the lake level

           was  14" above  crest  at  Menasha Dam,  or 32" above the

 1                            RICHARD BILLINGS

 2          established minimum.

 3                    The 263 square miles comprising the Lake

 4          Winnebago pool, with 39" of depth legally available

 5          for flow control, has capacity for storage of more

 6          than 80 days of average flow through the lower Pox.

 7          Under existing criteria for control, the daily
           average flow has fluctuated from 1,000 sec. ft. to
 9          23,000 sec. ft. during the past 10 years, with an
10          average of 3,770 sec. ft.  During the critical
           summer months, the river flow has been 40 per cent
12          below the annual average, contributing sizably to

13          the problems we are discussing here today.  Maintaining

 4          the Winnebago pool level at maximum elevation until

           late June and controlling the release of the waters

16          to the lower Fox at a rate of 3,500 to 4,000 sec. ft,
           would very likely result in sizably Improved natural
is                                       ~^
           aeration by best use of the loo ft. drop in elevation
           from Lake Winnebago to DePere.
                     It is quite possible that provision of
           additional water storage, over and beyond that of-
           the Winnebago pool, may be a logical economic
           solution to ultimate improvement of the waters of
           the lower Pox.

           m  1/18/68

 1                           RICHARD BILLINGS

 2                   MR. STEIN:  Thank you,  Mr.  Billings.

 3                   Are there any comments  or questions?

 4                   MR. KLASSEN:  Mr. Chairman, It would be

 5         much more pleasant if I sat here  and didn't say

 6         anything, I know,  but if I did, someone might think

 7         that I accepted all of these statements, which I

 8         know are given in  good faith,  but honestly, to me

 9         this is the old line, the old-fashioned approach.

10                   (Applause.).

11                   "We need more research.  We are not ready

12         for a solution."  Yet this very speaker detailed

13         all the research and all the study that has been

14         going on for years and years,  including their

15         Institute.

16 ,                  Now, I know from my own experience--now,

17         this is not directed towards thelr industry, but if

18         the shoe fits, put it on—I know  from my own exper-

19         ience that very often It is cheaper to study and do

          research than to get the Job done.

21                   Now, I am reminded of what Patrick Henry

22         said, I know you all know this.   He said/ "They tell

          us, sir, that we are weak," when  we were going to

          take action to become a Nation.  .He said, "When will

          we be strong?  After we have been further beaten

                  RICHARD B1LLINOS
down by the British?"
          I want to make this analogy here.   "We
are not ready yet, we need more time, we need more
research/ these timetables are unrealistic.   There-
fore, we should wait."  How long should we wait,
until all of Green Bay Is gone?  I have been  up
there, and  I  think  that—
          Now, I want to agree with the first part
of your statement, so far as the State of Wisconsin
is concerned they have been one of the leaders, they
have had a fine program, they have had many good men,
and this is not criticism of the State of Wisconsin.
          But I have been up in that Green Bay area.
I just wonder how long you want to wait up there?
What more research do you need?  Now you are  going
to make it available to us.  I thought it was avail-
          I am not surprised at this, but I am
really disappointed in this attitude of Industry,
because believe me, it is old-fashioned.
          MR. BILLINOS:  Well, Mr. KLasaen, I would
suggest that you look fairly closely at the exhibits
that I entered.  You say you have been up to  Oreen  Bay*
I live there.  I don't come up just occasionally.   Z


 1                            RICHARD BILLINQS

 2          know what the progress has been In our area.   I

 3          have been working in this area for a great many

 4          years.  If I oame before you today with no record

 5          of accomplishment, with simply the request that we

 6          be given more time, then I think your remark would

 7          have been Justified.

 8                    But I would like to point with pride, I

 9          think that this meeting would have spent much  better

10          time if there had been more pointing with pride and

11          less beating of chests mixed with pumping of chests

12          In this case.  We have new Installations coming on

13          that river all the time, starting right up at  the

14          outlet to Lake Wlnnebago, installations are going on.

15          It has been a proven fact that it takes about  three

16          years' time to take an idea from the laboratory stage

17          through the pilot plant of development, the shakedown

18          stage until it becomes an actual operating entity.

19          We have those, they oame on the line last year, the

20          year before, they are coming on right now, right

21          today, and we are not talking about these.  This

           is not an excuse for inactivity.

                     Whenever you get down near the goal  line In

           a football game, the going becomes much tougher, and

           that is exactly the case that we find ourselves in

 1                            RICHARD BILLINOS
 2          now.   I could name any one of the Industries along
 3        the river as to what has been done and the money that
 4        has been spent.  In fact, I would challenge most of
 5        the people that I have heard at this last six days
 6        who have gotten up and talked about what needs to be
 7        done to ask, how many of you individually have
 8        actually done something?  This is not talking to
 9        the group of Conferees here who are in it all the
10        time, but I am in it all the time myself.  We have
11        money to prove that we are putting our pocketbooks
12        where our speech is.  We have made investments.
13                  When I talk about the money that has been
14        spent,  I refer only to that portion of the iceberg
15        which you can see.  I didn't even mention the amount
16        of money that must go into research before any
17        manufacturing process is put on the road.  Fully as
18        much time is spent on determining what is to be
          done with wastes on a new plant as there is on the
          water supply for that plant.
21                   MR. HOLMER:  Clarence, if I might—
                    MR. BILLINGS:  There are certain prob-
          lems that are really difficult to handle.
24                   MR. HOLMER:  Clarence, if I might, I would
          like to comment on these comments of Mr. Billings.


 1                            RICHARD BILLINQS

 2                    The concern about delay and  the  need for

 3          more research I think is one that you  and  I-are part leu

 4          larly aware of.

 5                    There is one instance  in Green Bay where

 6          there is a research project, referred  to in

 7          Mr. Billings' statement, in which we are trying to

 8          achieve the Joint treatment of municipal and

 9          Industrial wastes there, including four paper  mills.

10          This is a departure from past practice and one that

11          we expect will result in both a  dramatic reduction

12          in BOD and in the removal of phosphorus.

13                    The -timetable., for this project  is a very

14          tight one.  It has been reviewed very  intensely

15          with the Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-

18          tion, and it is my understanding that  it is  entirely

17          approved by PWPCA.  It calls for completion  of

           construction by September 30* 1972.  This  would not

           be in conformance with the suggested timetable that

           is included in the FWPCA Report.

                     I want the timetables  to be  as tight as

           possible too, but this is one where there  is needed

           movement through pilot plant to  operating  conditions

           and it does take time.

                     MR. STEIN:  I think we can get to  those

 1                            RICHARD BILLINOS
 3                    Maybe I look at this a little differently,
           but, you know, Dick, Mr. Klassen and some of us
           sitting here have heard this story from Industry
           a long time.  I recognize that you speak for—
           what?  —about a dozen companies here, and when
           you speak for a dozen companies you tend to hit
           the lowest common denominator and the more
           liberal views don't show.  My experience Is this
           monolithic approach of the Industry In these joint
           statements when you deal with the negotiations
           doesn't show.
                     We are making advances, Just like a
           glacier, but, Clarence, remember 15 years ago
           the representatives of the pulp and paper
           Industry said we didn't need any Federal enforce-
           ment at all and this should be left to the States
           and the Federal Government should confine its role
           to research.  Now, they say we have a secondary
           role with the States; and now what we have to do,
           although the Conference Is premature, is get a
           little research and be given more time.
                     I think we are getting closer and closer
           together.  But if it took us 15 years to get this

 1                            RICHARD BILLINGS

 2          close, I wonder If the quality of Lake Michigan la

 3          going to wait or we are not going to ruin the Lake

 4          before we get completely close and close enough.

 5                    There la one other point you made here on

 6          this cost-benefit operation, that we should take In

 7          cost-benefit,  the pulp and paper Industry, and many

 8          other Industries, have made that plea to the Congress

 9          many times.  The Congress has considered this.  They

10          set up the control measures as we have here,

11                    X am not saying that the cost-benefit

12          approach Is not a possible approach.  I don't think

13          It is applicable; It should be applicable to water

11          pollution control.  Other people evidently have a

15          different view.

16                    But If you have that view, I think you have

           addressed this to the correct forum, the Congress.

18          Neither the States, or any of the four States, in

19          their legislation have taken the cost-benefit approach

           as a basis for State legislation, nor do we have It

21          in Federal legislation.  :And, Mr. Billings, I will
           defend to the death your right to go to the Congress
           any time you want to, to get them to change It.  But
           as I understand the four State laws and the Federal
           law, this is not the approach we use in applying


 1                           RICHARD BILLINGS

 2         these conditions.

 3                   I do think there are certain recommendations

 4         made here.  If, as you say or Mr. Holmer says, there

 5         are specific plants that have to put in treatment

 6         works to do this, this is fine.  And we will take

 7         these up and look at them with particularity.

 8                   As I understand this report, though, there

 9         is no argument here for treatment for treatment's

10         sake.  That is, the treatment has to be related to

11         water quality.

12                   But again as I heard in the last few days,

13         and there is a viewpoint which indicates, I don't

14         know that the Conferees are going to do it, but the

15         viewpoint indicates that unless heroic measures are

16         taken and taken pretty soon to save Lake Michigan,

17         we may be beyond the point of no return.

18                   I wonder if we can afford the indulgence

19         of talking about further research, pilot plants,

           looking for new processes, and so forth.  Are the

           waters of Lake Michigan going to wait with us?

                     MR. BILLINGS:  Mr. Stein, there is no

           question in our minds that it can't wait.  We are

           not waiting.  You request heroic effort.  We are making

           heroic efforts.

 1                            RICHARD BJULLIN05

 2                    My objection  to the arbitrary timetable

 3          la  in  both directions.   It len't going to take three

 4          yeara  to  do certain  things.   We have got some good

 s          progress  right now.   But it  is going to take more

 6          than three years  to  do  certain things because we don't

 7          know the  answers.

 8                    You heard  yesterday Mr.  Purdy make a

 9          statement that the requirement of 80 per cent

10          removal of phosphates had not yet been established

11           but it looked to  be  the best way to proceed.

12                    One question  that  was not asked Dr. Bartech

13           when he was on the stand here that I would think

14           would  have been a very  excellent question was simply

15           this:  If the removal of phosphates as recommended

16           in  this report were  to  be accomplished, would you,

17           Dr. Bartsen,  as a technical  man say that this would

18           eliminate our algae  problem?

19                     Dr. Bartsch—I don't think he is here

20           today.

21                     MR. STEIN: He isn't here today,and the

            reason he was released  was we have our local enforce-

23           aent man  and biologist  here,  Mr. Cook, who has been

24           associated with Dr.  Bartsch  on this report and is

            prepared  to answer that question if you want to

 1                            RICHARD BILLINGS
 2          raioe it with bin*
 3                    MR. BILLINGS:  I wouldn't aind asking
 4          that question.
 s                    MB. STEIN:  Mr. Cook, do you want to try
 6          to answer that?
 7                    MR. COOKi  I am Grover Cook, Director of
 8          Enforcement, the Great Lakes Region,  PWPCA.
 9                    I understand the question is that if the
10          phosphorous content of Lake Michigan were reduced
11          substantially .there would be an iamediate — or not
12          immediate, perhaps, but there would be a reducti&n
*3          in the development of algae.
14                    MR. BILLIKOS:  That was not the question.
15                    MR. COOK:  Will you restate it, please?
16                    MR. BILLIKOSi  The question was if the
17          reduction of phosphates in the effluents as reoom-
18          Bended were to be established, would we see an end
19          to our algae problem?
20                    MR. COOKt  Well, I can say yes and qualify
           it a bit.  This has been done in other places.
22                    In the Madison Lakes, for Instance, when
23          the phosphates were stopped from, being discharged to  th
24          lakes, it no longer became necessary to copper
25          sulfate or treat with arsenic.

 1                            RICHARD BILLINGS
 2                    We found in Lake Huron,  a very careful
 3          study  done by the  Canadianst  that  when they applied
 *          phosphorus to a certain area  it grew algae and whe.n
 5          they stopped the algae went away.
 6                    I don't  think there ie any doubt about it,
 7          with the stopping  of the discharge of phosphorus and
 8          other  nutrients, we will reduce the concentration or
 9          the development of algae in the Lake.
10                    MR. STEIN:  Thank you.
11                    Dr. Boruff,  please.
12                    DR. BORUFF:  I would like for the speaker
13          to make a little arithmetic problem.
14                    Realizing the by-products that you have
15          developed from your waste streams, about how much
16          PS is  left per ton of paper?   I am trying to throw
 7          this whole thing into perspective.
18                    MR. BILLINGS:  How  much  what?
                      DR. BORUFP:  How much population equivalent
            is left after you  have taken  out by-products, how
            much is left today?
                      Then I would like to multiply that by
            tons of paper to get the entire pollution load in
                      MR. BILLINGS:  Well, if  you are talking

 1                            RICHARD BILLINGS
 2          population equivalent in urine and fecee,  zero.
 3                    If you are talking population equivalent
 4          in infectious hepatitis, zero.
 5                    If you are talking any of  the £  colif brrns —
 6                    DR. BOBUFPs  You are skirting ay question,
 7          1 realise ~~
 8                    MR. BILLINGSt  No* you said population
 9          equivalent* and I objectvery strenuously to that  term.
10          If you say population equivalent in  oxygen demand,
11          then I might try to answer it differently.
12                    DR. BORUPP:  Population equivalent to me,
13          sir, is based on BOD, oxygen demand.
14                    MR. BILLINOS:  Oxygen demand only.
15                    DR. BORUPF:  Okay, we are  on the same
16          basis now.
17                    MR. BILLINGS:  All right.
18                    DR. BOROFPJ  How much residual population
19          equivalent or pounds of BOD af tev you have taken out
           your by-product* is left per ton of paper, about?
                     MR. BILLDfOS:  it varies tremendously
           depending upon the grade of paper made.
                     For example, it will run from —
                     DR. BORUPFi  Take the average for the
           State of Wisconsin, which is a Duke's mixture  of a

 1                            RICHARD BILLINOS

 2          number  of different processes.

 3                    MR. BILLINOS:  You  can't  take  an  average

 4          when ground wood haa 10 pounds  of BOD and kraft  has

 5          60 and  aulflte has 600.  An average would be  rela-

 6          tively  meaningless.

 7                    Actually, In our sulflte  mills they are

 8          mostly  in the neighborhood of 70 to 85 per  cent

 9          reduction In BOD.  You notice I am  skirting population

10          equivalent because I don't like the term, but pounds

11          of biochemical oxygen demand.

12                    DR. BORUFP:  All right, you give  me that

13          figure axil will divide by 1?  hundredths.

14                    MR. BILLINGS:  No.

15                    DR. BORUPP;  How many pounds — if  you

16          want to go pounds of BOD, then  give me pounds of

17          BOD.

18                    MR. BILLINGS:  Well,  that is what I am

19          saying, that in each case it  is a reduction of

           approximately, oh, I would say  a very hard  average

           figure, but from 70 to 80 or  85 per cent reduction

           of the  sulfite, which is about  — untreated it

           comes close to 600 pounds of  BOD per  ton produced

24          of pulp.

                     With paper it Is about 20 pounds  or less.


  1                            RICHARD BILLINOS

  2                    But you are talking about BOD here

  3          strictly.  Dr.  Boruff, not phosphates?

  4                    DR.  BORUPFt  I am not talking phosphates

  s          at all.   I am talking about PE load — or, excuse

  6          me, pounds of BOD.

  7                    Eighty per cent removal on a general base

  8          of 600 pounds  of BOD per ton?

  9                    MR.  BILLINGS:   Well,  I think that is —

 10                    DR.  BORUPF: That would leave me —

 "  .                  MR.  BILLINOS:  — putting it strong.

 12                    DR.  BORUPPt — 20 percent;  which would

 13          be a BOD of 120?

 14                    All  right,  I can make an arithmetic

 15          from here.  Divide it by two-tenths, multiply it


 16          by five  is a population  equivalent,in round figures,of

 17          1200 per ton.

 18                    Now, how many  tons of paper in the State

 19  ,        of Wisconsin?

 ^                    MR.  BILLINOS:   I don't have that figure

 21          right now, sir.

 22                    DR.  BORUPP: Oh,  come.   You are in the

 23          industry.   You must know.

 24                    (Laughter.)

                      MR.  BILLINOS:   One is hung frequently for


 1                           RICHARD BILLINGS

 2         approximations,  but  in  this  particular basin I

 3         think that I would nave to defer to Mr. Wisnlewski,

 4         but  I think it would be in the neighborhood of

 5         7POO tons.  This is  pulp and paper.  And remember

 6         that for paper it is not 600, it is 20.  For ground

 7         wood,  it ia not  20,  it  is 10 to 15 *  And the total

 8         figure that I have would be  for the pulp-paper

 9         production.

10                    DR. BORUPPJ  All right.  My quick arithmetic

11         problem, then, tells me that in this area we are

12         talking about a  population equivalent — back to my

13         terminology — of around four million people.  This

14         is not a light load. And this is the residual load

15         as per my question that you  still-have left after

16         you  have put into commercial usage the research

17         that you have accomplished and you have taken out

18         the  by-product.

19               ,     MR. BILLINOS:  I dislike your continual

           reference to by-products, because there are relatively

           few  by-products  for  the pulp and paper industry at

           the  present time.  In paper  the waste that we remove

           isn't even' good for fill, and when you get something

           that isn't even  good enough  to fill holes with you

           are  sort of at the bottom of the barrel.  This is

                  RICHARD BILLINGS
broken fibers and fines and some clay-like, which
has almost the same composition as river bottom clay.
This ia the aort of thing that escapea from our paper
          DR. BORUFPt  I realize you have a tough
waste.  In the distilling business with which I was
associated we also had a tough waste.  But through
the development of by-producta we solved the problem.
          MR. BILLINOS:  Well, we have been attempting
to solve the problem for some time, but there still
hasn't been found a good use for this broken fiber
that becomes almost horny in nature and the clay
that escapes.  Our only possibility, we feel, is
for the reclamation within the mill of the clay
and we are attempting to close up our mills all the
          DR. BORUPF:  Yea.
          Excuse me, my friend, and we have been
friends for many years —
          MR. BILLING:  Yea.
          DR. BORUFP:  — for pursuing thia discus-
aion.  My total point was to orient us as to the
pollution load within your industry that you still
have left to treat.

 1                            RICHARL BILLINGS
 2                    And thank you very much for your commenta.
 3                    MR. STEIN:  Thank you, Dr. Boruff.
 *                    I think this for the Conference, and
 5          particularly for all the people in the audience, is
 6          the real illuminating dlacusalon between Mr. Billing!
 7          and Dr,  Boruff.   You know, the assumption in some
 8          of these papers  is all we have to do is have a little
 9          research and we  are going to come out with the answer,
10          Right here we have found that even after years of
11          association, the people don't speak the same terms,
12          the terms of population equivalent or BOD.  Each
13          one uses it.
14                    Over and over again Mr. Billings in his
15          paper used the phrase"spent sulfite liquor." It
16          seems to me I always read in the Government reports

            someone talks about a population equivalent of
            that  they talk about"sulfite waste liquor." When
            four million people going into the Great Lakes from
            the pulp and paper industry or perhaps in the
            Puget Sound a population equivalent from pulp and
            paper going in totaling more than the entire popu-
            lation of the area, the industry says that really
            isn't population equivalent; it is only population
            equivalent .in the terms of BOD or oxygen demand

                                                              3P01 ,-

 I                            RICHARD BILLINGS

 2          posiibly.

 3                     So  I don't know —ard laskyou to draw your

 4          own  Judgment  — that all  we have  to do la press a

 5          research button and the answer  is automatically going

 6          to come out.  I think we  have a long way to go.

 7                     MR. BILLINGS:   Mr. Stein.

 8                     MR. STKBft  Yes.

 9                     MR. BILLINGS:   I would  like to correct one

10          Inference  that might be drawn,  and  that Is that

11          although the  four million pounds  that he arrived

12          at —>  I haven't checked on that one — granting

13          even that  that were right, that Is  not all going to

i4          Lake Michigan.  Phosphorus by nature Is always

15          phosphorus.   When It Is discharged  from a mill or

16          a plant or a  detergent or a laundry or something

17          like that, regardless of  what form  It is In,  you

18          can't  create  or destroy matter  and  It will continue.

19                     But BOD or biochemical  oxygen demand Is

20          quite  a different matter.  Die  end  points of

21          biochemical oxygen demand destruction are carbon

           dioxide and water, and the natural  re-aeration of

23          our  streams and lakes will reduce this four million

24          pounds, as he says leaves the mill,to the place

25          where  if It were a critical problem it would show

 1                            RICHARD BILLINGS
 2          up in oxygen deficiency.
 3                    I think that for five days we have heard
 4          testimony given that we do not have a problem of oxy-
 5          gen deficiency in the Great Lakes except, perhaps,
 6          a few tenths, I would expect that dead alewlves
 7          piled up five feet deep on the bottom would create
 8          quite an oxygen demand.
 9                    MR. STEIN:  Are there any comments?
10                    We can get Into a lot of that because one
11          of the by-products you talked about was the road
12          building.  You say phosphorus doesn't dissipate.  I
13          have heard people say you put the stuff in the roads
i*          as a binder and then it rains and rains and rains
is          over a period of time and finds its way back Into
16          the water course anyway, so the by-product doesn't
17          keep It out of the stream.
18                    I think we can have these theoretical
19          arguments back and forth.  All I am illustrating
20          is I hope we will try to come up with a practical
21          program that the Industry, the States and we can
22          agree on.  We have been arguing these questions for
23          a lifetime.  I hope we live long enough to keep
24          this up the next quarter of a century and possibly
25          get a little closer together.  I am not sure we are

 1                          RICHARD BILLINGS

 2        going to resolve them.

 3                  There Is one  thing I know we can do on

 4        the basis of past experience Is to come up with an

 5        agreement with the States and with your industry

 6        plant by plant specifically on what you feel is

 7        reasonable that you have to do and that we feel

 8        is reasonable under the circumstances to save the

 9        water.

10                  MR. BILLINGS:  Very good.

n                  MR. STEIN: Thank you.

12                  Are there any further comments or questions?

13                  MR. BOSTON:  I would like to comment to

14        the effect that it has  been referred to earlier when

15        Secretary Udall's statement was given that the City

16        of Green Bay went some  20, 2$ miles to Lake Michigan

i7        for a new source of water supply because the water

18        quality was not satisfactory in Green Bay or the

19        Pox River.

20                  I think this  is well known, that water

21        quality has been seriously endangered for over 10

22        years.  There has been  considerable notice given

*?        to industry and polluters on the Fox River that

24        there are problems, and I think this meeting

25        here today demonstrates that action hasn't been

                              RICHARD BILLINGS
            fast enough and  that  one of the reasons that we
            are here today  is to stimulate action at a little
            faster rate than we have been going In the paat.
                      MR. BILLINGSi  Mr. FOBton, your statement
            Is absolutely oorreot.  We want to stimulate action
            in every way that we can, but we think that that Is
            exactly what is going on.  I can only point again
            to the things that have been accomplished on the
            river.  We in Kimberly-Clark have reduced our BOD
            to the river by about two-thirds of what It was a
            few years ago.  Where we are today Is only of
            importance and relative to where we have been and
            where we are going.

                      I think we are going.  Whether it will

 ,           be rapid enough or not to suit everyone I don't

            know, but I am sure that everyone has the message

            loud and clear.

                      MR. STEINJ  Right.

                      Are there any further comments or questions?

                      One of the Conferees told me we should not

            badger 'the witness from the Badger State.

24                     (Laughter.)

..                     MR. BILLINGS:  Mr. Chairman, I would like

            to point out one last factor that makes my appearance

 1                            RICHARD BILLINGS
 2          befrre you today particularly appropriate.
 3                    Monday was my birthday, which means that
 4          I was born under the sign of Aquarius, the water
 s          bearer.
 6                    (Laughter,)
 7                    (Off the record.)
 8                    MR.  STEINt  Mr. Holmer.
 9                    MR.  HOLMERi  Is Mr. 0. A. Jahnke In the
10          room?
11                    Prom Milwaukee, a consulting engineer,
12          Mr.  Herbert Moore, has asked for an opportunity
13          to present a statement.

15                       STATEMENT OP HERBERT MOORE
16                          CONSULTING ENGINEER
17                          MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN

19                    MR.  MOORE;  Mr. Stein, Conferees,
            Ladles and Gentlemen.
21                     My name Is Herbert Moore, Consulting
            Engineer,  Milwaukee, Wisconsin.   I haven't a paper.
23           I am speaking without notes.
24                     I would comment that I asked Mr. Freeman
            Holmer to  appear after reading the program of PWPCA


 1                              HERBERT MOORE

 2           and the recommendations,and I: flaLt compelled to comment

 3           that this program would actually impede the pollution

 4           abatement of Lake Michigan., I would like to indicate

 5           in what manner I think this would occur, because it

 B           could be corrected, of course, and a Federal Program

 7           instituted that would help abate pollution.

 8                     It seems to me that it la too rigid and

 9           that the timetable is peculiar.  It is too rigid in

10           requiring primary, secondary and tertiary installa-

11           tions,ani ifear would cause communities to proceed

12           not cautiously in projecting sewerage and sewerage

13           treatment facilities at sites that might not be

14           appropriate and efficient in the long-range meeting

15           of demands for an ultimate solution of the problem.

16                     The time lag of five years for abating

17           pollution from overflows strikes me as being very

18           bad.  I would ask the question, what is the differ-

19           ence between pollution from overflows and any other

20           pollution?  And this time lag is harmful to the

21           total cause of pollution abatement.

                      I don't maintain as an engineer that the

23           correction of overflow problems is as simple as

 4           ioerely putting In a pump and storing the liquid and

            treating that liquid.  But it is associated,

 1                              HERBERT MOORE

 2           definitely,  with the program of pollution abatement

 3           and should not be separated and thus cause undue

 4           emphasis  to  be placed upon existing facilities, which

 s           the recommendations in the report gives a blessing.

 6           On Page 24 you can note the words indicate that

 7           primary and  tertiary plants would not become obsolete,

 8           the fact  that there are new methods being devised

 9           would not deter us from proceeding with phosphate

10           removal now, and that existing facilities would not

H           become obsolete.  I think they would become obsolete.

12           i do not  like to see the Federal Government give

13           its blessing to proceeding with the use of existing

14           sites that may be completely wrong.

is                     I  would like to say that Wisconsin, it seems

16           to me, is a  leader in this water pollution abatement

17           field with the splendid new water law, a giant step

18           forward.   I  feel that the present proposed Federal

19           recommendations would slow down Wisconsin or cause

20           Wisconsin to spend a lot of money needlessly towards

21           pollution abatement that would be ineffective.

22                     What is needed from the Federal Government

23           is a set  of  standards.  Instead of coming in with

24           standards that are mediocre, which, of course, the

25           States have  had for years, they should come in with

 1                              HERBERT MOORS
 2           a set of standards that are higher and thus give
 3           help to the States and direction to communities,
 4           rathe? than a pat on the back and to say go ahead
 s           with what you are doing and keep on doing more of
 6           the same and this will result in hundreds of millions
 7           of dollars being spent needlessly.  Direction is
 8           needed.
 9                     I would refer also to an item on Page 66,
10           which Z think is a f uadamental mistake of the
11           report, Paragraph 15, which stipulates that snail
12           disposal plants, because of the operating problems,
13           would be frowned upon by the officialdom and that
14           in fringe areas in large metropolitan areas,of
15           course,they should be connected up with the big
16           sewer systems.
17                     1 feel that this is the wrong point of
18           view and that this perhaps is a point of view
19           that is prevalent in so many cases of water
20           pollution abatement.  The big answer is considered
21           meritorious where actually the real answer may be
22           improvement in technique and operation of the small
23           plant, saving great sums of money  on sewer expendi-
24           tare, and perfecting operation and abandoning the
            septic process and going into aeration processes

 1                             HERBERT MOORE
 2          and going into ground Hater recharge and opening
 3          the door to a containment of liquid wastes rather
 4          than the collection of liquid waste to a yet bigger
 5          plant.  And this point of view, if it could be
 6          corrected, would induce communities to begin to
 7          solve the problems logically.
 8                    I, therefore, say that the federal Govern-
 9          oent could be of help, but at preterit* under the
10          present program, I fear that it would actually be
11          a hindrance.
12                    Itoank you.
13                    MR. KLASSEN:  Mr. Chairman, I would Juat
14          like to ask this witness one question and that is
15          all.
16                    In his capacity as a consulting engineer,
17          I am wonderings are you a consultant to any of the
1           industries or cities that are named in this report
19          or on the spot?
                      MR. MOORB:  Not to my knowledge, Clarence.
                      I would like to coament further and say
22          that it seems to me that Illinois, with its, let's
23          say, abatement of pollution of Lake Michigan,is
            rather out of the picture of this Conference and ia
            in a splendid position to say to the others, clean

 1                             HERBERT MOORE
 2          up, but at  thia Conference it certainly  isn't
 3          appropriate to comment on  the mediocre standards
 f          that the State of  Illinois has had, and  that is all
 5          they could  do, I suppose,  because  other  States did
 6          the aaae, and so we now are  tending to project
 7          mediocre standards as a formal rigid pattern which
 8          le, I don't think, healthful.
 9                    MR. VOOTj  Kr, Moore,  with respect to
10          your cottBents on the Federal Reconaaendatlon 15
11          about maximizing the use of  areawide sewerage
12          ayatema, which apparently  you don't agree with,
13          are you then advocating, say, as a coxaaunity grows
14          that a sewage treatment works be constructed for
15          each subdivision as it develops  in a cowaunity or
16          in an area? Xa this what  you are  advocating?
17                    MR. MOORE;  I am advocating the idea of
18          dispersal of sewage at fringe area subdivisions,
19          yes, rather than collecting  that sewage  and bringing
            it into a central plant.
21                     MR. VOGT:  On what basis do you make this
22          recosuBendatlon?
23                    MR. MOOREi  Well,  I sake thia  reoofluaenda-
24          tion on the baais of, let  me say,  new evidence that
25           is indicating and proving  that aerated  liquid

  1                             HERBERT MOORE
  2          will pass  into the  subsoil at a higher rate than
  3          septic  liquid will,  and this  gem of an idea hasn't
  4          apparently been exploited very fully up to now,  but
  5          perhaps will be with the need for water pollution
  6          abatement.  And, therefore, the subdivision at the
  7          edge of a  large city,  to Justify its existence as a
  8          subdivision, you see,  and to  Justify its being
  9          created, would have to provide the land area
 10          necessary  for providing, let's say, aqua for
 11          recharge if appropriate to that particular area
 12          as the  best solution.
 13                    MB. VOQTt  Are you  saying to do this on
 14          an individual hone  septie tank system or a community
 is          collection system with treatment and then disposal
 16          into the ground?
 17                    MR. MOORE:  The ideal, of course, would
 is          be for  the individual hone, with the individual
 19          well and the individual solution to the problem on
 20          the premises that would be developed and proper
 21          evapo transporation soil treatment provided to
 22          solve the  problem for the individual home.
23                    MR. VOQT:  This is  certainly contrary to
24          our experience in Michigan where we have run into
25          numerous problems because of  the geology of certain



 2          areas where this la Just not feasible.

 3                    MR. MOOREs  Z grant you where the geology

 4          la not feasible and the rook outcrop is near the

 5          surface of the ground, sewers to a remote area would

 6          be necessary.

 7                    MR. VOQT:  Hot rock outcropping.  We have

 8          very little rock outcropping in Michigan.  Most of

 9          ours Is unconaolldated materials, and in many areas

10          we get into tight clay soil where your proposal

11          would just be not feasible at all.  In fact, we are

12          now doing precisely what ia recommended here in the

13          Federal Report, to go to areawide collection systems

14          to avoid sewage outcropping on the ground and running

15          into the roadside ditches,

16                    MB. MOORS:  I think the answer in that

17          ease would be aeration of the liquid and preparation

18          of the soil for evapo transporation.  I think this

19          can be done in a given area.  The idea would be that

20         . the liquid, instead of being Introduced deep in the

            ground as we now propose in all the State plumbing

            codes with septic tank provisions, let that liquid

            be aerated to create an aerobic environment for

            bacteria and let that be introduced into the topsoil

            so that it would evaporate or be useful for

   I                                                           3013
 1                             HERBERT MOORE
 2          irrigation and be diepoaed of In that way.
 3                    MR. VOGT:  of course our plan* do essen*
 4          tlally this.  In fact, we recommend disposing of
 s          the liquid at a depth not greater than 24 inches,
 6          and we still have run into problem.  So our
 7          experience has been contrary to your proposal here.
 8                    MR. MOORS:  Have you aerated the liquid?
 9                    MR. VOQT:  Yea, we have also tried
10          extended aeration type treatment works.
11                    MR. MOORE:  Thank you.
12                    MR, POSTON:  Are there any other questions
13          of Mr. Moore?
14                    Mr. Holmer?
15                    (No response.)
16                    MR. PQSTON:  If not, thank you, Mr. Moore.
17                    Mr. Holincr, you nay proceed.
18                    MR. HOLMER:  Is Mrs, Robert Erlckson in
19          the room?
20                    We have been involved with cows and foxes
21          and badgers, and now I turn our attention to the
22          wolf.
23                    The Wolf River in Wisconsin was the origin
24          of a regional planning cooaiselon, which has since
25          been renamed the Northeast Wisconsin Planning

 1                                GERALD PAUL
 2           Commission.  We are fortunate in Wisconsin  in
 3           having two major planning  commissions,  one  covering
 *           the southeast seven counties, including Milwaukee,
 5           Racine and Kenoaha, the other covering  14,  I believe
 6           it ia, of the northeastern wiaconain counties  that
 7           are endeavoring to develop a coordinated and
 8           cohesive program for the management, among  other
 9           things, of their natural resources.
10                     The Northeast Wisconsin Regional  Planning
11           Commission has embarked on a specific and intensive
12           hydrological program.
13                     Here with us this morning ar® the Vice-
14           chairman of the Northeast  Wisconsin Regional Planning
15           Commission, Mr. Eugene Garrow — excuse me, Chairman
16           of the Standing Committee  on Water Resources Conaer-
17           vat ion—Mr. Torn Pitt and Gerald Paul, the hydrologiat
18           for the Northeast Wisconsin Regional Commission.
19                     Mr. Paul will present the report  of  the
20           Commie a ion.


 1                              QERALD PAUL


 3                        STATEMENT OP GERALD PAUL

 4                           CHIEF HYDROLOG1ST

 5                         NORTHEASTERN WISCONSIN

 6                      REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION


 8                    MR.  PAUL:   Thank you, Mr.  Holmer, Conferees,

 9          Ladies  and Gentlemen.

10                    My name Is Gerald Paul.   I am the Chief

            Hydrologist for the  Northeastern Wisconsin Regional

12          Planning Commission,and I have been asked to present

13          this  statement for that Commission.

14                    The  Northeastern Wisconsin Regional Plan-

is          ning  Commission represents a nine-county area

            centered along the upper portion of  the Pox and

17          Wolf  Rivers.   The watersheds of these major Wisconsin

18          rivers  combine to form the largest tributary in the

19          entire  Lake Michigan Basin.   Approximately 6,000

20          square  miles of drainage area contribute flows

21          which are discharged into the Lake via Green Bay.

            The Northeastern Wisconsin Regional  Planning Commis-

            sion  would like to go  on record as standing ready to

            assist  in any  efforts  to "save our lake".   We are

            already heartened by two objectives  of this Conference:


 1                              QERALD PAUL

 2               1.  The positive attitude that corrective

 3               pollution abatement action must be taken—

 4               and will be taken.

 5               2.  The concern for Inclusion of the tributaries

 6               and their originating sources of pollution oon-

 7               tribution and relevant problems.

 8                    The people of our area of Wisconsin have

 9          long been concerned about the progressive deteriora-

10          tlon of our vital water resources and what ultimate

            effect it would have on the way of life for the

12          inhabitants and others.  In 1958 an organization

            formed by  concerned citizens to protect, restore
            :(The Wolf River Imprdvement; Association) was

            and preserve the Wolf River for future generations,

            Through  their efforts the Wolf River Basin Regional

            Planning Commission  (comprising seven counties)

            was created, by the  then Governor Gaylord A, Nelson.

            A staff  was hired, a comprehensive plan developed,

            other counties added, and the name changed to  the

            Northeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission

            in 1967.

                      The Planning Commission, having been

            founded  by citizens  concerned about water quality

            and purity, is devoting much of its staff time to

 1 -.                              GERALD PAUL

 2           assisting the nine member counties in the planning

 3           fields of flood plain zoning, sewer and water, and

 4           sanitary codes in addition to stream flow and

 5           chemical analysis of the waters at 107 monitoring

 6           stations.  The stream flow and chemical analysis,

 7           data gathering which started December 8, 1967* la

 8           performed by two highly qualified staff people,

 9           myself,  Mr.  Gerald Paul, Chief Hydrologlst-Civil

10           Engineer, and ray associate, Mr. Boyd Kinzley,

11           -Director of Natural Resources.  Our sewer and water

12           comprehensive planning assistance to our nine member

13           counties is  provided by Mr. Prank Hedgeock, Chief

14           Planner, and his assistant, both members of the

15           Planning Commission staff who have been active in

16           this field for the Commission since September 1, 1967.

17                     A  few more statistics are essential to

18           understand the problems confronting the Northeastern

19           Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission and Its nine

20           member counties, and the pollution abatement of

21           Lake Michigan:

22                (1)  The combined Pox-Wolf River, as mentioned,

23                is  the  largest tributary to Lake Michigan with

24                a mean  of 4140 CPS.  This is almost 1 1/4 times

25                the amount granted the State of Illinois for

 1                               GERALD PAUL

 2               diversion purposes.

 3                (2)   Hie drainage area of  this  watershed,

 4               served by the  Northeastern Wisconsin Regional

 5               Planning Commission,  IB approximately 5,817

 6               square miles or approximately 90 per cent

 7               of the total acres that drain Into Green Bay.

 8               There are 233  miles of river  from Hlles, the

 9               start of the Wolf Riverj to Lake Wlnnebago.

10               (3)   The population of this area in 1930 was

n               253,5*10 and 320,629 In I960,  with a projection

12               of 398,000 by  1980.

13               (4)   The 1962  per capita Income of residents

14               In the region  was $1,780 with one out of

15               every two households  In the rural counties

16               having Incomes of less than $4,000 In 1962

17               compared to less than one  out of every three

18               In the urban counties.

19               (5)   In this region there  are a total of 116

20               Incorporated municipalities and unincorporated

21               villages consisting of 67  unincorporated

22               villages, 39 Incorporated  areas of under 5,000,

23               5 incorporated areas  of 5*000 to 9*999 popula-

24               tlon,  and 5 incorporated areas   with a popula-

25               tion  of 10,000 or over,  the latter being in  the


 1                               GERALD PAUL

 2                lower reaches of the region primarily.

 3                     The points we would like to make are as

 4           follows:

 5                (1)  Urbanization along our regional waterways,

 6                we feel confident, will be controlled by enforce-

 7                ment of our water Resources Act which deals with

 8                flood plain and shore line zoning.  However, the

 9                67 smaller unincorporated villages and some of

10                the 39 cities of under 5,000 population are

11                faced with a preponderous problem of compliance.

12                Some of them are polluters, dumping raw sewage

13                into the river) they know itj they want to do

14                something about it but they do not have the tax

15                baae to provide the necessary means.  They have

16                received State orders to comply — they will

17                be cited and possibly prosecuted unless State

18                and Federal grants are forthcoming.  We invite

19                this Conference to take special note of this

20                situation as it no doubt exists in the other

21                neighboring States as well and deserves the

                 serious consideration of all concerned and the

                 support of Senator Nelson's  proposal of 90

                 percent assistance for sewage treatment

25                facilities.


 1                               GERALD PAUL

 2                (2)  We recommend surveys for comprehensive

 3                recommendations relative to the Interrelation-

 4                ship of surface and ground waters to avoid con-

 5                tamlnatlon of our water by Indiscriminate

 6                selection of sites for waste disposal.

 7                (3)  We recommend that Congress be asked to

 8                expand "701" planning grants to Include funds

 9                for hydrologlcal studies.

10                (4)  We heartily endorse the watershed approach

11                to our water resource problems and recommend

12                that the' Federal and separate State Governments

13                seriously consider all aspects of the use of

14                data processing equipment for central recording

15                and reporting of technical Information pertain-

16                Ing to water resources; permits such as flowing

17                well discharge; well drilling; channel enlarge-

18                ment; dally industrial consumptive use of water,

19                etc., so effective up-to-date water administra-

                 tion can be effective.

                 (5)  We recommend that 100 per cent abatement

                 of human pollution of Lake Michigan be the goal

                 of this conference and its ultimate proposals,

                 for if this goal is not attained and maintained

                 by us and our successors the compounded problems


 1                               GERALD PAUL

 2                of the future can only prolong the date of the

 3                ultimate death of Lake Michigan.

 4                     We recommend further that siltation be

 5           classified and dealt with as a pollutant.  Sources

 6           of information tell us that the Wolf River is the

 7           recipient of approximately 700 tons of silt annually.

 8           This originates /from two major sources, namely,

 9           wave wash assumed from pleasure boats in the navi-

10           gable portion of the river and agricultural lands

11           throughout the area.  These two sources of siltation

12           presently do have programs in progress to alleviate

13           this condition; however, they are inadequate and

14           must be expanded upon.

15                (1)  Stream bank erosion can currently be

16                corrected on agricultural land by the farm

17                owner cooperating with the ASCS, on a cost-

18                sharing basis.  There are two drawbacks to

19                this program:

20                     (a)  It is not compulsory.

21                     (b)  There is no provision for cost sharing

                      assistance on non-agricultural land.  How-

^                     ever, our Planning Commission haa called

24                     the latter to the attention of Senator

                      Nelson asking that the ASCS Program be

 !                               GERALD PAUL

 2                     expanded to Include non-agricultural land

 3                     also.

 4                (2)  Subwatershed development is possible under

 5                PL $66 but must be accelerated throughout the

 6                Lake Michigan watershed if we are to maintain

 7                the carrying capacity of our surface water

 8                systems and prevent silting eutrophicatlon of

 g                our reservoirs.

10                     We recommend that the current trends and

11           proposals to separate storm and sanitary sewer

12           systems be given a long, hard look.  Are we ulti-

13           stately going to have to treat storm sewer water

u           because of the increased use of calcium chloride?

is           If BO, are we actually doing the right thing by

16           separating these systems or would it be more practi-

17           cal and economically feasible to spend this time and

is           money in building treatment plants, now?

19                     we wish to thank you for the opportunity

20           to present our views and pledge our fullest eoopera-

21           tion to preserve Lake Michigan, one of our greatest

22           heritages.

23                                   Respectfully submitted,


25                                   (signed)  Gordon A. Bubolz

 1                               OERALD PAUL
 2                          Gordon A. Bubolz, Chairman
 3                          Northeastern Wisconsin Regional
 4                          Planning Commission
 6                          (Signed)  R. E. Oarrow
 7                          R. E, Oarrow, chairman
 8                          Standing Committee on Water Resources
 9                          Conservation
11                     MR. STEIN:  Thank you, Mr. Paul.
12                     Are there any comments or questions?
13                     Mr. Vogt.
14                     MR. VOOT:  Mr. Chairman.
15                     Mr. Paul, on Page 3 (3Q19) you Indicate that
16           the smaller communities which admittedly are pol-
17           luters and dumping raw sewage into the streams,
18           they recognize this, they want to do something about
19           it, but you allege that they do not have the tax
            basis to provide the necessary means.
21                     On what basis do you make such a Judgment?
22                     MR. PAUL:  Well, in line with some of the
            water quality work that is being done in that area
24           and in line with the water quality criteria which
25           has been developed, various monitoring of numerous


.1                               GERALD PAUL

2           streams in our region has been done.  These  certain

3           communities have been cited as major polluters..

4           However, legislation, I believe, from the Attorney

5           General's office levies huge sums,  I can't recall

6           any particular figure, maybe Mr. Holmer can back me

7           up on this, I think it is something like $500

8           thousand for a community of in the  neighborhood of

9           maybe 300 people.  This is the —

10                     MR. VOOT:  You are just talking in

11           generalities?

12                     In other words. It seems  to me that If you

13           claim that the communities are not  financially able

14           to correct their pollution, you should have  some

15           basis for this, and It seems that there would be

16           ways and means of determining this.  Do you  have

17           this information?

18                     MR. PAUL:  1 don't have that at my dis-

            posal.  It does seem evident —

                      MR. VOGTi  On what basis  did you make

            that statement, then?

                      MR. PAUL:  It was made from actual figures,

            which I don't have here.

                      MR. HOLMER:  Mr. Paul, Gene Garrow is

            right behind you.  He may have an answer to  the

 1                              GERALD PAUL

 2          question.

 3                    MR. OARROW:   In answer  to  your question,

 4          air, there is the Village of Fremont of a  population

 5          of approximately 575 to 600.  The coat of  engineering

 B          estimate for sewage treatment plant  for this  village

 7          is $403,000.  Their gross assessed value is some-

 8          where in the neighborhood of $2 million,

 9                    This is a town of retired  people, elderly

10          people, who retired on very low income, are operating

H          very close to the belt, so to speak,  and comprised

12          probably of a greater percentage  of  widows per  capita

13          than the national figures would reveal.  In other

14          words, I think there is something like between  35

15          and 45 widows occupying separate  houses, separate

16          entitles.

17                    This particular village of the Wolf River

18          is located in the flood plain and the 100-year

19          flood stage did create a flooding condition of

20          practically the majority of the downtown business

21          district as well as many of the residential areas.

22                    They have pursued for the  past three  years,

23          at least, the course of seeking assistance from the

24          State of Wisconsin, Federal funds, whatever sort of

            grant would make it possible to accomplish the

 1                               GERALD PAUL
 2           sewage treatment of their effluenta from the City.
 3           At the present tine they dump into the Wolf raw
 4           aewage, all of them, practically all of them*  The
 s           saturation of soils is such that they are at a point
 6           of, as we say and as has been used here, of no return.
 7           There is no alternative to speak of at the present
 8           time other than to go to a sewage treatment plant.
 9                     However, they feel and had a meeting as
10           recent as last night and expressed their opinions
11           that they are in no position for a bonding for a
12           period of 50 years because the revenue from this
13           facility would not be sufficient to operate the
14           plant and moat assuredly their present assessed
15           valuation and income of the village is in no posl-
16           tion to provide this added income for operational
17           monies.
18                     Does this answer your question, sir?
19                     MR. VQQT:  "Riis Is Just one example, sir.
             I wouldn't expect that every community would be in
21            a flood plain where some means of pollution control
             couldn't be exercised,  even going to Mr. Moore's
23            suggestion here earlier where a small village of.
             individual septic tanks with in-ground disposal,
             say,  5 or 6 hundred people might even go to


 1                               GERALD PAUL

 2           thereby removing their wastes from probably the

 3           storm sewers that are thereby polluting the near-by

 4           stream.  I would think that this might wall be a

 5           solution In some Instances.

 6                     In other oases I think It Is incumbent

 7           upon these communities to do the very utmost from

 8           the standpoint of attempting to finance as much aa

 9           they can over a period of time.  It may be that

10           they have to do this In a stage program, but at

11           least get going rather than just throwing up their

12           hands and saying we can't do It.

13                     MR. GARROW:  Sir, would you call get: going

14           three years of diligent efforts to seek assistance

15           throughout various State agencies and a meeting as

16           recent as last night with the Federal Housing Admin-

17           latratIon?  Their legal counsel and the — there

18           was one other man there In attendance from one of

19           the agencies.  I think that In a small village like

20           this when you have approximately 30 people out, this

21           Is a pretty good representation.

                      By no means do I wish you:to feel or

            entertain the thought that Fremont Is the isolated

            instance.  This flood plain extends all the way

            practically to Shawano.  Mr. Paul can point out


 1                               GERALD  PAUL

 2           here for  your benefit where Shawano  Is  In relation

 3           to Lake Winnebago, and you  will find that this  is

 4           a matter  of approximately 100 miles  and perusal of

 5           the map will show you that  there are many small

 6           unincorporated villages.

 7                     Research will show you that many  incorpo-

 8           rated villages still are not in a financial position

 9           to accomplish this at this  time without Federal or

W           State grants.  We have been Informed or the Village

11           of Fremont has been Informed that State and Federal

12           grants have been earmarked  for at least 1969.   State

13           compliance requested required that they comply  by

14           January 1968.

15                     MR. VOGTj  Sir, I don't mean  to imply

16           here that we don't have the same problems in

17           Michigan,because we do.  We have small  communities.

18           But I think the position I  am taking here is the

19           same position I take on our Water Resources Commis-

20           sion in Michigan, that poverty isn't an excuse  for

            pollution and that the communities Just can't seek

            outside aid to solve their  problems.  They  must do

            as much as is physically possible with their own

            funds and then if there is  a gap between what they

            have and  what they need, maybe they  can seek some

1                               GERALD PAUL
2           outsId© aid.
3                     But it is incumbent for them to do the
4           maximum with their own resources, and this is about
s           the same story we tell our smaller communities in
6           Michigan which are faced with the same problem that
7           you folks in Wisconsin have.
8                     MR. QARROW:  We as a planning commission
9           are working very closely with these people.  We are
10           attempting to steer, guide them and aid them in any
11           way possible.  It does become frustrating when there
12           is the earnest effort to comply and there is also
13           the sound logical reasoning that they just finan-
14           clally can't comply,
15                     We feel confident, however, that our State
16           agencies are aware of this.  But 1 think that we
17           wanted to bring this to light,feeling that possibly
18           previous speakers had not sufficiently elaborated
19           on this particular point.  If we are going to clean
            up Lake Michigan, it has many facets.  We can't only
            look at the obvious pollution that is visible; we
            must do a little research and go into the back
            country, the originating sources of water, and pick
            up the polluters whoever and wherever they may be
            and arrive at this determination of how we are going

 1                                QER/LD PAUL
 2            to cope with It.   This Is only a segment of the
 3            problem that we are pointing out to you for your
 4            information at this time.
 5                      MR. STEIN:  Thank you very much.
 6                      Are there any further questions or
 8                      If not,  thank you.
 9                      MR. HOLMER:   I have one question of Mr. Paul
10            or Mr.  Oarrow either one.
11                      I would  like you to indicate briefly the
12            sources of funding for your hydrological program.
13                      MR. QARROWi   We are operating under a very
14            stringent budget.   The way the Planning Commission
15            of the  State of Wisconsin is set up is that we are
16            allowed to -- the  counties ask to form a regional
17            planning commission and the State statutes provide
18            that if it is granted  and approved by the Governor
19            that three ten-thousandths of a mill of assessed
20  n         valuation IB allowable.  I think that this primarily
21            was one of the reasons that the population of these
22            nine counties was  pointed put, because in the fund-
23            ing of  a planning  commission such as this there are
24            many facets to planning and demands upon planning,
25            and it  is comprehensive planning involving all these

 1                                GERALD PAUL
 2            other  things  such as economic development,
 3            population  expansion,  explosion,  If you will,
 4            among  other things,  land use, and as a result, in
 s            order  to  service  all of these member counties,
 6            monies have to  be divided,  In our Instance down
 7            to  where  we can only afford at the present time
 8            a hydrologist —  and believe me,  gentlemen, this
 9            took us three and a  half years or four arid a half
10            years  to  get  a  hydrologlst,  civil engineer, which
11            Mr. Paul  happens  to  be — and with the magnitude of
12            the job you can see  we are  only scratching the
13            surface.
14                     Now,  these funds  In addition are supple-
15            men ted and  augmented by some Federal funding, local
16            funds, et cetera.  However,  our budget Is not that
17            high that we  feel that we can do  a full water
18            resource  pollution abatement Job  unless we do have
19            additional  assistance  from possibly the new District
20            3*  which  Involves  our  area,  or possibly your recog-
21  -         nitIon of the fact that we are a  major contributor
22            to  the Lake Michigan watershed.
23                     MR. HOLMERi   That  was part of the answer,
24            at  least, Mr. darrowo
25                     My  reason  for asking the question, Mr.  Stein

   I                                                           3032

 1                                GERALD PAUL

 2            is  that this  has  been  an  Interesting cooperative

 3            program and in  the  details at  the back of your

 4            records you will  find  that part of this program

 5            is  financed out of  a Federal appropriation for

 6            comprehensive water planning,  and a somewhat larger

 7            amount  has  been allocated from the State budget to

 8            help  finance  this program as well as your local tax

 9            funds which are providing the  base for the program,

10                     It  is an  important one and it ought to be

11            supported,  but  it is also an example of inter-govern-

12            mental  cooperation  involving all three levels.

13                     MR. QARROW:   Thank you, Mr. Holmer.

14                     MR. STEIN:  Are there any further comments

15            or  questions?

16                      (No response.)

17                     MR, STEIN:  If  not,  thank you very much.

18                     Mr. Holmer.

19                     MR. HOLMER:   Before  I begin, I would

20            like  to ask if  there is any resident of Wisconsin

21            who desires to  present a  statement to this Conference

             who has not had that opportunity?

23                     Yes,  sir,

24                     MR. JAHNKE:   After awhile.

                      MR. HOLMER:   No, first.

                    0. A. JAHNKE
          Mr. Jahnke?
          Mr. 0. A. Jahnke of Milwaukee,
             STATEMENT OP 0. A. JAHNKE
                MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN

          MR. JAHNKE:  I have no paper.
          Mr. Stein, Chairman, and Conferees.
          I feel awful ashamed to have to come up
here in order to protect Lake Michigan.
          My grandfather and your grandfathers and
fathers passed a law for us, Section 13 of the River
and Harbor Act of March 3* 1899* which reads:
          "Under Federal law enacted by Congress it
is unlawful to deposit or discharge or cause to be
deposited or discharged any refuse matter of any
kind or description whatsoever from any ship, barge
                              • Q.
or other floating craft of any kind or from shore
docks or wharves into any navigable waters of the
United States."
          That includes the whole 50 States.
          "Also unlawful are deposits of this nature
on shore of the waterway or on shore of a tributary
where the refuse material is liable to float or to

   I                                                           3034

 1                               0. A.  JAHNKE

 2           be washed into the navigable water.   Included  in

 3           the term  'refuse1 are petroleum products,  garbage,

 4           debris of any kind, other  kind  of  refuse,  Including

 5           bottles, paper, and ao forth."

 6                     The prescribed penalties for  this  violation

 7           and conviction of this statute  reads  substantially

 8           as follows:

 9                     "Every person, corporation  or company

10           that shall violate or shall knowingly violate,  aid,

11           abet, authorize or instigate a  violation of  this

i2           law shall be guilty of a misdemeanor  and shall be

13           punished by a fine not exceeding $2,500 nor  less

14           than $500 or by imprisonment in case  of a  person

15           for not less than 30 days  nor more than one  year

16           or by both fine and imprisonment at the discretion

17           of the Court."

18                     That is the end  of the quotation of  this

19           law,

20                     When the Jesuit  priests  and the  early

            explorers first came up on the  Lakes  in 163**,  they

            called the Great Lakes the Oceans  of  Sweet Water.

23           And when  I was a boy, I was born right  on  Lake

            Michigan right north of Manitowoc  there, my  grand-

            father bought Grants Pier.  They didn't have harbora


 1                               0. A. JAHNKE

 2           in them days.  I used to play down at the  lake

 3           from the time I was about five years old,  and

 4           whenever I got thirsty I used to take my hands and

 s           make a little oup and take a drink, but I  don't

 6           believe we can do that today.

 7                     I just wanted to read, from this  law that was

 8           passed In 1899 for the records and the Government

 9           records,because If we had followed up from that  time

10           on we wouldn't have needed this Conference today.

11                     Thank you very much.

12                     MR. STKINj  Thank you.

13                     (Applause.)

14                     MR. STEINi  I say this for the purpose of

15           the record,and I BBS the Corps of Engineers are In

16           here, this is not a new statute.  This must have

17           been at least the ten thousandth time I have either

18           read it or heard it.  it is not an easy statute  to

19           read.  I think if the statute purported to clean up

            all pollution we wouldn't need our Federal program

21           or our Federal law.  The courts have litigated this

            statute for years.  The Corps of Engineers has

23           administrated it.

24                     The pollution referred to refers to

            pollution whien interferes with navigation.


 1                              PREEMAN-'HOIiMER

 2                  .   Would you continue.


 4                       STATEMENT OP FREEMAN HOLMER




 8                     MR. HOLMERi  Mr.  Stein, Fellow Conferees.

 9                     I want to thank all of the witnesses,

10          Mr.  Jahnke and  Mr.  Moore and Mr. Billings and

i1          Mr.  Ewena, and  I would like also to thank our

12          women representatives who have appeared here before,

13          Mrs.  Dahl  yesterday,  who has sent to us a telegram

14          this  morning addressed to the FWPC Conferees, whioh

15          reads as follows :

16                     "Even as  this group discusses pollution

17          problems an atomic  power plant is discharging ten

18          degree thermo pollution into Lake Michigan.  Addi-

19          tional plants will  add more*  Experts admit ecologl-

20          cal  changes. Controlled freezer unit using cheaper

21           atomic power to cool the extra ten degrees would

22          eliminate  the problem in the lake, also in the

23          Alaskan salmon  spawning rivers and in Florida's

24          Biacayne Bay, saving large industries as well as

            natural beauty.  Another example of the 'new approach1


 1                              FREEMAN HOLMER

 2          xwM

 1                               FREEMAN HOLMER

 2            Conferees  need to bear constantly in mind as we

 3            come  to grips  with the problems  that confront us

 4            in  our role here.

 5                      Senator Nelson  said:

 6                      "The Governors  of the  four States  called

 7            to  this Conference have designated as their  repre-

 8            sentatives the heads  of their appropriate conaerva-

 9            tion  water resources  or natural  resources departments.

10            These men  are  all thoroughly experienced in  the

11            field of water pollution.   Most  of them are  veteran

12            administrators of their own State programs designed

13            to  clean up pollution. This, of course, puts them

14            in  a  difficult position.   All of them are proud of

15            their own  State programs,  all of them are somewhat

16            sceptical  of Federal  'interference1 in their water

17            pollution  programs."

18                      I am going  to return to Senator Nelson's

19            quotation  in a moment, but let  me pause here long

20            enough to  aay  that anyone  who denies the fact that

21            the existence  of  someone  looking over your shoulder

             causes a degree of sk?*lcism at any point need only

             be  here or in  our home States when there are those

             who offer  advice  or counsel or restriction,  and this

             applies to all of us,  because we all look over each

























                   FREEMAN HOLMER

other's shoulders in this business and there  Is a

tendency to be If not skeptical at least nervous.

          Senator Nelson went on:

          "It Is going to take real statesmanship

on the part of these men to rise up to the challenge

which the Conference presents to them and to  agree

on a really bold set of recommendations which will

clean up Lake Michigan.  They may be called upon to

make recommendations which will be painful for them

and others in their States to accept, but there is

no alternative If we are to save Lake Michigan."

          Yesterday in his address to us Governor

Knowles provided an answer and a guide to the

Wisconsin Conferees when he said clearly and  boldly,

"Wisconsin is prepared to cooperate fully in  support

of the recommendations which are developed in this

Conference.  We are unequivocally committed to meet

our responsibilities in the preservation of Lake


          Wisconsin law declares it to be "the

express policy of the State to mobilize Government

effort and resources at all levels, State, Federal

and local, allocating such effort and resources to

accomplish the greatest result for the people of

  I                              FREEMAN HOLMER

  2           the State aa a whole."  Twice it affirms "the

  3           importance of Lakes Superior and Michigan and Green

  4           Bay aa vast water resource reservoirs," and the

  s           necessity for high water quality standards relating

  6           to these waters.

  7                     In pursuit of this statutory directive,

  8           Wisconsin:   Administrative Code declares the initial

  9           Intention that the open waters of Lake Michigan

10           shall meet the standards for all uses, that swimming

u           beaches meet the  standards for body contact recrea-

12           tion and that the harbor areas (in the vicinity of

13           pollutlonal outlets) be raised to meet what are

14           really exacting minimum standards.  The long-range

15           goal of Wisconsin   intrastate standards, including

16           those Inland waters which are a part of the Lake

17           Michigan Basin, is "to permit the use of water

18           resources for all lawful purposes," including the

19           reproduction of game fish and minnows.  The "working

20           objective"  is already declared to be to achieve

21           these goals within ten years,

22                     Achievement of this goal requires the

23           cooperation of Industry, local Government, and

24           private citizens.  State financial assistance to

             municipalities and tax Incentives to industry have

                   FREEMAN HOLMER
been provided to encourage such cooperation.
Administrative orders, enforceable In the  courts/ are
available, If needed, to assure compliance.
          With specific respect to Lake Michigan,
the State or Wisconsin submitted to the Department
of the Interior initial water quality standards and
a plan for their Implementation,  we are gratified
that these have merited approval by the Department
and request that they be incorporated in the record
of this conference, along with a copy of the Wisconsin
Water Resources Act of 1965 and related legislation.
          Subsequently I shall make reference to
certain other documents evidencing the Wisconsin
Program.  These are included in two rather large
notebooks which have been distributed to the Confer*
ees, and I would suggest rather than incorporating
these at the points in my remarks that they be
Incorporated as a single exhibit.
          MR. STEIN:  Do you want them as  an exhibit
or part of the Conference transcript, Mr,  Holmer?
          MR. HOLMER:  As an exhibit, sir.
          MR. STEIN:  Without objection, that will
be done.
          (Which said documents are marked Exhibit


 1                               FREEMAN HOLMER

 2           and  are  on file at the Federal Water Pollution

 3           Control  Administration Office in Washington, D.C.,

 4           and  at the Regional Office of the FWPCA in Chicago,

 5           Illinois.)

 6                      MR.  HOLMER:   The communities and industries

 7           affected by the plan of enforcement have been notl-

 8           fled of  our Intention  to enter the necessary pollu-

 9           tion abatement orders  promptly.   You will find in

!0           that planned implementation target dates and the

11           specific requirements.  We have  deferred entering

12           formal orders  to these municipalities and communi-

13           ties, first while we were awaiting the approval or

14           modification of our standards in the processes of

15           review in  the  Department of the Interior,and more

16           recently in anticipation of this Conference.  We

17           intend,  of course, that our plane and orders will

18           reflect  the results of this Conference and they are,

19           these plans and orders, merely the next steps in

            our  continuing program of pollution abatement.

21                      We will make no effort here to enumerate

            all  of the past or present steps being taken to

23           abate the  pollution of Lake Michigan by Wisconsin

            communities and Industries.  These are in many

            respects detailed in the documents which have been

 1                              FREEMAN HOLMER
 2           distributed to the Conferees.   The  Conferees
 3           already know that Milwaukee  has been a  pioneer in
 4           secondary treatment and  is scheduled for improvement
 5           of  its collection and treatment facilities  over the
 6           next ten years at an investment of  approximately
 7           $150 million in local funds.   Kenosha dedicated its
 8           new secondary treatment  plant  last  October.   Racine's
 9           new secondary facility is  under construction.   Green
10           Bay and Milwaukee (in efforts  which have been
11           encouraged and financially supported by the Federal
12           Water Pollution Control  Administration) are deeply
13           engaged in major research  dealing with  papermaklng
14           wastes, nutrient removal,  and  the management  of
15           storm runoff.
16                     Other efforts  in the Lake Michigan  Basin
17           are or will shortly be under way in the Lake
18           Michigan Basin in Wisconsin  to abate pollution.
19           Some of these will result  from recent surveys of
            the Fox River and the Root River and recent hearings
            thereon.  The reports of these and  other basin sur-
            veys should also be made a part of  the  record of
            this conference, and they  have been distributed.  We
            are taking these and similar steps  in the confident
            expectation that our actions will have  a favorable


 1                              FREEMAN HOLMER

 2           effect on the  character of the waters  of Lake

 3           Michigan.   Further surveys in  1968 will  complete

 4           current coverage  of the streams in the Lake Michigan


                       The  news release on  December 21 announcing

 7           this  Conference listed seven specific  forms of

 8           pollution among those  which should be  considered

 9           here.   There are  others that have been Included In

10           the report of  the Federal Water Pollution Control

11           Administration, including urban and agricultural

12           runoff, sedimentation, and the matter  of persistent

13           pesticides.

14                     Of the  seven items originally  listed,

15           three (dumping of dredged material,  oil  pollution,

16           and control of discharges by commercial  and pleasure

17           craft) clearly require national standards and a

18           consistent program among Federal agencies.

            municipal and Industrial wastes,  thermal pollution,
                      Three  of  the  listed  items  (treatment  of

            and beach pollution)  seem clearly within the province

            of  the  States.   It  is essential,  however,  that the

            States  be enforcing adequate and  comparable standards

            and that the  programs of  the States  be coordinated.

            Michigan, for example,  has adopted a bold program

 1                               FREEMAN HOLMER
 2           addressed  to  the alewife  nuisance;  Wisconsin is
 3           sharing  in the enterprise.   We will continue to
 *           collaborate with the  other Lake Michigan States,
 5           and the  Federal agencies,  through the Oreat Lake
 6           Basin Commission,  in  the  development and execution
 7           of a comprehensive program.
 8                      *nie seventh listed problem (the overen-
 9           richment of shoreline waters by nutrients) is
10           especially crucial.   And  may 1 say that the next
11           few paragraphs were written before this Conference
12           convened, ad. I vent to say something about them after
13           I read them as they were  written two weeks ago.
14                      Phosphorus,  nitrogen,  and other nutrients
15           enter the  Lake from a multiplicity of sources,  many
16           of them  natural.   The Subcommittee on Air and Water
17           Pollution  of  the Senate Committee on Public Works
| A
            has reminded  us that  "even in the absence of man,
            lakes would eventually die.  . .  .through natural
            runoff,  sedimentation, and changes  In the biological
21                               ..
            balance  of the Lake.
                       Itiis process of aging is  inevitable,
            although it may, for  long periods,  be Imperceptible.
            It is marked  by "increased fertility and the prolif-
            eration  of algae."


 1                              FREEMAN  HOLMER

 2                      The Committee Report  (No.  917,  90th

 3           Congress,  1st Session) goes on  to  observe that

 4           "Present knowledge of eutrophlcatlon and  potential

 5           techniques of prevention and reclamation....is  too

 6           limited to begin a full-scale program  of  Federal

 7           involvement....We lack adequate technology to deal

 8           with  the problems of diffuse sources,  natural and

 9           man-influenced, which characterize the principal

10           contributors to eutrophication."

11                      yesterday when Mr.  Purdy was at this

12           microphone,  I posed a question  to  him  and I got an

13           answer.  The question was,  given the existence  of

14           all of the alewlves and their provision of phosphorus

15           to the shoreline waters whether it really made  a

16           great deal of sense to begin with  a  major effort

17           at the removal of phosphorus from  municipal and

18           industrial waste facilities.

19                      And his answer, I think, helped to  clarify

20           my own thinking, which had  been severely  influenced

21           by the statements last Wednesday by  Dr. Baumgartner

            and Dr. Weinberger.  The problem of  phosphorus  and

23           its elimination is clearly  a critical  one,  and  while

24           there are  vast gaps in our  knowledge and  subject  to

            further review of the recommendations  submitted to

























                   FREEMAN HOLMER
UB by the Federal water Pollution Control Administra-

tion, it teems clear that we need to take all feasi-

ble steps in this area as rapidly as we can.

          Wisconsin policy is clear.  She decision

has been made to enhance the quality of all Wisconsin

water and particularly to control, to the extent

feasible, the processes of eutrophicatlon in all

our lakes, including Lake Michigan.  The odds

against us are significant but we are determined

and have directed our efforts to arrest and reverse

the process.  We propose that this conference face

the problem squarely and realistically; as though

        .  .      ,.    . ,   ,,      We suggest that
we ever had any other intention.       ^^^

this requires substantial research and submit for

incorporation in the record of this Conference a

pioneering report "Excessive Water Fertilization,H

developed by the State of Wisconsin.  This Joint

effort of the University of Wisconsin and State
                                           -^  '- •

agency personnel offers a number of specific

recommendations that deserve consideration and

adaptation by this Conference.

          (Which aald report is aa follows:)

                                 To The
                           WATER SUBCOMMITTEE
Prof. Richard B. Corey
Department of Soils
University of Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin 53706

Prof. Arthur D. Easier
Laboratory of Limnology
University of Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin 53706

Prof. G. Fred Lee
Water Chemistry Laboratory
University of Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin 53706
F. H. Schraufnagel, Chairman
Public Health Engineer
Water Resources Division
Dept. of Resource Development
453 State Office Building"
1 W. Wilson Street
Madison, Wisconsin 53702

Thomas L. Wirth
Water Research Coordinator
Conservation Department
Nevin Hatchery
Route 2
Madison, Wisconsin 53713
                                                        Madison, Wisconsin
                                                        January 31, 1967

January 31, 196?
Mr. H. E. Wirth, Chairman
Water Subcommittee
Natural Resources Committee of
  State Agencies
P. 0. Box 309
Madison, Wisconsin  53701

Dear Mr. Wirth:

The working group on Control Techniques and Research on Water Fertili-
zation has been charged with the problem of excessive fertilization of
our lakes and streams.  We were asked to study the need for removal of
nutrients and to make recommendations concerning proposed state policy
or programs in this field.

The accompanying report, "Excessive Water Fertilization," represents
the efforts of our group in complying with the request.  This report
outlines the problem; the key nutrients, their sources and estimated
contributions; control methods and makes recommendations.  A summary
and the recommendations are in the first part of the report.
This report, we feel, fulfills our responsibility.  However, if we can
be of further assistance, please contact me or any member of the working
Very truly yours,
F. H. Schraufnagel
Working Group



       The State of Wisconsin is blessed with many lakes and rivers.  Some
of these waters are showing signs of deterioration in water quality as a
result of receiving excessive amounts of nutrients.  It is highly likely
that the frequency and severity of these problems will increase with further
urbanization and recreational use.  We believe that excessive fertilization
will become our most important public problem in water resources.  Every
possible action should be taken at this time in order to minimize additional
deterioration in water quality.

       Sources of nutrients (or fertilizers) are numerous.  Domestic sewage,
even when treated to a point where the effluent is sparkling clear—in factt
suitable for trout rearing, contributes a major source of nitrogen and
phosphorus o  These two elements are generally considered the most important
contributors to excess fertilization of Wisconsin waters.  Conventional
treatment facilities are presently removing less than half of these nutrients,
although they efficiently remove the suspended solids and oxygen consuming
substances that have traditionally given sewage its unaesthetic connotation.
The volume of domestic sewage will not only increase with increasing popu-
lation but the accelerated use of the plant nutrient phosphorus in synthetic
detergents for our laundry and kitchen sinks appears to be adding to the

       Another major source of nitrogen and phosphorus is runoff from rural
lands, particularly manured croplands.  These fertilizers reach lakes and
streams via overland runoff and underground percolation.  The major potential
source of these fertilizers is surface runoff from manure applied on frozen
soil.  Commercial fertilizers do not appear to "be significant sources except
in some areas with specialized crops.

       Urban runoff, another major source of nutrients, will continue to
rise as the surfaces of the landscape become increasingly covered with
roads .and roofs.  Precipitation onto water surfaces also makes a significant
contribution of nutrients through the action of "washing" the atmosphere.

       The development of wetlands for agricultural and urban use also brings
about an increased rate of decomposition of organic materials so that seepage
and runoff from these soils may contain large quantities of nitrogen and
phosphorus.  Various kinds of industrial wastes are also rich in nitrogen
and phosphorus.  They do not appear to contribute the volume of these nutrients
that domestic sewage or rural and urban runoff do but can be important in
local situations.

       The solution to the malady of excessive water fertilization is best
obtained by prevention.  Better removal of nutrients from sewage appears
possible by several methods,  Improvement of present sewage treatment
operations is possible, as is adding an additional stage (tertiary
treatment) for effluents now released as "finished" products.  The use
of chemical precipitants has shown considerable promise in pilot plants
and can undoubtedly be perfected further.  The biochemical removal of
nutrients by growing and harvesting algae in effluent holding ponds seems
an ideal method of removing nutrients, but experimental trials to date

                                  - 2 -                                   3051

have demonstrated several problems that have not been solved.  The removal
of nitrogen by modifying the present activated sludge process shows promise,
but to remove phosphorus requires a different modification.  Liquidization
of winter manure and storage until spring may prove to be an effective

       Harvesting plants and animals from lakes as a control method has
much in its favor as it suggests a use for these fertilizers.  Unfortunately.,
the quantities of fish and aquatic plants which must be removed in order to
offset the input of nitrogen and phosphorus cannot possibly be attained.
However, aarvesting and refuse removal, coupled with better sewage treatment
and control of nutrients in rural runoff, may go a long ways towards solving
the problem.  In addition, harvesting and refuse removal may provide suffi-
cient aesthetic benefits (rough fish removal and aquatic vegetation clearing)
to be well worth continuous efforts on many lakes.

       Lake shores, river frontages and entire drainage basins may require
better zoning regulations in order to minimize the introduction of nutrients.

       Other methods show promise for specific waters.  For example, diversion
of effluents around the Madison lakes and flushing waterways with clear water
as practiced in Milwaukee and Chicago have improved local conditions„  Chemical
control of algae and large aquatic plants is effective in localized areas,
but it is only a treatment of the symptom and may cause harmful side effects*
Dredging shallow portions of lakes, although expensive, may become worthwhile.

       Artificial circulation of an entire lake is practical and is now
beginning to receive some attention as a means of improving water quality.
Continuous vertical mixing and aeration with compressed air to cause
accelerated oxidation of plant and animal deposition may provide improved
water quality in lakes already in an advanced state of enrichment.  Drawing
surplus water from the bottom of lakes during seasons when it is richer in
nutrients than the surface waters normally spilling out may benefit water
quality.  The impoundment of streams and subsequent controlled release of
water to improve quality shows considerable promise as a control method.

       A number of recommendations for coping with the problem of deterio-
rating water quality from excessive water fertilization follows.


1.  Initiate studies on sources of nitrogen and phosphorus to determine
their significance in fertilization of Wisconsin water.  Particular emphasis
should be given to municipal sewage, manure spread on frozen land, drainage
from marshes and other wetlands, urban runoff, industrial waste waters,
agricultural drainage and septic tanks.  These studies should be directed
toward determining the expected contribution from these sources in order
that better estimates can be made in specific situations.

2.  Initiate a study on the significance of detergent-based phosphorus in
the fertilization of Wisconsin surface waters.  If this study shows that
detergents represent a significant source of phosphorus, action should be
taken to minimize this source.

                                  . 3 -                                   3052

       3.  Initiate studies on methods of controlling plant nutrients from
sources that may be of significance.  Emphasis should "be placed on performance,
cost of installation and operation of nutrient removal processes from pilot
plants, demonstration, units and full scale operating systems.  Also, emphasis
should be given to methods of zoning watersheds to minimize the transport
of plant nutrient to lakes.

       k.  Initiate long-term detailed studies on the current degree and
rate of fertilization of selected lakes and rivers by nitrogen and phosphorus
as well as other growth promoting substances and factors.  Emphasis in these
studies should be directed toward gaining information on the relationships
of plant nutrient influx and the growth of excessive amounts of aquatic
plants.  Streams and lakes that are in various degrees of eutrophication
should be selected for study.  It is suggested that consideration be given
to studies on Trout and Crystal Lakes in Vilas County, Pine Lake in Chippewa
County, Big Cedar Lake in Washington County, Devils Lake in Sauk County,
Little Court Oreilles Lake in Sawyer County, Lake Minocqua in Oneida County,
Lake Delavan in Walworth County, Pewaukee Lake in Waukesha County, Bailey
Lake in Waupaca County, Lake Mendota iri Dane County, the Brule and Rock
Rivers and Black Earth Creek.  One or two lakes that have excessive amounts
of aquatic plant growth should be selected for a demonstration project in
which every feasible effort is made to reduce the amounts of plant nutrients
entering the lake.  This study would provide information on the cost of
minimizing plant nutrients from various sources and also the effect of this
action on water quality.

       5.  Initiate studies on the technology of harvesting or increasing
the harvest of surplus crops in lakes and rivers, hence removing fertility,
e.g. fish, higher aquatic plants, algae, bog and marsh plants and, possibly, .
removal of bottom sediments.

       6.  The State should initiate a program of review of potential water
quality problems in proposed public and private impoundments.

       7.  On the lakes where action is taken to reduce nutrient inflow,
studies should be initiated to determine the effect of the corrective action
on water quality.

       8.  An advisory committee consisting of representatives from state
agencies and university personnel should be formed to advise, coordinate
and guide the studies on the problems of excessive water fertilization.

       9.  A water fertilization study group should be established.  This
group should consist of senior individuals and supporting assistants
representing aquatic biology, soil chemistry, water chemistry, ground
water hydrology, sanitary engineering, political science, planning and
water law.  The primary responsibility of the group would be to investigate
lakes and rivers that are being excessively fertilized in order to determine
the sources of plant nutrients, recommend corrective action and determine
the effect of these measures.

      10.  A substantial fund should be allocated to support the investi-
gations listed above.

       11.  A need exists to keep the public informed concerning problems
and progress on excessive fertilization.  The University Extension, or
another appropriate agency, should undertake this service as a central
                             I.  THE PROBLEM

       The "Working Group on Control Techniques and Research on Water
Fertilization" has been charged with the problem of excessive fertilization
of lakes and streams.  It has been suggested that the need for removal of
nutrients should be studied to produce a proposed state policy or programs
in this field.

       There is a general consensus that excessive fertilization is a growing
problem and results in a deterioration of water quality.  Often the problem
is insidious and makes deep inroads before being detected.  Over a period of
years there may be a gradual loss in clarity, a development of color and an
increase in aquatic life with a changed ecological make-up.  These are
symptoms, yet they could be regarded as "normal" conditions too.  Weed
choked areas, the stench of decaying algae and fish, curtailment of water.
sports, losses in property values, water supply taste, odor, and filtration
problems and the change from aesthetic values to nuisances can be the
cumulative results that bring the matter to a head.

       Lakes and quiescent bodies of water appear to be more adversely
affected than flowing streams.  Fertilization is often associated with man's
activities.  A systematic approach would be to get an idea of the elements
or ingredients that make a water fertile, determine the source or sources
and find out what can be done to eliminate, restrict or ameliorate them.


       Bartsch (1961) gave examples of induced eutrophication of surface
waters made fertile by sewage and included fish ponds, Lake Zurich in
Switzerland, the Madison lakes, Connecticut's Lake Zoar and Lake Washington
at Seattle.  Bare Lake, Alaska, was deliberately fertilized (Edmbndson,:
with .025 mg/1 of POjj-P and 0.125 mg/1 of N03~N.  This was followed by a
heavy algal growth and its cloudy appearance was noted by airplane pilots.

       A report by Rudolfs and Heinemann (1938) called attention to -the
fact that the value of sewage and sludge in the promotion of plant growth
could not be attributed to their mineral nutrients only.  They stated that
practically all the experimental work was with nitrogen, phosphorus, potash
and mineral substances.  Provasoli (1961) indicated that vitamins B-^,
thiamine, and biotin and perhaps other unknown substances should not be
neglected as factors in bloom production.  Most investigations of aquatic
nutrients center about nitrogen and phosphorus.  Undoubtedly, these two
are critical but other factors are apparently involved.

       The usual nitrogens considered are those tied up in cell material
as organic nitrogen, and the inorganic forms:  Ammonia, NHq, or ammonium,
   ""; nitrite, N02"; and nitrate, NOo".  Inorganic nitrogens are considered


as readily available nutrients.  Free nitrogen gas, Ng, is generally not
available but in some cases can be significant where nitrogen fixation
organisms are involved.

       Soluble orthophosphate, POj/"3, is considered the important form
insofar as cell utilization is concerned.  This type of phosphorus is some-
times loosely referred to as soluble phosphorus or inorganic phosphorus.
However, condensed or polyphosphates , major constituents of synthetic
detergents, are soluble and inorganic but are not orthophosphates .  Total
phosphorus includes the condensed phosphates and orthophosphates as well
as that found in organic forms.

                         III.  NUTRIENT SOURCES


       Sewage is frequently cited as being a major contributor to water
fertilization.  It would be helpful to get an idea of the amounts involved
and nutrient removals that are obtainable by present treatment practices.

       A report by Rudolfs (19^7) indicates an adult ingests from 1.2 to
2.0 grams of phosphorus per day (l to 1-2/3 Ibs./year).  In adult humans, it
can be assumed that over-all the input equals the output.  In the excreta, 35
to 50 percent of the phosphorus is contained in the feces and 50 to 65 percent
is discharged in urine.  Phosphorus in the latter is present in oxidized form
as free phosphoric acid and disodium and monosodium phosphate.  An adult needs
a minimum of 0.88 grams of phosphorus per day (0.71 Ibs./year) to replace body
losses (Wirtshafter, 19^2).  Pregnant women, nursing mothers and growing children
     about 1.3 to 1.5 grams of phosphorus per day (1.05 to 1.20 Ibs./ year).
       Data presented by Keefer' (19^0 ) concerned nitrogen and phosphorus
in fresh human wastes from 100,000 persons of both sexes and varied ages
and showed an average excrement per day of 82.5 grams of feces and 96? grams
of urine .  The daily average amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus amounted to
6.63 and 0.8l grams respectively (5-3 and 0.65 Ibs./year) with 8? percent
of the nitrogen and 6^ percent of the phosphorus discharged in the urine.
The study dates back before the turn of the century.  Analytical methods
used then (Rafter, 189^) are still valid but diets may have altered the
make-up of excreta somewhat.

       Buswell (1928) compiled data from physiological chemistry texts by
Hawk and Mathews showing the nitrogen excreted by a normal adult per day.
The urine contribution amounted to 1,500 cubic centimeters containing 17-57
grams of nitrogen while there was 1.80 grams in the feces.  Following is the
amount of nitrogen in grams per day from various constituents in the urine.

          Urea         -   16.35       Hippuric Acid   -   0.05
          Great inine   -    0.37       Ammonia         -   0.53
          Uric Acid    -    0.25       Thiocyanates    -   0.02

There was no breakdown of the nitrogen compounds in the 20 grams dry weight
of feces excreted per day.  The total nitrogen excreted per day by a normal
adult is given as 19-37 grams (15-6 Ibs./year).

                                  -6 -
       In addition to excreta,  domestic wastes contain kitchen and laundry
wastes;  Also, the water supply or carriage water may contain some nutrients
initially.  Undoubtedly, comminuted household garbage adds to the nutrient
loading, but citable figures seem to be lacking.

       Data on public water supplies in Wisconsin are shown in a 1935
compilation (Bur. San. Eng., 1935).  Of the k6j public water supplies
listed 201 had nitrate-N of less than 0.1 mg/1, 89 were in the range from
0.1 to 0.5, 8k ranged from 0.6 to 2.0, Jh had concentrations from 2.1 to
5.0 and 19 had values exceeding 5 mg/1.  The arithmetic average was approxi-
mately I.e.' mg/1.  In only two cases was the nitrite-N concentration in
excess of 0.1 mg/1.  Twenty-seven of the supplies were from surface waters
and the remainder from wells and springs.  The highest nitrogen concentration
believed found in tests of Wisconsin private water supplies was 150 mg/1
of nitrate-N from a well located near a corral (Nichols, 1966).  In the
summer of 1966 a farmyard well showed a content of 100 mg/1 of nitrate-N
(Goode, 1966).  The soluble phosphorus content of 104 Wisconsin well waters
(Hensel, 193?) varied from 0.00 to 0.15 mg/1.  The majority of samples con-
tained less than 0.01 mg/1.  £l mg/1 in 100 gals./day = 0.378 grams/day or
0.304 Ibs./year!]

       Sawyer (i960) found that prior to the use of synthetic detergents,
phosphorus in sewage ranged from about 2.5 to 4 mg/1 and averaged 1.5 grams
per person per day (1.2 Ibs./year).  He also indicated that heavy duty
detergents may contain 12 to 13 percent of phosphorus.

       Industry statistics for 1963 (U. S. Bur. Census, 1966) indicate
the total production of synthetic organic detergents for household use as

                Dry Types           -  3,152,840,000 Ibs.
                Scouring Cleansers  -    508,295,000 Ibs.
                Liquids             -    127,523,000 gals.

During 1963, .the principal phosphorus compounds and the amounts used in
soap and detergent products was given as 696,19? tons of sodium tripoly-
phosphate and 109,209 tons of tetrasodium phosphate.  Figures were not
available for the 1963 use of trisodium phosphate, although in 1958 the
latter amounted to 30,776 tons.  Calculations based on the amount of
phosphorus in these compounds for the July 1963 population show that the
average per capita use in soaps and other detergents averaged 2.2 pounds
per person per year (2.73 grams/day).

       A recent report on phosphorus chemicals (Sherman, 1966) showed the
1965 production as 550,138 tons of elemental phosphorus, 56 percent of
which was used by the detergent industry.  It was stated that the amount
of phosphorus in most detergents has been increased during the past few
years.  Dividing the 6l6,000,000 pounds of phosphorus involved by the July
1, 1965 estimated United States population of 194,583,000 results in a
per capita phosphorus usage in detergents of 3.17 pounds per year.(3»9^
grams per day).

                                  - 7 -

       A graphical presentation (Carmody, 1965) shows that the United States
demand for synthetic detergents increased from about ^ billion pounds in
19^8 to k billion pounds in 1964, while the use of soap decreased from 2^
to 1 billion pounds in the same period.  Maloney (1966) demonstrated that
a common household detergent stimulated algal growth because of its sodium
triphosphate, NaPO^o* ingredient.
       About 25 municipalities in Wisconsin using ground water add poly-
phosphate to sequester iron or control corrosion.  The maximum concentration
of polyphosphate additive that will be approved for use is 10 mg/1 and dosages
are usually less than half that amount.  Based on an average water usage of
100 gallons per day and a phosphate concentration of k mg/1, it is estimated
that the carriage water contribution from this source amounts to about O.k
pounds per person per year.  At Milwaukee, ammonia or ammonium sulfate
are used to aid in disinfection of water but the concentration of nitrogen
amounts to only about 0.2 mg/1 and is negligible in the over-all sewage

       According to the report by Rudolfs (19^7), 50 to 60 percent of the
phosphorus in raw sewage is removed by settling, 75 to 80 percent by settling
and trickling filter, and 80 to 90 percent by the activated sludge process
while irrigation achieved approximately a 95 percent removal.  These values
for conventional treatment facilities are higher than presently being achieved'.

       Chicago area activated sludge type treatment plants (Hurwitz, 1965)
remove an average of 66 percent of the total phosphorus with individual
plant removals of 78, 37 and $k percent being found.  The authors indicated
that variations were probably because of the existing characteristics of the
wastes received at the plants .  Orthophosphate appeared to be more difficult
to remove than other forms of phosphorus.

       Studies on three activated sludge plants in San Antonio, Texas
(Vacker, 1966), disclosed a considerable variation in phosphate removals
from practically nothing at the "underloaded" Leon Creek plant to as much
as 96 percent in the Rilling plant, with up to 6.8 percent of phosphorus
on a dry weight basis being found in the sludge.  The apparent design
and operational considerations for maximum phosphate removals follow.

       1.  Maintain a constant BOD to solids loading rate of about 50 pounds
of BOD/100 pounds of aeration solids by controlling raw waste and return
sludge but avoiding long retention in the secondary clarifier.

       2.  Provide a relatively large amount of air, but avoid over-aeration
which would result in excessive nitrification and aerobic digestion of
solids .

       3.  Digester liquors should not be returned to the treatment system
until the phosphates are removed from the liquor.

The authors felt that the considerations were "compatible with economical
and efficient treatment for removal of BOD and suspended solids."

                                  - 8 -

       The Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Commission (Milwaukee Sew0 Comm.,,
1965) (Ernest, 1966) operates a conventional activated sludge plant for
treatment of screened sewage-  Waste sludge is dried for fertilizer and
is not digested.  Detailed plant records are available.  During 1965, the
screened sewage contained an average of 39-6 mg/1 of nitrogen and 7.7 mg/1
of phosphoruso  Effluent analyses showed that treatment removed 69»9 percent
of the nitrogen and 75.3 percent of the phosphorus.   The sludge contained
44.7 percent of the incoming nitrogen and the remaining 25.2 percent probably
represents loss to the atmosphere by denitrification and aeration.  Phosphorus
calculations agree within 5 percent when comparing the influent with effluent
plus sludge, the latter figure being slightly higher.  The treatment plant
has a split flow.  In August 1965S following completion of changing the east
section from spiral flow tube diffusors to ridge and furrow plate type
diffusors, the over-all removal of phosphorus increased to about 80 percent.
The Commission staff has been studying nutrient removals, particularly of
the phosphorus, and conducted plant-size experiments.  Detailed, full-scale
nutrient studies would be beneficial to all, and federal or state financing
of such projects should be considered.

       The Madison Metropolitan Sewerage Treatment Plant (Woodburn et alo,
1965) (Baillie, 1966) operates parallel facilities of the trickling filter
and activated sludge types to treat settled sewage„   In 19&5* 72»3 percent
of the flow was treated by activated sludge; 26.8 percent received trickling
filter type.  Sludge is digested and then air-dried.  During 1965 s the
average nitrogen concentration in the raw sewage was 29.4 mg/1 and the
discharge composite from both plants amounted to 20.9 mg/1 for an over-all
reduction of 28.9 percent.  Phosphorus determinations are not routinely
made on the raw sewage.  Following is a comparison of the effluent from
Madison's Nine-Springs Sewage Treatment Plant for a one year period in
1943-44 by Sawyer and Associates (Sawyer, 1943) and on a calendar basis
for 6 years, 1960-65s in a recent study (Wis0 Water Poll., 1966).

                       Madison's Treated Effluent

 Year         Org. N         .Inorg. K         Total P          Sol. P

1943-44        2.4             17.1             3.20            2.84
I960       4.45 - 1.30     18.63 - 2.27      9.26 - 1.17     6.91 ± .84
1961       4.87 -  .62     20.67 - 1.76     11.02 ± 1.08     7.9^ - .88
1962       6.18 -  .91     20.82 ± 2.38     11.91 ±  .9^     8.44 - .51
1963       5.75 -  .66     21.15 - 1.59      9«72 - 1.19     8.12 - .79
1964       2.95 -  .92     16.92 - 3«2l      9.07 - 1.06     7.95 - .88
1965       3.36 - 1.58.     17.53 ± 1.83      7.63 - 1.08     6.69 i .77

The above results are averages based on 24-hour composites taken about once
a. month.. Data for 1960 through 1965 include 95 percent confidence intervals
for the means „  Assuming that the standard deviation of the 1943-44 mean
values are similar to those found for the recent years, a statistical
evaluation indicates nitrogen values in 1965 were similar to those of
1943-44 but differences are noted for 1961 through 1963.  Phosphorus
results are sharply and very significantly higher than in the earlier
period but show a decrease in the past .year.  Flow in 1965 averaged about
22.48 million gallons per day (MOD) compared with 12.5 MGD in the 1943-44
period.  The sewage volume in 1965 was 5.9 percent higher than in 1964,

                                  - 9 -

and if this was caused by ground water dilution would lessen the phosphorus
discrepancy.  Other possibilities could include a change in the make-up of
domestic sewage or industrial waste contributions or in the sampling and
analysis procedures.

       Additional treatment facilities were placed into operation in September
of 1963.  The plant overload for the period from 1961 through 1963 probably
accounted for the high nitrogen.  Phosphorus increases over the earlier
period are probably due to the use of synthetic detergents, but there is
no apparent reason for last year's decrease.  Three sets of composite samples
on the plant were obtained in May of 1966.  Their averages revealed a concen-
tration of 10.5 mg/1 of total phosphorus in the raw and 7.6 mg/1 in the
effluent for an over-all reduction of 27 percent.  The soluble phosphorus
was reduced from 8.6 to 6.7 mg/1 or about 22 percent.

       Sewage from the Village of Dickeyville, Wisconsin, is treated by an
extended aeration type activated sludge system.  Waste sludge is hauled
and disposed of onto land.  Following are the results in mg/1 obtained on
three surveys.

                         9/14-15/65     9/15-16/65  >   2/16-17/66


       Raw                   340            268            454
       Final                 2.6            2.8           23.4
       % Reduction          99.2           99.0           9^.8

                      Nitrogens (Untreated Sewage)

       Organic              18.0           21. if           28.0
      .Ammonia              1*9.0           53.2             56
       Nitrite            <0.002         <0.002          <.004
       Nitrate              <0.4          <0.80              0
       Total                  67             75             84

                       Nitrogens (Treated Sewage)

       Organic               1.4           0.82            4.8
       Ammonia              0.44           0.37            3.6
       Nitrite              O.l6          0.008           0.55
       Nitrate              32.4           31.8           35.6
       Total                34.4           33.0           44.6
       % Reduction          48.7           56.0           46.9


       Total Raw            17.0           21.0           22.3
       Sol. Raw             12.0           14.0           11.0
       Total Treated        16.3           l6.5           17.0
       Sol. Treated         15.4           15.0           14.7
       % Reduction           4.1           21.4           23.8

                                 - io -
       The plant receives excellent operating attention and the loading
and flow are substantially less than the plant was designed to handle.
Per capita waste volume in this community is low,  less than 45 gallons
per day during the surveys, which helps account for the high nitrogen and
phosphorus content in the raw sewage.  The effluent is highly oxidized  as
shown by its low BOD and high nitrates.  However,  the treatment removes
only about 50 percent of the nitrogen and 20 percent of the phosphorus.
Note too that in all cases the soluble phosphorus  concentration in the
effluent was higher than that in the untreated sewage.

       Another similar extended aeration-type plant serves the Wrightstown
Sanitary District #1 to handle domestic sewage from the unincorporated
community of Greenleaf, but it is followed by a flow-through stabilization
pond.  The results for a single 24-hour survey in  April 1966 follow.

                                           Plant          Lagoon
                              Raw        Effluent         Effluent

          Nitrate - N         1.6          11.5            3.5
          Total P             9.2           4.8            2.8
          Soluble P           2.4           4.0            1.8

       Unfortunately only the nitrate portion of the nitrogen was determine^..
The plant was handling about 70 percent of its design flow during the survey
and the theoretical pond detention was 50 days. A little less than 50  percent
removal of phosphorus was achieved by the plant, but the over-all reduction
by the plant and lagoon was approximately 70 percent.

       A survey of the conventional activated sludge plant at Kimberly  in
March 1966 showed that the total phosphorus was reduced from l8.7 to 13.3
mg/1 or about 29 percent, but the treatment increased soluble phosphorus
from 3.3 to 3.7 .mg/1.  The nitrate-N concentration in the effluent was  4.3
mg/1 compared with less than 0.08 in the influent.  No further nitrogen
data was available.  This plant has sludge digestion facilities.  A survey
of a conventional activated sludge plant at an institution in May 1966
showed nitrogen concentrations of 23.3 and 17.4 mg/1 in the raw and final
for an over-all removal of 23 percent.  Total phosphorus was reduced from
3-8 to 2.4 mg/1 or 37 percent, while soluble phosphorus changed only from
1.6 to 1.4 mg/1 or a reduction of only 12.5 percent.

       The Village of Little Chute has a modified  activated sludge plant
consisting of pre-aeration, contact aeration, sludge reaeration and aerobic
sludge digestion.  A single survey indicated a reduction in nitrogen from
20.9 to 18.0 mg/1 or 16 percent and an apparent increase in total phosphorus
from 7.6 in the raw to 8.0 mg/1. in the final.  Soluble phosphorus in the
final was also higher than in the raw sewage.

       Nutrient contributions from the Woodruff Sewage Treatment Plant  were
studied beginning in about 1942.  At that time, the community had a high-
rate filter and sludge digestion facilities.  Composite samples of influent
and effluent were taken for five surveys between December 194-2 and February
1943.  The average nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations reaching the plant
then amounted to 55.3 and 4.43 mg/1, respectively, compared with 30.7 and
2.53 fflg/1 in the effluent.  Over-all reductions amounted to 44.5 percent of

                                 . n -                                    3060

the nitrogen and 43.6 percent of the phosphorus.  In May 1966 a study was
made of a high-rate filter plant treating sanitary wastes from an industrial
establishment.  Nitrogens were reduced from 39.6. to 29.9 mg/1 and the total
phosphorus decreased from 8.4 to 7.0 mg/1.  Respective reductions amounted
to 24.4 and 16.6 percent.  The soluble phosphorus increased from 4.2 to 4.8
mg/1, but the plant's BOD reduction amounted to 80 percent which is about par
for this type of facility.

       Two high.schools in southeastern Wisconsin use septic tanks and sand
filters.  Results obtained in mg/1 on composite samples in May 1966 follow.

                            New Berlin       Brookfield        New Berlin
                               5-4               5-4              5-24  '
Septic tank Effluent
  Organic N                    9-3              H.3               7.8
  Ammonia                     42. 4              25.2              44.8
  Nitrites                   <.01            < .002             <.002
  Nitrates                     .32              <.l6               < .1+
  Total N                     52.0              36.7              53.0
  Total P                      6.4               4.8               8.0
  Soluble P                    4.8               2.8               8.0
Sand Filter Effluent
  Organic N                    2.4               1.0               0.9
  Ammonia                      4.8              <.l               9.6
  Nitrites                     .34              <.01               .38
  Nitrates                    17.6              13.0'              15.2
  Total N                     25.2              14.1              25.9
  Total P                      2.2               2.4               2.4
  Soluble P                    2.2               2.2               2.0
  % N Reduction               51.5              6l.7              51.1
 •% P Reduction               65-7              54.2              70.0

The reductions are based on comparisons of septic tank effluent with the
sand filter effluent because of difficulties in sampling the raw sewage
at these locations.  However, on May 24, samples of raw sewage were obtained
at the New Berlin High School.  They revealed 54.6 and 15.6 mg/1 of organic
and ammonium nitrogen and 7.6 and 4.8 mg/1 of total and soluble phosphorus.
This would indicate the septic tank removed about 17 mg/1 of nitrogen, but
there was an apparent increase in the phosphorus of 0.4 mg/1 which could be
attributable to the inability of obtaining a representative sample.

       Ma-ckenthun and McNabb (1961) reported on a study of sewage stabilization
ponds in Wisconsin.  At Junction City, the over-all reduction for the two
lagoons operated in series was in excess of 90 percent for nitrogen and
phosphorus on three of the four composite samplings.  However, tests in
March 1959 indicated a reduction of 45.7 percent and 8.2 percent for the
nitrogen and phosphorus.  In August 1958 the Spooner lagoon showed a nitrogen
reduction of 80.7 percent and a phosphorus removal of 71'percent.  The pre-
vious December, a nitrogen reduction of 67.2 percent was achieved.  The tests
in December did not include an analysis for phosphorus.

       In 1953, the California Water Pollution Control Board reported on
water reclamation investigations (Cal. Water Poll. Bd., 1953).  A total of
eight circular spreading basins were constructed adjacent to the Lodi,
California, Sewage Treatment Plant.  The study was made with fresh water,

                                 - 12 -
final effluent and settled sewage on a Hanford fine sandy-loam with a
water table of at least 22 feet.   Ammonia-N was completely removed within
U feet.  Nitrites disappeared but nitrates increased by several hundred
percent.  Phosphates disappeared during the first foot of vertical water

       An investigation of nitrogen ground water contamination in Minnesota
(Preul, 1966) was made during the years of 1962-65 from observations at
11 waste stabilization ponds and 6 soil absorption systems.   Effluents from
septic tanks had average dissolved nitrogen concentrations of about 60 mg/1
mainly as NH^-N.  Conversion of ammonium to nitrates in soil to as much
as 40 mg/1 of N03-N were found, and, in one case, a concentration of 28
mg/1 was found at a distance of about a hundred feet.  Raw sewage discharged
to the stabilization ponds under consideration contained a dissolved nitrogen
average of 25 mg/1.  In the soil, ammonia was found to be less than 3 ng/1
within 20 feet and nitrates did not exceed 1.0 mg/1 at 150 feet.  The tie-up
of nitrogen in algal cells and anaerobic conditions on the pond bottom was
believed to lessen the travel of nitrogen in the soil.  Stabilization ponds
did not appear to present a serious threat to nitrate contamination of ground

       A study (Anon., 1966) was  summarized in the Journal of Water Pollution
Control Federation concerning irrigation of treated sewage at the Pennsylvania
State University, University Park, Pennsylvania.  Spray irrigation was used
year-around to dispose of 0.5 MGD.  It is reported that 68 to 82 percent of
the nitrogen and 98 to 99 percent of the phosphorus contained in the treated
plant effluent is filtered out in the upper 12 inches of soil.

       Santee is a residential community with a population of 13,000 located
near San Diego.  Reclaimed water (sewage) is used as a water source for a
series of 30 acres of lakes.'  These lakes are used recreationally for boating,
swimming and fishing.  Sewage is  treated by an activated sludge-type system
and a 30-day storage oxidation pond.  Pond effluent is pumped to 6 one-half
acre percolation beds underlain by impermeable material at a depth of about
10 feet.  Underground flow is collected, chlorinated and flows consecutively
to lakes 5» ^, 3 and 2.  Nutrient amounts and reductions are shown in the
following table.

                        Lake k                            Lake 3 ~~
              M(lbs./yr.)      P(lbs./yr.)      N(lbs./yr.)     P(lbs./yr.)

Inflow          2,260             hkO               690             150
Outflow           690             150               290              25
Loss               70              50                50              10
Stored          1,500             2Uo               350             115

       Shad, bass, catfish and sunfish were planted in 1961 and 1962.
Excepting the channel catfish, there are indications of successful hatches.
Eutrophicaiion is apparent.  Blooms develop, but as yet have not been
repulsive.  Two fish kills were experienced in 1965 as a result of oxygen
depletion when the predominant growths were blue-green algae.  In the deeper
regions of the pond, the sediment has formed a thick layer of sulfurous
muck (Merrill, 1966).

       Aside from land disposal facilities and Milwaukee's Jones Island
treatment plant, conventional biological sewage treatment plants in
Wisconsin are removing less than one-half of the nutrients.  Absence of
primary settling and sludge digestion at the Milwaukee plant, as well as
use of ferric chloride for sludge conditioning, may have something to do
with that plant's superior nutrient removals.  Some treatment plants doing
an excellent job of BOD removal have mineralized the bulk of the nutrients
to nitrates and orthophosphates which are readily available fertilizers.
Disturbing also is the fact that present phosphorus removals are considerably
lower than those shown in the report by Rudolfs (19^7) which means that the
doubling of the phosphorus in the raw sewage has resulted in a substantially
higher concentration in the effluent.  If population increases are also
considered, the phosphorus picture is bleak indeed.

       Another portion of the report discusses the high nutrient removals
that can be achieved on a laboratory scale and some of the problems involved.
Brief mentions have been made recently that nutrient removals of 90 percent
and better are being achieved at some treatment plants.  Authoritative
studies and papers regarding these relatively high nutrient removals are
lacking.  Particularly needed are detailed studies concerning successful
plants and the development of the more promising bench experiments to
full-scale facilities.  On a practical scale at the present time, about
the best we have to offer are land disposal facilities.

       Per capita plant construction costs decrease with increasing
treatment facility size and generally the larger facilities provide
consistently better treatment and result in economies of operation.
Metropolitan treatment works are in a more favorable position to attract
and retain good personnel.  Another portion of the report indicates that
sewage has a high phosphorus content compared to its nitrogen and carbon bio-
chemical requirements.  Inclusion of industrial wastes that have a relatively
high carbohydrate to nutrient content could be mutually advantageous .

       Private disposal systems are of the outdoor privy and the septic tank-
soil absorption types.  Use of the outdoor facility is generally confined to:
excreta disposal, while water-borne wastes treated by the other usually
include kitchen and laundry wastes.  A few of the outdoor privies have a
concrete vault, but most of the pits have earthen bottoms and sides and

there is absorption of liquid into the ground.  The outdoor system has an
advantage insofar as confining the nutrients,  but convenience as well as
sanitary and aesthetic considerations are contributing to its demise.  Soil
absorption systems, as the name implies, require a soil that will transmit
water.  Septic tank pre-treatment to remove solids and grease, suitable soil,
adequate sizing, etc., are factors that must be taken into consideration.
                            Industrial Wastes

       The-re is considerable variation in the nutrient concentrations found
in industrial wastes.  Some industrial wastes, such as those from most pulp
and paper mills, require supplementary nutrients to make them amenable to
biological treatment.  Other wastes may be high in nutrients but be unbalanced
with respect to the C-N-P ratios.  Also there may be a considerable variation
from factory to factory within an industry, depending on inplant operations
and controls.

       Typically, paper and pulping wastes are low in nutrients..  However,
two pf Wisconsin's pulp mills use the ammonium sulfite cooking process.
These wastes could represent a source of nitrogen but information on the
concentration and over-all contribution is lacking.

       A study was made by the University of Wisconsin, under contract with
the U. S. Department of Agriculture, regarding the effectiveness of spray
irrigation- for the disposal of dairy plant wastes.  A series of composite
samples were obtained of the wastes being discharged at the five factories
which were intensively studied, and the following results were reported.

         /             Nitrogen (mg/l)         Phosphorus (mg/l)
        Plant        Ave.	Range        Ave.	Range

          A                                   17.1      6.5-2?
          B          180       . 108-298       59.7       24-105
          C           43         10-111       31         12-77
          D          170         93-319      132.3       33-194
          E           58         19-110       35.2       16-62

This study indicated that under suitable conditions, spray irrigation
provided a satisfactory method of dairy waste disposal (Lawton et__al., 1960).

       Sharratt et al. (1959) found an average of 1,364 mg/l of nitrogen
and 450 ppm of phosphorus in seven Swiss and American cheese whey samples.
Their study indicated that whey could be used as a source of plant nutrients
with favorable effect on soil aggregation.  Composite samples were obtained
at two creamery plants in Wisconsin by pollution control personnel.  At a
small factory manufacturing some butter and shipping whole, skim and butter-
milk , the nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations were 6.7 and 6.0 mg/l,
respectively.  At a large plant manufacturing butter from whey cream,
producing buttermilk solids and practicing water reuse, the nitrogen and
phosphorus amounted to 114.4 and 30.5 mg/l«  Both of these factories used
irrigation disposal, and there generally was little evidence of wastes over-
flowing to a stream.

                                 - 15 -                                   3061t

       Canham (1958) made a study of spray irrigated pea canning wastes
containing comminuted solids and reported.the nutrients in pounds per acre
for a seasonal application of 7 inches of waste water.

                         Screened        Comminuted
        Nutrient          Wastes           Solids          Total

           H               12.8             7.3            20.1
           P                9.8             4.1            13.-9
           K               28.7             8.2            36.9

The total nutrients added to the land were said to be considerably greater
than what was removed from the soil by a crop of meadow fescue.  Calculations
on the above data show that the average nitrogen and phosphorus concentration
in screened pea canning wastes amounted to 8.1 and 6.2 mg/1, and if the
comminuted solids were added the respective concentrations would be 12.7
and 8.8 mg/1.

       The Oscar Mayer Company meat packing plant at Madison, Wisconsin
provides secondary treatment of their wastes before discharge either to
the Madison Metropolitan sewerage system or to the irrigation fields for
additional treatment.  Lysimeter studies were conducted over a 10-year
period from 1950 to 1959» and the nutrients in the secondary treated waste
waters averaged 36.8 mg/1 of nitrogen and 9.6 mg/1 of phosphorus.  Soil,
crop and percolate samples indicated nearly a complete removal of the
phosphorus and about 90 percent of the nitrogen.  Investigations on ^0-foot
by 40-foot plots, using Miami silt., loam and.Plainfield sand, were made over
a four-year period.  The total nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in
the effluent irrigated were 54 and 20.3 mg/lj respectively.  Percolate from
the Miami silt loam had 9.0 and 9'5 mg/1 of total nitrogen and 0.6 and 0.8
mg/1 of total phosphorus at optimum and high effluent applications.  The
effluent from the Plainfield sand plot had 73.0 and 102.5 mg/1 of total
nitrogen and 1.0 and1 1.2 mg/1 of total phosphorus.  All nitrogen in the
effluent was nitrate.  The extremely high nitrogen was believed due to
concentrating of the percolate by evaporation and transpiration and also
because of "soil disturbance" in setting up the plots (Seesing, 196l).

       Wastes from a small laundry in Soldiers Grove, Wisconsin, are treated
with alum and settled.  Purpose of treatment is to remove BOD, suspended
solids and detergents.  However, on two occasions in 1966, the concentration
of phosphorus was determined to get an idea of the removal being achieved.
Results are shown in the following table.

                          Raw                       Treated
                 Total P	Soluble P      Total P	Soluble P

                  80             6.4          12.4           0.1

                  80             5.4          14.0           0.7

The above data indicate a phosphorus removal of slightly over 80 percent.

                                 - 16 -                                   3065
       The use of nitrates for waste stabilization (Warrick, 19^5) may not
add to the nitrogen concentration in the effluent.  Nitrogen balances on
cannery lagoons treated with sodium nitrate showed a rapid breakdown of the
nitrate to gaseous nitrogen and possibly, at times, to ammonia with an
over-all loss of nitrogen.  Observations and samplings were made at a milk
receiving station (Ernest, 195*0 where waste treatment was provided by a
nitrate dosed four-compartment septic tank.  A total of 100 pounds per day
was dissolved.and uniformly added to the milk wastes resulting in an average
nitrate=N addition of about 550 mg/1.  The results obtained on composite
samples indicated the first compartment effluent contained only 0.5 mg/1
of nitrato-H, 15.2 mg/1 of nitrite-N, with the remaining 42.7 mg/1 of
nitrogen mainly in the organic form.  The fourth compartment effluent
contained little if any nitrates and nitrites, 16.8 mg/1 of ammonia-N
and 26.0 mg/1 of organic nitrogen.  A large volume of gas, probably
nitrogen, was evolved from the first two compartments„

       Aside from the irrigation studies, there is relatively little
data in depth available on the degree of nutrient removal obtained by
treatment of industrial wastes.  It is anticipated that for balanced
industrial wastes, nutrient removals would be comparable to those achieved
by similar type sewage treatment facilities.
                     Contributions from Rural Lands

       Most of the soluble nutrients which get into lakes and streams from
rural areas are first dissolved in water and then moved in solution to the
waterways.  Some nutrients may also be carried to the streams and lakes as
components of suspended particulate matter and later be' converted to soluble
forms.  Therefore, to fully grasp the problem of water fertilization from
rural lands, it is necessary to understand the factors which affect the forms
and solubilities of the nutrients and the manner in which the nutrients are
transported to the streams and lakes .  Since most of this transportation
occurs in surface runoff or in percolating water, a knowledge of the factors
affecting the relative amounts of runoff and percolate is important.

                     The Water Balance in Wisconsin

       The State of Wisconsin receives an average precipitation of about
30 inches per year,,  Part of this is intercepted by the vegetation and is
evaporated without reaching the ground.  Of that which falls /on the land,
some will run off the surface and the remainder will Infiltrate into the
soil.  Of that which infiltrates, some will be lost .by evaporation from
soil and plant surfaces (evapotranspiration) and some will 'percolate through
to the ground water.  The problem of water fertilization is concerned
primarily with the nutrients in the surface runoff which get to streams
by overland flow and nutrients in percolating waters which move slowly to
the waterways as "base flow."

       Factors Affecting Surface Runoff.  Surface runoff occurs whenever
the rate of precipitation exceeds the rate of infiltration.  There are many
factors including soil texture, slope, moisture content,  cover, etc., which
affect infiltration into a soil, but one of the most important is the physical
character of the soil surface.  If many large pores are present at the soil
surface, water will infiltrate rapidly providing there is no impervious layer

                                 - 17 -                                   3066
in the soil below.  The presence of large pores is usually associated with
either coarse-textured sandy soils or with well-aggregated fine-textured
soils.  The large pores at the surface must be maintained if continued
rapid infiltration is desired.  This may not be a problem with sandy soils,
but the maintenance of stable aggregates at 'the surface of fine-textured
soils can be difficult.

       The energy associated with the impact of falling raindrops is one
of the most important factors operating to break down the soil aggregates.
Any cover which will absorb the raindrop impact will tend to protect the
surface structure, thereby maintaining infiltration with resulting low
runoff.  Forested lands, because of their extensive surface cover, generally
show the least and agricultural soils planted to row crops the greatest
surface runoff when soil and slope conditions are otherwise equivalent.
The surface runoff that does occur from forested lands usually takes place
in the spring when the snow is melting and when some of the soil may still
be frozen.  The surface runoff from agricultural lands will usually range
from 1 to 2 inches per acre per year in southern Wisconsin, but there can
be considerable variability from year to year depending on the amount and
seasonal distribution of the precipitation and on the rainfall intensity
during the more severe storms.

       Factors Affecting Percolation of-Water.  The water which infiltrates
into the soil ultimately is evaporated or transpired, or it percolates to
the ground water.  The amount reaching the ground water depends on a number
of factors, most of them related to the conditions affecting evapotrans-
piration.  For evapotranspiration to occur there are two prerequisites,
a source of energy (vaporization of 1 gram of water requires about 580
calories) and a source of water.  The energy is derived primarily from solar
radiation.  In an average year, Madison, Wisconsin receives enough solar
radiation to evaporate about 79 inches of water.  Most of this radiant
energy, enough to evaporate about 50 inches of water, is reflected or
reradiated.   The difference or "net radiation" available for evaporation
of water or heating the air and soil amounts to enough energy to evaporate
about 29 inches of water.  This energy, plus about a 2-inch evaporation
equivalent derived from dry air masses moving in from other areas, results
in an evaporation potential of about 31 inches (Tanner, 1966).

       Evaporation from a free water surface, such as a lake, will approxi-
mately equal the evaporation potential of 31 inches.  Evapotranspiration
from land surfaces will depend on the availability of water at the surface
exposed to the radiation.  If a bare soil is moist at the surface, the actual
evaporation will approach the potential evaporation.  However, continued
evaporation requires that water be transmitted to the surface from deeper
in the soil by unsaturated flow.  Since the rate of water transfer under
unsaturated conditions slows markedly with a decrease in water content in
the soil, the rate of evaporation soon exceeds the rate of transmission to
the surface arid the surface of the soil dries out.  At this point further
movement of water to the surface is extremely slow, and evaporation practically
ceases until the soil is again wet by rain or irrigation.

       If plants are growing on the soil, the water supply available for
evapotranspiration will be larger.  Transpiration from leaf surfaces of
plants well supplied with water will approach the potential evapotranspiration,

                                 - 18 -                                   306?

and the water supply available for transpiration will include any plant-
available water within the root zone of the plants.  Thus the water available
to the plant will depend on the content of plant-available water in the soil,
the depth of the root system, the distribution of roots within the root zone,
and, of course, the replenishment of the supply by precipitation or irrigation.
How much this water supply will be depleted during the growing season will
depend on the deficit between precipitation and evapotranspiration during
that period of time.  In some cases, the plant may exhaust the available
water in the root zone, and transpiration will be markedly retarded.

       In Wisconsin, the potential evapotranspiration approximately equals
the precipitation.  However, potential evapotranspiration exceeds precipi-
tation by about 7 inches from April through August while precipitation
exceeds evapotranspiration by about 6 inches from September through March
(see Table l).

Table 1.  Average annual precipitation and potential evapotranspiration
          by month at Madison Wisconsin.

                                Potential Evapo-                  Cumulative
                 Precipitation    transpiration   Water Balance  Water Balance
Time Period         Inches      	Inches          Inches         Inches

Preceding Year   (Assume excess from September on has accumulated.)   4.0
January               1.3             0.2              1.1            5.1
February              1.1             0.5              0.6            5.7
March                 1.8             1.3              0.5            6.2
April                 2.5             2.9             -0.4            5.8
May                   3.3             4.2             -0.9            4.9
June                  4.0             5.4             -1.4            3.5
July                  3.3             5.9             -2.6            0.9
August                2.9           .  4.5             -1.6           -0.7
September             4.0             3.2              0.8            0.1
October               2.1             1.8              0.3            0.4
November              2.3             0.6              1.7            2.1
December              1.4             0.2              1.2            3.3

Annual               30.0            30.7             -0.7
April thru Aug.      16..0            22.9             *-6.9
Sept. thru March     l4.0             7.8              6.2

Thus in an average year up to 7 inches of available water would have to be
stored in the soil within reach of the plant roots in order that plants with
long growing seasons and complete ground cover would not suffer for lack of
water.  Conversely, 7 inches of water would be required to replace the moisture
deficit in the soil at the end of the growing season before any water could
percolate to the ground water.  Under the conditions of maximum evapo-
transpiration described here, there would be no water available to replenish
the ground water since the excess water accumulated from September to April
does not quite equal the growing season deficit.  It should be kept in mind
that these are average values, and that actual values, especially for
precipitation, vary .considerably from year to year.

       It is apparent from the above discussion that the proportion of
precipitation used for evapotranspiration depends on the characteristics
of the vegetation and of the soil.  Evapotranspiration is greater.

                                 - 19 -
       1.  The greater the proportion of the land covered by vegetation

       2.  The deeper the root system of the plants

       3.  The greater the proliferation of roots within the root zone

       k.  The longer the growing season of the plants

       5.  The greater the amount of water stored within the root zone
           or within the surface layer susceptible to evaporation

       6.  The greater the proportion of the rainfall coming as frequent
           small showers during the months with high potential evapo-

       Once these principles are understood, the reasons for the differences
in evapotranspiration under the different land uses shown in Table 2 are

    Table 2.  Effect of land use on evapotranspiration (Tanner, 1966).

              Type of Surface                  Evapotranspiration
             Cover or Land Use                     (in./Yr. )	

          Water                                      29-32
          Forest                                     25-30
          Alfalfa-brome                              22-26
          Corn                                       18-22
          Grain (seeded to alfalfa)                  18-22
          Bluegrass                                  15-19
          Bare soil                                  12-18
       In any given watershed the land use will be somewhat varied,  and the
average annual evapotranspiration will range somewhere between the 12 to 18
inches for bare soil and the 25 to 30 inches for forest.  In the Lake Mendota
watershed, for'instance, the available data indicate that in an average year
about 2k inches of water are lost by evapotranspiration and about 6 inches
of water finds its way to the surface waters, nearly 2 inches by surface
runoff and k inches by percolation and base flow.  Practically no water is
lost from this basin by underflow.  The ratio of surface runoff to percolation
will vary with slope, ground cover and soil type, so that these data do not
necessarily apply to other watersheds.

                Soil Chemistry of Nitrogen and Phosphorus

       The nutrients of primary concern in surface runoff or percolating
water are nitrogen and phosphorus since they appear to be limiting factors
for the growth of algae.  To understand how these nutrients get from the
land into the surface waters, it is necessary to know some of the reactions
which affect their solubility.

       Nitrogen.  Over 90 percent of the total nitrogen in soils resides
in the soil organic matter.  Microbial decomposition of the organic matter
results in the release of nitrogen in the ammonium form (NH^"*"), a process
called ammonification.  Under conditions of good aeration and favorable
temperatures different microorganisms oxidize the ammonium first to nitrite
(NOg") and then to nitrate (NOg"), a process called nitrification.  The
step from nitrite to nitrate is usually faster than from ammonium to nitrite
so that practically no nitrite accumulates.  If the content of ammonia (NH^)
in the system is high, however, nitrite may accumulate, and it is toxic to
many organisms.  If nitrate is exposed to conditions of poor aeration (reducing
condition;.:), it will be reduced to gaseous nitrogen forms and lost to the
atmosphere, a process called denitrification.

       Ammonium ions are held on the cation exchange sites in soils, so the
concentration of ammonium in the soil solution is not very high.  The nitrate
anion, on the other hand, is completely soluble in the soil solution, and
it moves with the soil water.  Therefore, nitrate is the form of nitrogen
most subject to leaching.  It is also subject to denitrification under
reducing conditions.

       Phosphorus.  About half of the phosphorus in many surface soils
exists in organic forms and half in inorganic forms.  The inorganic forms
are mainly iron and aluminum phosphates in acid soils and calcium phosphates
in alkaline soils.  All of the inorganic forms of phosphate in soils are
extremely insoluble, and any phosphorus added as fertilizer or released by
decomposition of the organic matter is quickly converted to one of these
insoluble forms.  Because of the extreme insolubility of these phosphates,
the over-all concentration of soluble phosphorus in the soil solution of
surface soils seldom exceeds 0.2 mg/1 and concentrations in the range of
0.01 to 0.1 mg/1 are common.  Phosphorus concentrations in the soil solution
of subsoil layers are usually less than 0.01 mg/1.

    Soluble Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Surface Runoff and Percolates

       The concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus in surface runoff are
considerably different from those in soil percolates.  The ammonium and
especially the nitrate forms of nitrogen are very soluble.  If these materials
are present at the surface of the soil at the beginning of a rain, the first
rain that falls will dissolve them and carry them into the soil.  If surface
runoff occurs later, there will be little soluble nitrogen left at the surface
to be carried away with the runoff.  Therefore, runoff waters usually have
very little soluble inorganic nitrogen.  In fact, the nitrate contents of
runoff waters are usually lower than the average nitrate content of rain
water.  This is due to the fact that the first rain that falls sweeps most
of the nitrate from the air and carries it into the soil.  The rain which
falls later and runs off has a lower nitrate content.

       Though runoff waters contain relatively little nitrate, this is not
necessarily true of the water which percolates through the soil.  As stated
before, nitrate is completely soluble in the soil solution and moves with
it.  If the nitrate ions manage to evade capture by the plant roots as they
move downward, they will be present in the drainage waters which move to the
lakes and streams by base flow.  Thus soil percolates generally have higher

                                  - 21 -

 contents of nitrate than do surface runoff vaters.  This  nitrate eventually
 reaches the waterways unless the water emerges  in a marsh where it may be
 absorbed by the vegetation or converted  to.gaseous  nitrogen because of
 reducing conditions.

        The relative concentrations of soluble phosphorus  in surface runoff
 and soil percolates are just the reverse of  the nitrogen  system.  Application
 of phosphorus to the surface of the soil tends  to saturate the "fixing" sites
 at the surface and locally raise the concentration  of phosphorus in the soil
 solution.  This is an equilibrium system, and although  infiltrating waters
 will carry the soluble phosphorus downward,  more will quickly dissolve to
 maintain the concentration in solution.   Runoff water will contact this
 surface soil, and the phosphorus concentration  in the runoff could conceivably
 approach the equilibrium concentration.   If  phosphorus  fertilizers were
 applied to the soil surface, the equilibrium concentration of phosphorus
 in a thin surface layer could reach 1 mg/1 or more  and  the concentration
 of phosphorus in the runoff water might  range up to 'a few tenths of a mg/1.
 This is speculative, at best, since there are no data available which pertain
 directly to this problem.  However, the  fact that soluble phosphorus concen-
 trations in surface runoff frequently approach  or exceed  the average concen-
 trations expected in the soil solution would support this contention.

        In the water which percolates through the soil,  the soluble phosphorus
 concentration is usually very low because the phosphorus  gets precipitated
 in the subsoil.  Therefore, most of the  soluble phosphorus should reach the
 waterways via surface runoff.  This contrasts with  nitrogen since most of
 the soluble inorganic nitrogen should reach  the waterways mainly by perco-
 lation and base flow.  These conclusions assume that the  soils are not frozen.
 If the soils were frozen, a relatively large proportion of all soluble nutrients
 at the soil surface would be carried away in the runoff waters.  This is
 undoubtedly the.case during the initial  stages  of the spring thaw, and is
 of special significance for nutrients in manure or  fertilizers applied on
 frozen fields.

        Effects of Suspended Material. The energy associated with the impact
 of falling raindrops tends to break down aggregates of-soil particles at
 exposed soil surfaces, and the runoff waters can then pick up the .finer
 particles and carry them downslope, possibly to a stream. When runoff
 waters are concentrated in channels, the velocity of the  water, and thus
 its erosive power, is increased and deep gullies may be formed. Much of
 the finer material eroded from a gully,  mainly  subsoil  material, may end
 up in a stream.  During periods of high  flow, the streams themselves erode
 their banks and carry some of the eroded material downstream in suspension.
-Suspended materials, whatever their source,  undoubtedly affect the nutrient
 status-of the water, however, there are  no data available to estimate the
 magnitude of their effect.  Therefore, the following discussion is based
 mainly on theoretical arguments.

        Nitrogen in.suspended particles is present mainly  in the organic
 form.  Some of these particles will sediment out when the water velocity
 decreases, to be covered later by other  sediments so that they do not
 contribute significantly to the soluble  nitrogen supply.  Other organic
 particles may be attacked by microorganisms  with the nitrogen being converted
 to soluble inorganic forms in the decomposition process.  Fresh organic

                                 - 22 -                                    3071
materials are quite readily decomposed by microorganisms, but humified soil
organic matter is quite resistant.   Thus, the contribution of the suspended
organic matter to the soluble nitrogen content will depend on the nature of
the organic materials.

       Phosphorus in suspended particles is present in both organic and
inorganic forms.  The organic forms would undergo the same reactions as
nitrogen.  However, the inorganic forms present a more complex system.
The phosphorus bonded to iron, aluminum or calcium in the mineral
particles tends to equilibrate with the phosphorus in solution.  If the
particles come from a surface soil high in phosphorus, they will tend to
support a relatively high concentration of phosphorus in solution.  If,
on the other hand, the particles come from a subsoil low in phosphorus,
they will support a low concentration of phosphorus in solution.  In fact,
if subsoil particles were introduced into a stream containing a moderate
or high concentration of soluble phosphorus, they would adsorb phosphorus
from the water thereby lowering the phosphorus concentration in solution.
Since much of the sediment in streams during high flow is frequently derived
from stream bank erosion, the phosphorus status of the sediments in the
stream beds and stream banks may well be an important factor affecting the
concentration of soluble phosphorus in the water during periods of high flow.

       Since algae problems are found primarily in still waters where
suspended materials have largely settled out, the contribution of eroded
particulate matter to the nutrition of the algae is probably associated
with its effects on the concentrations of soluble nitrogen and phosphorus
in the incoming waters and not with the total or "extractable" amounts of
nitrogen and phosphorus in the particles themselves.

          Nitrogen and Phosphorus Sources in Agricultural Soils

       Fertilizers are frequently thought to be the major sources of plant
nutrients and, therefore, the major contributors to water fertilization in
Wisconsin.  This is not the case.  According to State Department of Agriculture
figures (Braatz, 19&5), fertilizers sold in Wisconsin during the 196*1-65
season contained approximately 50,000 tons of nitrogen and 40,000 tons of
phosphorus.  If a cropland acreage of 10,000,000 acres is assumed, this
would amount to an average of about 10 pounds of nitrogen and 8 pounds of
phosphorus applied per cropland acre.  If potential nutrient contributions
from legumes, animal manure, rainfall and decomposition of soil organic
matter are taken into account, the relative contributions shown in Table 3
are obtained.

    Table 3.  Sources and estimated amounts of available nitrogen and
              phosphorus in cultivated soils in Wisconsin.

                                     Nitrogen           Phosphorus
       Source                         Lbs./A.             Lbs./A.

       Fertilizer                        10                   8
       Legumes                           12
       Precipitation                      8
       0. M. Decomposition               ij-5                   5
       Manure                            k2                  12

         Total                          117                  25

                                 - 23 -

       The estimates for the contribution of legumes are "based on fixation
of kO pounds of excess nitrogen per acre per year on 3,000,000 acres.  The
precipitation data are taken from Shah (1962).  Nitrogen and phosphorus
release from soil organic matter is based on an average soil with 3 percent
organic matter, the organic matter containing 5 percent nitrogen and 0.5
percent phosphorus and decomposing at a rate of 1^ percent per year
(Woodruff, 19^9).  Manure estimates are based on 4,000,000 animal units
at 15 tons of manure per animal unit per year and a manure composition of
0.5 percent nitrogen and 0.1 percent phosphorus.  A 30 percent loss of
nitrogen due to volatilization during handling and storage is assumed.

       These average figures can be somewhat misleading as most of the
manure and fertilizer nitrogen will be applied on about 2,700,000 acres
of corn and vegetable crops, and some of the manure will be dropped on
permanent pasture land.  However, the average figure can be used to judge
the probable relative importance of the various nutrient sources.  The
fertilizer contributes only about 9 percent of the nitrogen and 32 percent
cf the phosphorus which becomes available to the plant.  Manure, on the
other hand, contributes about 36 percent of the nitrogen and k8 percent
of the phosphorus.  It is obvious that the manure is a much greater factor
in total nutrients applied than is commercial fertilizer.  This is of
special concern since much of this manure may be applied on frozen ground
during the winter months so that it can contribute significant quantities
of soluble nitrogen and phosphorus to the spring runoff waters.

             Estimates of Soluble Nitrogen and Phosphorus in
             	Surface Runoff from Rural Lands	 .

       There have been very few studies in which the contents of soluble
nitrogen and posphorus were measured in surface runoff waters of Wisconsin.
Therefore, there is always the danger of overinterpreting or misinterpreting
the little information that is available.  Estimates of soluble nitrogen and
phosphorus in surface runoff have been .made for the Lake Mendota watershed
(Nutrient Sources Subcommittee, 1966) on the basis of runoff experiments
conducted near Madison plus information obtained from Vermont and other
states.  These estimates are probably the best that are presently available,
and they should be applicable to much of the agricultural region of south
central Wisconsin.  They would be less representative of other areas in the
state, since the farming practices and the ratio of surface runoff to percolate
will vary.  However, they do serve to point out the major contributors of
nutrients.  For this reason, the sources of data and the basis for the estimates
are given in considerable detail.  It should be pointed out also that these
estimates are only "best guesses" and may be in error by a factor of 2 or
even more.  Also, these data represent "average" conditions, and quantity and
composition of both runoff and percolate can vary widely from year to year.

       Characteristics of the Lake Mendota Watershed.  The watershed of Lake
Mendota is occupied by relatively permeable, calcareous, loamy glacial
deposits with a significant covering of loess.  Most soils have developed
in this loess, but some soil development has occurred in the glacial till
immediately below the loess.  Many of the soils developed under prairie
vegetation and have an A horizon which is 8 to 16 inches thick and relatively
high in humus.  Most of the watershed has gentle, slopes.  There are many small

undrained depressions in the uplands and. several large wetlands which contain
organic soils.                                        :

       The following table gives estimates of the acreage devoted to various
land uses in the Lake Mendota watershed.  These acreage figures were derived
from data from the Wisconsin Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Blueprint
for Growth (1961) by the Dane County Citizen's Planning Committee, and from
U. S. Geological Survey quadrangle maps.

            Table 4.  Land Use in the Lake Mendota Watershed.

Land Use                        Acres                     "jo of Watershed

Cropland*                      103,500                         73
  Corn and Row Crops*                  (51,000)                   (36)
  Oats*                                (18,500)                   (13)
  Hay and Pasture*                     (34,000)                   (24)
Woodland**                      10,000                          7
Pasture and Other*              11,400                          8
Major Wetland**                  7,100                          5
Urban**                         10,000                          7

  Total                        142,000                        100

       *Estimated from cropland uses in Dane County reported by
        Wisconsin Crop and Livestock Reporting Service and Blueprint
        for Growth by Dane County Citizens Planning Committee.

      •**Estimated from U.S.G.S. quadrangle maps.

       The following table summarizes the estimates made .of the nitrogen
and phosphorus contents of the surface runoff from cropland, woodland,
manured land and wetland in the Lake Mendota watershed.  The methods and
source materials used in obtaining the estimates are described in the
sections following the table.                              j

    Table 5.  Estimates of Soluble Nitrogen and Phosphorus Contained
              in Runoff Waters in the Lake Mendota Watershed.

                             Nitrogen Lost	       Phosphorus Lost	
Land Use               Lbs./A.   Lbs./Watershed   Lbs./A.   Lbs./Watershed

Cropland and Pasture^/   0.06         6,900        0.04           5,400
Woodland2/               0.03           300        0,003             30
WetlandS/   '.             -              -           -
Manured Lantfy           3           45,000        1             15,000

  Total                              52,200                      20,430

I/  Derived from data of Eck, Jackson and Bay, Annual Report, A.E.S. project
~/.  791 (Phase 5), 1957.
2/  Concentrations taken from Sylvester, R. 0. (i960) as quoted in "Limnological
    Aspects of Recreational Lakes," Public Health Service Publication 1167.
    No data on which to base an estimate.
    Figures for Lbs./A. from Midgley and Dunklee, Bui. 523, Agricultural
    Experiment Station, University of Vermont, 1945.

                    Runoff From Cropland and Pasture

       The estimates of the nitrogen and phosphorus contents in the surface
runoff from cropland and pasture are based on the data of Eck, Jackson and
Bay (1957) which were obtained from a Miami silt loam with a 10 percent
slope.  Although Eck et al. (l957) report values for total nitrogen and
pH 3 extractable phosphorus as well as water soluble phosphorus and
nitrate nitrogen, only the water soluble forms are considered in these
calculations.  The total nitrogen and pH 3 extractable phosphorus should
be associated almost exclusively with suspended particulate material, most
of which would undoubtedly sediment out before reaching the lake.  The
values for nitrate losses per acre are considerably lower than those of
Eck et al.  Their values for concentration in the runoff were used and
2 inches of runoff per year was assumed.  The values which they report would
have required a runoff of almost 9 inches per year.  The values given are
for an intensive three-year corn-oats-hay rotation and the "permahe,ht
pasture and other" category was included with the cropland.

                          Runoff From Woodland

       No data could be found on the nutrient content of surface runoff
from local wooded areas, so this was estimated from the nitrogen and
phosphorus contents in streams flowing from wooded areas (Sylvester, I960).
These are very rough estimates, at best, because it is impossible to estimate
the relative contributions of surface runoff and base flow.
                        Runoff From Manured Land

       The use of manure on frozen land can result in relatively large
losses of nutrients in runoff waters.  Since spring meltwaters cannot
enter the frozen soil, they run off carrying with them the soluble
constituents of the manure.  The common practice of spreading manure
daily means that it is spread on frozen soil about- five months during
the year.  The calculation of nitrogen and phosphorus losses from manured
land required estimates of the manure applied and the amount of loss from
a given application.  The Wisconsin Crop and Livestock Reporting Service
report that there are approximately j6 dairy cows per square mile in Dane
County.  Since the Lake Mendota watershed has a higher than average
percentage of cropland than the rest of Dane County, a density of 100
cows per square mile was 'assumed.  This amounts to approximately 20,000
cows in the watershed.  If each cow produces 15 tons of manure per year
and one-half of that manure is applied during the months of November through
March, about 150,000 tons will be applied on frozen ground.  This is
undoubtedly a high estimate if only manure production by dairy cows is
considered, but this will be augmented by manure produced by steers, hogs,
chickens and young stock.  If this amount of manure were applied at a
normal 10-ton per acre rate, it would cover 15,000 acres.  The data of
MLdgley and Dunklee (19^5) indicate that about 3 pounds of nitrogen and
1 pound of phosphorus were lost from a 10-ton per acre application of manure
on an 8 percent slope in Vermont when the ground was frozen.  It should be
emphasized that these figures may be high.  Although Midgley and Dunklee
did not state the forms of nitrogen and phosphorus determined, one gets

                                 - 36 -                                   3°75
the impression from reading the paper that it was total nitrogen and phosphorus,
If this were the case, some of the particulate material would undoubtedly
settle out'before reaching a stream, resulting in lower amounts actually
reaching the lake.  Also, they applied all of the manure on snow covered
land in December and January which would afford maximum chance for losses
to occur.
                          Runoff From Marshlands

       One would suspect that runoff from marshland might,  under the right
circumstances , make a very significant contribution to the  nutrient content
of lakes and streams.  However,  little data could be found  that would suggest
even the order of magnitude of this contribution.  Theoretically, the potential
release of nutrients, especially nitrogen, would be large but extremely
variable depending on conditions of weather and drainage.  Drained marshes
offer ideal conditions for production of nitrates through aerobic decompo-
sition of the organic matter.  The amount of this nitrate reaching the lake
would depend on the total amount produced, absorption by plants, and amount
and distribution of rainfall.

       Undrained marshes, on the other hand, present a very complex picture.
If the summer and fall periods were relatively dry so that  the water table
receded, the rate of nitrate production would probably exceed the rate of
absorption by plants.  Thus nitrates might accumulate and be flushed out
with the spring runoff.  However, if the fall season were wet so that
saturated conditions prevailed in the marsh, and if the temperature were
high enough during this time to support a moderate rate of  microbiological
activity, any nitrates present would probably be denitrified under the
resulting reducing conditions and the spring runoff would contain little
nitrate.  This does not necessarily mean that the total mineral nitrogen
content would be low because ammonification reactions can proceed under
anaerobic conditions so that the NHV* content might be significant.
       The data of Mackenthun (1962), which include data from Sawyer, Lackey
and Lenz (19^5), indicate that marshland may have contributed to the much
higher inorganic nitrogen content in Door Creek than in other streams with
less marshland, but it is impossible to estimate the relative contribution
of the undrained marshland with any degree of accuracy.  Sawyer et al.
found that the Picnic Point pump furnished 8.7 percent of the inorganic
nitrogen entering Lake Mendota from stream flow, although it contributed
only 1.7 percent of the flow.  The water from this source was drainage water
from the University marsh 'which gives an idea of the potential nitrogen
contribution from drained marshes .

       The analytical information available did not seem adequate for making
even rough estimates of the nutrient contribution of marshlands and so no
estimates are included.  Most of the analytical data encountered were for
grab samples which were not taken throughout the period of peak spring runoff
from marshy areas, and which included undeterminable contributions from
agricultural lands, base flow and possibly sewage effluent.

                              Ground Water

       Precipitation that enters the soil and is not evaporated or transpired
becomes part of the ground water.  This later may re-appear at springs to feed
lakes and streams maintaining base levels and flows or be pumped out of wells.
The average nutrient concentrations of 0.01 mg/1 of phosphorus and 1.2 mg/1
of nitrogen from orthophosphates and nitrates found in Wisconsin water supplies
should be comparable to the average levels found in ground waters.  The move-
ment of water through the soil is slow.  It will probably be years before
the impact of present nitrogen applications in fertilizers and wastes show
up as nitrates in our surface waters.

       Ground water flows are highly variable depending on areal physical
characteristics as well as precipitation.  Stahl (19&5) cited a 70 percent
ground water contribution to total flow for the La Crosse River above West
Salem compared to 15 percent in the total runoff of the Black River near
Neillsville.  Based on an annual 30 inches of precipitation, the estimated
combined ground water outflow plus well pumpage for the state as a whole
is approximately 3-^ inches (Wis. Geol. Sur., 1966).  Use of these figures
for any year or specific area could result in a large discrepancy.

       There is little information on the effect of current agricultural
and land disposal practices on the nitrate content of the ground water.
Therefore, there is a need for studies involving:

       1.  Factors affecting the movement of nitrate to the ground water.

       2.  Rate of movement and flow patterns of nitrates in ground water.

       3.  The importance of denitrification reactions.

       U.  Concentrations of nitrates in emerging ground water.

A logical starting point for such a study would be the sandy section of
central Wisconsin which is currently undergoing rapid development for the
growing of vegetable crops.  The combination of sandy soils, high nitrogen
additions and supplemental irrigation make this a potential problem area
as far as nitrates in ground waters are concerned.  A cooperative study
involving the four points listed above would seem very desirable.

               Conclusions on Rural Nutrient Contributions

       Wisconsin receives an average of about 30 inches of precipitation
per year.  Of this, approximately 2k inches are lost by evapotranspiration
and about 6 inches reaches surface waterways by a combination of surface .
runoff and base flow of water which has percolated through the soil.  The
ratio of surface runoff to base flow varies with soil type, slope, management
and surface cover, but an average figure of about 1 to 2 inches for surface
runoff and k to 5 inches for base flow would probably be close.

       The plant nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus, which are of concern
in surface waters because of their role in the growth of algae, are found
in both surface runoff and percolate.  However, the distribution of both

                                 . 28 .                                    3077
these nutrients "between surface runoff and percolate depends on the chemical
reactions which these elements undergo in soils.  The inorganic forms of
nitrogen, especially the nitrate form, are very soluble and move into and
through the soil with the water.  Therefore, more inorganic nitrogen appears
in the percolate than in the surface runoff.  Phosphates, on the other hand,
form very insoluble precipitates with iron, aluminum and calcium compounds
in the soil so that very little appears in the percolate.  Since surface
applied phosphates tend to remain near the surface and maintain a high
equilibrium phosphate concentration in the surface soil solution, the surface
runoff cortains considerably higher concentrations of phosphorus than does
the percolate.  If soluble forms of either nitrogen or phosphorus are applied
on frozen soil, the surface runoff waters will contain relatively high amounts
of both nutrients until the soil thaws.

       The major potential source of nitrogen and phosphorus in surface
runoff from rural lands would appear to be manure applied on frozen soil.
Any commercial fertilizer containing nitrogen and/or phosphorus applied on
frozen soil would also be a factor, but relatively little is applied in this
manner.  Commercial fertilizer or manure applied when the soil is not frozen
would not seem to be a heavy contributor to nutrients in streams and lakes.
The greatest contribution in this category would probably be from phosphate
fertilizers top-dressed on hay lands.  Contributions of nitrogen and phosphorus
from wetlands are difficult to estimate, but there is no question but what
drainage waters from drained marshes will be relatively high in soluble
nitrogen.  Sources and amounts of nitrogen in soil percolates and the fate
of this nitrogen need further investigation, but the Lake Mendota study
suggests that this is an extremely important source.

                              Urban Runoff

       As part of the Madison lakes survey, Sawyer & Associates (19^-3)
studied storm water drainage to Lake Monona.  They estimated that the storm
water volume average did not exceed 10 cubic feet per second.  Representative
samples showed mean nitrogen values of the following:  Ammonia, 0.28; organic,
1.30; nitrite, 0.02; and nitrate, O.lU ppm.  Mean total and soluble phosphorus
amounted to 0.?8 and 0.22 mg/1.  The latter is about 10 times that of a normal
stream water, while the nitrogen content is similar.  High concentrations
of soluble phosphorus in November 19^2 were believed due to the burning of
leaves in the streets.

       Sylvester (1961) reported on a 1959 Seattle study.  A mean total
Kjeldahl nitrogen (ammonia and organic nitrogen) concentration in urban
street drainage of 2.$k mg/1 with 0.53 mg/1 of nitrate nitrogen was found.
The mean total and soluble phosphorus concentrations were 0.208 and 0.076
mg/1.  Runoff from a major highway had the highest nitrogen values.
Arterial streets contained the most soluble phosphorus and residential
streets the highest total phosphorus concentration.  The samples were
obtained from the street gutters and generally excluded roof drainage.
As expected, highest nutrient concentrations were found in the earlier
periods of runoff.

       A Cincinnati study of 1962-63 covering a 27-acre residential-light
commercial area with separate storm sewers was reported by Weibel et al.

                                 - 29 -                                   3078

The mean nutrient concentrations found in mg/1 follow:  Nitrite-N, 0.05;
nitrate-N, O.U; ammonia-N, 0.6; organic-N, 1.7; and soluble phosphorus,
0.26.  The total nitrogen is equivalent to 8.9 pounds/acre/year and the
soluble phosphorus 0.82 pounds/acre/year.  Here too, there was a decrease
in nutrient concentration with time after start of runoff.

       The mean soluble phosphorus in the Madison and Cincinnati studies
are similar - 0.22 compared to 0.26 mg/1, but the Seattle value is only
about one-third as much.  Weather Bureau data shows the average precipitation
for a 30-year period, 1931-60, for the cities as follows:  Seattle, 38.9*4-
inches; Madison, 30.16 inches; and Cincinnati, 38.02 inches.  The Cincinnati
nutrient data is the most recent and for a residential-light commercial
section, while the Seattle study generally did not include roof drainage.
It is believed that the Cincinnati values of 8.9 and 0.82 pounds/acre/year
of total nitrogen and soluble phosphorus would be similar to current runoff
from urban areas in Wisconsin.  The total phosphorus, which was missing from
the Cincinnati data, would be about 2.5 pounds/acre/year by applying the
phosphorus ratios found for the other two cities.

       Of the state's 36,1^7,760 acres the urban acreage amounts to 377,200
acres or about 1 percent of the total.  Urban land is that within the
corporate i-inrit.fi of all sections with populations of 5>000 and over.  If
we include incorporated communities of less than 5>000, the urban acreage
would be increased by 292,100 acres to 669>300 acres (Wis. Dept. Res. Dev.,
1963).  Wisconsin's average rainfall amounts to 30 inches annually.  Of this,
20 inches is evaporated and transpired and the remaining 10 inches eventually
flows out of the state (Wirth, 1959)-  Urban areas, because of their roofs
and pavements, have larger amounts of direct runoff .and less evapotranspira-
tion to the atmosphere and seepage into the soil.  As rough estimates for
urban areas in Wisconsin, the evaporation and transpiration would be in the
vicinity of 15 inches, the water seeping into the ground would account for
probably 3 inches and direct runoff about 12 inches.

       Included in the Cincinnati study (Weibel, 196^) is a figure for the
dustfall at an air pollution station in the test area.  This amounted to
506 pounds/acre/year as compared to 730 pounds/acre/year of suspended solids
in storm runoff during the same time.  There was no breakdown concerning
make-up of the dustfall.

       Subsources of nutrients in urban areas are not well defined.  It
might be expected that smoke and industrial emissions account for a large
share of the nutrients.  The automobile, pets and urban lawn fertilization
practices are suspects, too.

       The pall that overhangs our urban areas is fairly well documented,
but its nutrient make-up leaves much to be desired.  The suspended particulate
matter in urban U. S. atmospheres, based on 22,500 air samples at 232 stations,
averaged 115 micrograms per cubic meter of air for the 1957-63 period (u. S.
Bur. Census, 1965).  The concentration increased progressively with population
size from 80 in the 10,000 to 25,000 population centers to 182 micrograms
per cubic meter in sections of 3-million and more inhabitants.  The arithmetic
average in 8 non-urban areas in the U. S. amounted to 36 micrograms per cubic
meter.  Included in the gaseous air pollution level data were averages for

                                -30-                                     3°79

six large U. S. cities.  Nitric oxide averages ranged from 0.03 ppm in
Washington, D. C. to 0.10 ppm in Chicago, while nitrogen dioxide varied
from 0.03 ppm in Cincinnati and St. Louis to 0.06 ppm in San Francisco.

       Most of the airborne nutrients are of terrestrial origin and grounding
them by precipitation and fallout only represents a redistribution over the
land.  Runoff from land areas may include some of this nutrient matter.


       Precipitation helps flush out dust and certain gases from the
atmosphere.  A limited amount of data is available on the amount of
nitrogen in precipitation but there is virtually no information available
on its phosphorus content.

       During June 1963, in conjunction with a fallout measurement for
radioactivity, rainfall was analyzed for nitrate-N- on three occasions and
showed concentrations of O.U2 to 0.55 mg/1.  A single analysis revealed
2.3 mg/1 of ammonia-N, 0.026 mg/1 of nitrite-N and 0.03 mg/1 of soluble
phosphorus.  The samples were collected atop the Laboratory of Hygiene
building in Madison.

       Carroll (1962) cites 1958 data, after Junge and Werby, for 18 stations
in conterminous U. S.  The nit rate-N varied from O.l6 to 1.05 and averaged
0.52 mg/1, while the ammonia-N values ranged from 0.0k to 1.7 and averaged
0.3^ mg/1.  Average precipitation in the U. S., and also in Wisconsin, is
approximately 30 inches annually.  Using the latter figure and the 0.86 mg/1
of inorganic nitrogen, one arrives at a precipitation contribution of 5.8

       Thunderstorm activity has been credited with contributing about one-
half pound of nitrogen from nitrites and nitrates and precipitation with
flushing out an additional two to six pounds of nitrogen per acre annually
(Allison, 1957).  Larson and Hettick (1956) noted that the sulfate con-
centration was usually about double the combined nitrate plus ammonia and
felt that the nitrogen contribution by lightning was insignificant compared
to that of fossil fuels.  Shah (1962) shows nitrogen-in precipitation at
six Wisconsin stations for the years 1958 and 1959 - four of the stations
were the same both years.  The average precipitation at the 1958 stations
amounted to 21.1 inches and the nitrogen contribution amounted to ^.l pounds
per acre.  Only nitrates were determined in the fall quarter of 1958 and,
therefore, these value's would be low.  In sharp contrast, the 1959 rainfall
averaged 38.1 inches at the stations and the average nitrogen amounted to
13.6 pounds per acre.

       Nutrients from the atmosphere may fall directly into surface waters.
.Wisconsin's water area within the state amounts to 1,136,920 acres or 3.1
percent of the total (Wis. Dept. Res. Dev., 1963).  Analysis of precipitation
includes part of the direct nutrient contribution to surface waters, but
fallout of particulate matter not downed by precipitation would represent
an additional contribution.


       Studies of duck farm waste were reported by Sanderson (1953) in 1953-
KLs data showed that the average daily contribution for 1,000 ducks amounted
to 5.7 and 7.6 pounds of total nitrogen and phosphate respectively, while the

                                 - 31 -                                    3080

soluble phosphate amounted to 3.6 pounds.  These values are equivalent to
2.08 pounds of nitrogen, 0.90 pound of total phosphorus and 0.^3 pound
of soluble phosphorus per duck per year.  The total nitrogen was said to
vary little, but the total phosphate ranged from 4.7 to 10.5 pounds each
day per 1,000 ducks.  However, the ratio of soluble to insoluble phosphate
was relatively constant.  Phosphate fluctuations probably were due to the
make-up of the food.  Pilot plant treatment of the wastes by an Imhoff tank
had an undesirable effect in that it increased the soluble phosphorus over
that found in the raw.

       Mackenthun et al. (196^) reported that Paloumpis and Starrett used
a factor of 0.5 applied to the previous figures to allow for diet differences
of wild ducks.  For the latter on an Illinois lake, they arrived at an annual
contribution of .12.8 pounds of nitrogen and 5.6 pounds of phosphorus per acre.

       Wild ducks tend to feed in the water and may not contribute additional.
nutrients.  However, their excreta contains considerably more inorganic nitrogen
and phosphorus than their food, making nutrients more readily available for' new
aquatic growth than if the usual decay and subsequent nutrient release took
place.  Geese are apt to feed on land and bring additional nutrients into the
water.  Migratory waterfowl may be in the state only a relatively short time.
It is anticipated that where high waterfowl populations, supplemental feeding,
year-around open waters, domestic duck farms, etc., are involved, localized
problems could occur but state-wise the nutrient contribution from waterfowl
is probably not significant.

                            Chemical Deicers

       A non-corrosive mixture for the chemical removal of ice and snow at
airports has been patented.  Its composition according to the patent indicates
22 to 29 percent urea, 71 to 78 percent ammonium nitrate and up to 2 percent
of various sodium phosphates.  Another formulation for runway deicing consists
of 75 percent tripotassium phosphate and 25 percent formamide.  The potential
market for runway deicers is estimated in tens of millions of pounds per year
(Anon., 1965).

       During the winter of 196^-65 a total 160,000 tons of chlorides were
applied to Wisconsin state trunk highways for deicing (Schraufnagel, 1965).
The sodium and calcium in the runoff probably does not have an adverse effect
on water quality.  However, sodium hexametaphosphate, which is marketed as
an additive to prevent corrosion, could provide a source of phosphorus and
add to aquatic fertility.  The chloride runoff study indicated little usage
of the phosphate additive in Wisconsin.  An inquiry was made at Truax Field
concerning their practices.  Chlorides, because of their corrosiveness, are
used sparingly and no use is made of the other mentioned airport deicers.,
The chlorides as applied are usually mixed with sand.

       During the past few winters, an increasing number of stores have been
noted handling chemical deicers.  These are generally packaged in small
plastic bags and are being promoted for use on sidewalks and driveways.
Typically, the deicer formulation is not indicated.  The majority probably
are calcium chloride and one is s.odium chloride, but some of them are ammonium
sulfate, others are ammonium nitrate and one contains potassium pyrophosphate
plus formamide.  Warnings concerning damage to concrete surfaces by the fore-
mentioned ammonium compounds have been issued by the Portland Cement Associ-
ation and others (McCord, 1966) (Lerch, 1962) (Anon., MLlw. Jour., 1966).
The extent of their use was not determined; however, with the increasing number

                                 . 32 -                                   3081

of retail outlets marketing deicers,  this source of inorganic nutrients could
become significant in a short time.  Ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate
contain 35 percent and 21 percent, respectively, of inorganic nitrogen.

                   Nitrogen Fixation in Surface Waters

       Although the earth's atmosphere is predominately nitrogen, the gas
is generally not an available nutrient.  However, some strains of blue-green
algae and certain groups of photosynthetic bacteria have the ability to
utilize atmospheric nitrogen and incorporate it into living cell material.

       In "Report on Nutrient Sources of Lake Mendota" (Nutrient Sources
Comm., 1966), test results by Goering (1963) were used in arriving at the
nitrogen contributed by nitrogen fixation.  A conservative estimate of 80,000
pounds of nitrogen per year were attributed to nitrogen fixation.  This is
equivalent to a little over eight pounds/acre/year.  The value obtained is
admittedly a r«ugh estimate based on Lake Mendota data.  Its applicability
to other lakes is questionable.

       Sawyer and Ferulla (1961) indicated that nitrogen fixation was greatest
in lakes receiving fertilization from sewage or farm drainage and implicated
phosphorus as the key element in nitrogen fixation.  This suggests a snow-
balling effect if phosphorus is available.

                            Bottom Sediments

       Only brief mention will be made of bottom sediments, since they
usually do not involve new fertility sources but rather make nutrients
available for use and reuse.

       Bottom sediments, including runoff particulate matter, waste sludges,
decaying aquatic residues, etc., contain nutrients which are generally hot
readily available but are tied up organically or chemically.  Their availa-
bility is complex and affected by such things as depth, area, benthic
organisms, temperature, water chemistry and turnover.

       Potentially, bottom sediments can represent a long-term nutrient
reservoir.  This and nutrient cycling can help explain why once a body of:
water becomes fertile it can remain adversely affected for a long period
even though the primary nutrient sources have been eliminated.

                           Nutrient Estimates

       In order to better appraise the significance of the various sources,
the following crude state-wide estimates of nutrient contributions are shown:

       1.  Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant Discharges

           a.  Domestic Sewage.  In I960 these facilities served 67-5 percent
of the state's population.  It is estimated they now serve 68.5 percent of
the state's population or 2,860,000 persons.  Per capita, it is assumed that
the annual contributions amount to 10 pounds of nitrogen and 3-5 pounds of
phosphorus and that an over-all reduction of ko percent is achieved by
                      Nitrogen   = 17,200,000 Ibs.
                      Phosphorus =  6,000,000 Ibs.

                                 - 33 -                                  3°82
           b.  Milk Wastes Tributary to Municipal Facilities,  Consider
that about 7 of the 17-billion pounds of milk are processed by factories
that utilize municipal treatment facilities.  Assume an over-ail milk loss
of 2 percent containing 0.096 percent phosphorus and 0.6 percent nitrogen.
Add 50 percent to phosphorus for cleaning compounds.

                       Nitrogen   =   500,000 Ibs.
                       Phosphorus =   126,000 Ibs.

           c.  Meat Packing.  Consider that the secondary treatment plant
effluent irom one large meat packer for which data is available as being
indicative of one-fourth of the meat packing nutrients discharged after

                       Nitrogen   = 1,3^0,000 Ibs.
                       Phosphorus =   350,000 Ibs.

           d.  Canning, Laundry, Tanning and Other Wastes.  (Not separately
tabulated.)  Estimated total discharge from municipal treatment plants,
items a through d.

                       Nitrogen   = 20,000,000 Ibs.
                       Phosphorus =  7,000,000 Ibs.

       2.  Private Sewage Systems

           Approximately 1,317,000 of Wisconsin's resident population use
private sewage disposal systems.  Summer homes and accommodations for
out-of-state tourists could boost the over-all equivalent use of private
systems to about 1,600,000 people.  Discharge of septic tank treated sewage
into surface waters is prohibited, but violations do occur.  Soil can remove
virtually all of the phosphorus but nitrogen removals are variable.  Use
the same over-all nutrient figures as for those connected to public sewerage
facilities and estimate that 5 percent of the phosphorus and 30 percent of
the nitrogen eventually gets into the surface waters.

                       Nitrogen   = 4,800,000 Ibs*
                       Phosphorus =   280,000 Ibs.

       3.  Industrial Wastes

           Aside from the pulp and paper mills which discharge relatively
low nutrient wastes, most of the other factories handling organic materials
and not connected to municipal facilities use land disposal systems.  Their
over-all contribution is estimated as approximately 1,500,000 pounds of
nitrogen and 100,000 pounds of phosphorus.

       k.  Rural

           a.  Manured Lands.  Estimate 2,700,000 acres and a runoff loss
of 3 pounds of soluble nitrogen and 1 pound of soluble phosphorus per acre.

                       Nitrogen   = 8,110,000 Ibs.
                       Phosphorus = 2,700,000 Ibs.

           b.  Other Cropland.   Estimate 9,600,000 acres  with nutrient
losses of 0.06 and 0.04 pound per acre of nitrogen and phosphorus.

                       Nitrogen   =   576,000 Ibs.
                       Phosphorus =   38^,000 Ibs.

           c.  Forest Land.   Estimate 1^,500,000 acres and runoff losses
of 0.03 and 0.003 pound per  acre of nitrogen and phosphorus.

                       Nitrogen   =   ^35,000 Ibs.
                       Phosphorus =    ^3,500 Ibs.

           d.  Pasture. Woodlot and Other.   Estimate 9>000,000 acres and
nutrient loss of 0.06 pound  per acre of nitrogen and 0.04 pound per acre
of phosphorus.

                       Nitrogen   =   5^0,000 Ibs.
                       Phosphorus =   360,000 Ibs.

           e.  Wetlands runoff  and drainage from wetlands is  believed to
be extremely variable.  No estimate attempted.

           f.  Ground Water . Assume 0.01 mg/1 of soluble phosphorus and
1.2 mg/1 of soluble nitrogen in the ground water and 3«5  inches annually
per acre from approximately  36,000,000 acres.

       5.  Urban Runoff

           Assume 500,000 acres with a runoff of 8.9 and  2.5  pounds per
acre per year of nitrogen and phosphorus, respectively.

                       Nitrogen   » ^,^50,000 Ibs.
                       Phosphorus = 1,250,000 Ibs.

       6.  Precipitation on  Water Surfaces

           Assume that the 30 inches of annual precipitation  falls  on
1>136,920 acres of water surface and that the precipitation contains 0.9
mg/1 of inorganic nitrogen and  0.02 mg/1 of soluble phosphorus.

                   Inorganic Nitrogen = 6,950,000 Ibs.
                   Soluble Phosphorus =   155,000 Ibs.

       7.  Waterfowl

           Probably no significant additional nutrient contributions are
involved.  See previous discussion.

       8.  Nitrogen Fixation

           Variable, but may be significant in some waters.  No estimate

                                 - 35 -
       9.  Chemical Deicers

           Nitrogen arid phosphate compounds are "being promoted for deicing
but their uses in the state to date are believed negligible.

                                 Table 6

                               Summary of
               Estimated Nitrogen and Phosphorus Reaching
                        Wisconsin Surface Waters

Municipal Treatment Facilities
Private Sewage Systems
Industrial Wastes*
Rural Sources
  Manured Lands
  Other Cropland
  Forest Land
  Pasture, Woodlot & Other Lands
  Ground Water
Urban Runoff
Precipitation on Water Areas

     Lbs. Per Year
of Total)
81,661,000  12,557,500  100.0  100.0
    •^Excludes industrial wastes that discharge to municipal systems.

    Table does not include contributions from aquatic nitrogen
    fixation, waterfowl, chemical deicers and wetland drainage.

       The tabulation shows that ground water contributes the most nitrogen
to surface waters and it is essentially as nitrates.  Municipal treatment
plants are by far the largest source of phosphorus and they are the second
largest nitrogen contributor.
                                ,                              ;
       Over-all, the nitrogen to phosphorus ratio "of nutrients reaching
surface waters is about 6^ to 1.  Mackenthun et al. (1964) cited laboratory
investigations by Gerloff and Skoog showing that 5 units of nitrogen plus
0.08 units of phosphorus would produce 100 units of algae.  Their experimental
work indicated a ratio of about 60 to 1, but in natural occurring algae and
submerged plants the ratio is about 10 parts of nitrogen to 1 part of phos-
phorus.  Sawyer, Lackey and Lenz (1945), following a study of southeastern
Wisconsin lakes, set forth inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations
of 0.3 and 0.015 ng/1 respectively as the minimum average annual concentrations
that would result in frequent nuisance blooms.  The latter ratio is 20 to 1.
Were it not for the alleged role of phosphorus in the stimulation of nitrogen
fixation (Sawyer and Ferulla, 196l), the ratios would implicate nitrogen as'
generally being the limiting nutrient in Wisconsin surface waters.

                                 -  36 -                                     3085

                          IV.   CONTROL METHODS -

                  MUtrient Removal  by Further Treatment

       Conventional waste water treatment plants  are designed to remove
floatable and settleable solids and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD).  A
well-run secondary sewage treatment plant can produce a sparkling clear,
well oxidized, stable effluent which is  relatively low in BOD, inoffensive
in odor, and with reduced numbers of pathogenic organisms.  Therefore, it
may be concluded that properly designed  and operated sewage treatment plants
do an admirable job in producing an effluent that is relatively inoffensive.
However, in recent years, considerable concern has been focused on the role
of treated sewage effluent in the fertilization of natural waters.  Numerous
studies have shown that properly treated sewage effluent contains significant
amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus  compounds and, therefore, can represent a
potentially important source of plant nutrients for the receiving waters'.
Conventional sewage treatment does  remove some plant nutrients.  For example,
Levin (1963) concludes that approximately a 20 to 40 percent reduction in
phosphorus can usually be expected.  Johnson et al. (1956) (1958) agrees
with this conclusion and states that a range of 30 to 50 percent nitrogen
removal is reasonable for most plants.

       During the past 25 years there have been numerous laboratory studies
on methods to improve nitrogen and  phosphorus removal in sewage treatment.
These studies have ranged from modification of existing treatment procedures to
providing a third stage or tertiary treatment processes designed specifically
for nutrient removal.  These processes may be divided into two groups - chemical
methods and biochemical methods. Examples of processes available in each group
are discussed below.  Additional references on the reduction of nutrients in
sewage effluents and other methods  of control can be found in review (Mackenthun
and Ingram, 1961*) (Algae Metro-Wastes, 1960) (ingraham, 196*0 (Oglesby and
Edmondson, 1966).

                            Chemical Methods*

       Precipitation with chemicals has  been used as a secondary treatment
process for many years.  In Europe  the natural corrosion of scrap iron in
"fill-and-draw" batch tanks has been used since about 1930 to produce a
chemical floe at a very low cost.  Feng  (1950) and Scott (19^7) conducted
laboratory studies using this material on Madison, Wisconsin, sewage effluent,
with removal of nutrient materials  as a  primary objective.  Removals were
not as high as might have been desired,  with 50 to 80 percent removal of
nutrients resulting from 5 to 5^ hours of contact time.  They both concluded
that the extremely long detention times  required  for iron flocculation by
corrosion nullified the low chemical cost advantage of the procedure.  Neither
investigator studied the effects of long periods  of use upon the scrap material,
but it may be the case that longer  and longer detention times would be required
as corrosion products accumulate upon the surface of the iron.  Since long
detention times and batch operations (twice as many holding tanks required
for switching) would greatly increase the construction costs of such a plant,

*This section of the report is principally derived from a University of
 Wisconsin Water Chemistry Seminar paper by Fred  Doll (Lee & Fruh, 1965).

                                 - 37 -

the objection to the use of the method in practice is an economic one.
More corrosion could be produced in a shorter time by pH adjustment, but
this is also prohibitively expensive for all but the smallest flows.

       For phosphorus removal, the use of precipitating chemicals in a final
settling tank has been investigated.  Lea et al. (195*0 have investigated
the use of alum (aluminum sulfate - A12(SO^)3 • l^^O) as a coagulating agent
for effluent from the Nine Springs Treatment Plant in Madison, Wisconsin.
Their work indicated that 99 percent removal of soluble phosphorus could
be effected with an alum dosage of 300 ppm, and that the most economical
dosage would be about 185 ppm with 96 percent reduction of soluble phos-
 ihorus.  The optimum pH of removal was 7.1 to 7-7.  Studies by Henricksen
 1963) indicated that the optimum pH may be somewhat lower, and stated that
the fundamental mechanism of removal may be sorption rather than precipitation.
Studies of alum precipitation by Malhotra  et al. (196*4-), Rohlich (1963),
Katz (l9**-9) and Scott (l9*<-7) have substantiated the conclusions of Lea
et al. (195*0-.  .About 6 to 10 times-more alum by weight is required for
this treatment than for conventional water treatment processes, and the
disposal of very great amounts of sludge is a problem.  Lea's et al. work
included a scheme for the recovery and reuse of alum by the addition of
sodium hydroxide and calcium chloride to the sludge to form soluble sodium
aluminate and precipitate tri-calcium phosphate.  The sodium aluminate solu-
tion is adjusted in strength and pumped back to the settling tank for further
coagulation.  The tri-calcium phosphate is separated by sedimentation and is
a by-product, possibly marketable, of the process.  The equations are shown
below.                                                  •        .     .
          A1(OH)3'(POU)= + >NaOH = FaAlOa t. Na^POl^ + 2HgO + 30H"

          NaA102 + 2NaP% + 3CaCl2 = NaA102 + Ca^POj^ + 6NaCl
Pilot plant studies have shown that the process is then economically feasible,
with reported reductions in soluble phosphorus of "79 to '89 'percent and about
80 percent recovery of the alum.  However, the process is somewhat complex
to operate , and lack of adequately trained personnel for plant control of such
a scheme remains as an obstacle to its use in practice.

       Other common coagulants which have been used in water and waste water
treatment are the iron salts, ferric sulfate and ferric chloride.  Katz
(l9*<-9) reports 100 ppm of ferric sulfate for 80 percent removal of phosphorus.
The difference in performance is probably due to the fact that iron salts
produce a "heavier" floe than alum, and generally perform better at equal
weights of chemical added.  Even the use of 60 ppm of ferric sulfate results
in the addition of about 3 ' tons of chemical per day to a flow of 15 MGD,
and the problems of sludge disposal and economic feasibility without iron
recovery are significant.

       Lime is a commonly used precipitant in sewage treatment because of
its low cost.  Malhotra et al. (196*0 used both lime and sodium hydroxide
to precipitate hydroxy-apatite and/or tri-calcium phosphate in a comparative
study.  It was concluded that lime was most satisfactory, with 90 percent
soluble phosphorus removal at a dosage of 600 ppm and a pH of 11.0.  The
extremely large volumes of sludge obtained, and the high pH of the effluent,
are the major disadvantages.  It may be possible to calcine the sludge and

                                 - 38 -
reuse the line, thus saving on chemical costs,  but an additional equipment
investment is required, and operation of this equipment requires trained
personnel.  As will be seen later, the high pH  of the effluent may be of
some advantage for the subsequent stripping of  ammonia nitrogen.  Malhotra
et al. (196V) also investigated' the use of coagulant aids (bentonite and -
Separan HP- 10) for alum flocculation, but concluded that phosphorus
reduction was not markedly enhanced by the use  of 'these aids.  Owen (1953)
reached similar conclusions with regard to lime precipitation of phosphorus.

       Katz (19^9) used an ion exchange resin (Amberlite IR-Ufi) for
phosphorus removal and achieved 92 percent reduction.  This treatment
method is not presently of practical importance because of the high initial
cost of the resin, regeneration and operation costs, and the need for.
preliminary filtration to remove suspended matter.  Recently, Eliassen
et al. (1965) have reported the results of studies on the use of ion
exchange for nutrient removal from secondary effluent.  Their results
are essentially the same as those reported by Katz.
            (1962) has studied the possibility of removing sewage effluent
nutrients by electrolytic means.  He developed a process which he called
the Electrolytic Sewage Purification Method,  which utilizes sea water for
the production of magnesium, and its subsequent use as a precipitant chemical.
This process has been tried on a pilot plant  scale and has worked satis-
factorily.  Economic feasibility is dependent on the availability of large
amounts of low cost electrical power and brines.  The high chloride content
of the effluent may be objectionable.

       The successful removal of nitrogen from effluents presents more
difficulty than the removal of phosphorus,  because nitrogen is not susceptible
to the usual precipitation methods.  It is  undoubtedly true at the present
time that biological removal methods, particularly modifications of the
activated sludge process and the use of oxidation ponds for oxygen stabili-
zation and nutrient reduction of the final effluent hold the most promise.

       The element nitrogen exists in sewage  in several forms:  Nitrogen gas,
nitrate and nitrite ions, ammonia and organic matter.  In view of the fact
that as much as 60 percent of the total nitrogen in sewage may be represented
by ammonia, the elimination of this gas by stripping at a pH greater than
about 9-5 seems to be one alternative approach to the problem.  Kuhn (1956)
and Nesselson (196*0 have used countercurrent air stripping in a 2-meter
high percolation tower packed with Raschig rings and achieved 92 percent
removal of NHg when roughly kOO m3 of air was used per m^ of sewage at pH
11.  It is conceivable that the high pH resulting from previous lime
precipitation of phosphorus could be used advantageously in this process,
but the problem of the disposal of an effluent with such a high pH remains.
With sufficient effluent dilution, no practical difficulties should arise.
Kuhn had some problems with frothing at the top of the column, and anti-
foam compounds were added to prevent this.   The large amounts of air applied
and the necessity of pH adjustment show that  the method is economically
prohibitive at present, and the operation requires close attention.

       Another alternative approach to ammonia removal is the use of cation-
exchange resin.  Nesselson (196U) found that  the regeneration solution amounted
to at least the equivalent of 6 percent by volume of the total-flow quantity

                                 - 39 -                                   3°88

of treated sewage.  Evaporation of this water for recovery of ammonium
chloride in useable form is not economically attractive.

       The possibility of the removal of any of the other forms of nitrogen
from sewage effluents by chemical means has not-been seriously considered.
Nitrogen gas, not usually present at high concentrations, will be removed
concurrently with the ammonia in any stripping operation.  Organic nitrogen
is apparently best reduced by biological methods and only nitrate and
perhaps nitrite removal remains to be considered.  Young et al. (196^)
have screened various reducing agents with the reduction of nitrate to
reduce the methemoglobinemia hazard of potable waters.  Among the most
effective found was ferrous hydroxide with a colloidal copper hydroxide
catalyst.  Limitations of the method were the long detention times required
(about five hours) and the expense of the chemicals.

                          Biochemical Methods*

       The studies on the use of organisms to remove nitrogen and phosphorus
have followed two approaches:  (l) Tertiary treatment with algae, and (2)
modification of the activated sludge process.  Developments along each of
these lines are presented below.

       Removal of Nutrients with Algae.  Tertiary treatment of sewage with
algae is well documented.  The ability of algae to utilize inorganic carbon
as a carbon source is a major advantage of this process since secondary
effluent is high in nitrogen and phosphorus content but low in available
organic carbon.  This, therefore, inhibits further treatment with hetero-
trophic organisms.  Various reports (Dugdale, 1962) (Sawyer and Ferullo, 196l)
on the ability of some species of algae to fix elemental nitrogen in the
laboratory and under field conditions further indicate the usefulness of
these organisms for such a purpose.  Phosphorus would then be the limiting
micronutrient for algae growth.  Tertiary treatment with algae is employed
in much the same manner as the activated sludge process.  A mixed population
of algae in a holding pond is fed secondary effluent, allowed sufficient
contact time for nutrient utilization and then the depleted water discharged
into a receiving water.  To insure maximum extraction of nitrogen and
phosphorus, it is necessary that the bio-production per unit volume of
culture be maximum.

       Bogan (1961), using optimal conditions in laboratory studies, has
reported high rates of orthophosphate removal - from 80-90 percent removal
in 6-12 hours.  This constituted removal of 20-25 ppm of the phosphate.
Removal was attributed to both biological and pH effect.  From these
laboratory studies, a field pilot plant was constructed.  This plant is
unique in.that a method for recovery of excess algae is included.  Poor
results have been attained thus far, however, due to the inability of
maintaining sufficient.incident light intensities.  Gates and Borchardt
(196*0 in .laboratory studies have examined various parameters such as
depth, surface area and mixing to find means of enhancing the efficiency
and performance of algae treatment through adequate environmental control.

*This part of the report is primarily based on a University of Wisconsin
 Water Chemistry seminar paper by Rick Spear (Lee & Fruh, 1965).

From these experiments, they have concluded that the over-all controlling
factor in the use of algae for waste treatment is light intensity.  They
have proposed the use of two-stage algae treatment.  The first stage to
be low algal densities to enhance high photosynthetic activity with short
detention times and the second with dense populations and longer retention
for final polishing.  These investigators have not proposed any method for
harvesting the algae although they mention it as necessary.

       Field studies on algal ponds by Fitzgerald (i960) for a two-year
period show average nitrogen removal throughout the year of 30 percent with
maximum removals of 70 percent in the summer.  Phosphorus removal during
periods of maximum photosynthetic activity  coincided with high pH conditions
in the pond and was attributed to precipitation rather than biological
removal.  Fitzgerald concludes that the benefits attributed to this treatment
may be offset by increased suspended solids in the effluent.  Mackenthun and
McNabb (1961), in reporting on stabilization pond studies in Wisconsin,
essentially confirmed Fitzgerald's observations.  Parker (1950) reported
on the effect of passing sewage effluent through a series of eight ponds
with an optimum nitrogen removal of 51 percent in the summer and 12 percent
in the winter.  Korbotz (1951) found the percent removal of soluble phosphorus
in his-, artificial algal ponds at Nine Springs Treatment Plant varied directly
with the ambient air temperature (presumably the water temperature varied
accordingly) from a maximum of 80 percent at 75° F. to 0 percent at ^4-5° F.
In a three-month field study of dissolved solids removal, Bush et_al. (1961)
attained 50-70 percent inorganic nitrogen removal and 20-68 percent soluble
phosphorus removal.  Maximum temperature range during this study was from
65-95° F.

       Neel et al. (196!) has successfully utilized algae stabilization
ponds for nitrogen and phosphorus removal reporting in excess of 80 percent
nitrogen .removal for most of the year and 30-60 percent soluble phosphorus

       Golueka and Oswald (1965) review and evaluate various methods of
harvesting planktonic algae from sewage oxidation ponds.  The authors point
out that the entire question of the feasibility of algae harvesting depends
on the existence of a market for the sewage-grown algae.  Should such a
market exist, communities that are forced to undertake tertiary treatment
could scarcely afford not to consider algae production as a partial solution
to their waste disposal problems.

       Several recurring problems concerning the use of algae for nutrient
removal appear throughout these reports.-  These problems must be overcome
before algae treatment can be effectively used in nutrient removal.  These

       1.  Necessity of maintaining high light intensities.

       2.  Inorganic carbon supply is rapidly exhausted and artificial
           means of supply are necessary.

       3-  Temperature fluctuations cause poor removal efficiency.

       k.  Maintenance of desired forms of algal.

                                  - in -
        5.  Removal of excess or spent algal cells "before release
            of water to receiving waters.

        It is concluded that the effective use of algae for nutrient removal
 has not reached its proposed goal.

        Removal of Hutrient by Modified Activated Sludge Process.  As mentioned
 earlier the present activated sludge process reduces nitrogen and phosphorus
 content only to a limited extent.  Modifications of this process to enable
 higher nitrogen and phosphorus removals has been investigated.  Simultaneous
 removal 01 a high percentage of both nitrogen and phosphorus  by these modifi-
 cations has not been achieved.  Conditions for the removal of nitrogen are
 deleterious to the removal of phosphorus  and vice versa.

        Several investigators present different modifications  of the activated
 sludge process to achieve the same ends.   These entail the biological oxidation
 of reduced nitrogen compounds to nitrate  (Nitrification), with subsequent
 reduction to nitrogen gas (Denitrification).  This induces maximum nitrogen
 removal but very little phosphorus uptake.

        Wuhrmann (1957) (1962) reported studies conducted under both laboratory
 and field conditions.  He used an additional tank inserted between the acti-
 vated sludge and final settling basin.  High rate aeration in the first  tank
 provides conditions for complete nitrification, while the second tank induced
 rapid anaerobic conditions for enhancing denitrification.  Efficiency of at
 least 90 percent removal was reported using domestic sewage of concentrations
 of 25-30 ppm of nitrogen.  Effluent values of 2-k ppm were recorded..

        Johnson and Schroepfer (1964) have reported laboratory studies on
 nitrogen removal using essentially the same modifications as  Wuhrmann.
 They found the addition of 30 percent by volume of raw sewage to the second
 tank was necessary to induce denitrification.  They report less optimistic
 removal of 63-70 percent nitrogen.

        Ludzack and Ettinger (1962) in a process called "the semi-aerobic
 activated sludge process" have divided a conventional tank into two sections
 with low rate aeration in the first compartment and higher rate in the second.
 The mixed liquor of the second section is recirculated to the first tank.
 This process provides for denitification on the first section and nitri-
 fication in the second.  The advantage  proposed over the other processes
 is better sludge volume indices.

        The possibility of removing phosphorus from sewage effluent has long
 been recognized.  Lea and Nichols (1936), in experiments using a supplemental
 organic carbon source, achieved complete phosphorus -removal in three days.
 Sawyer (l9**7) achieved 98 percent inorganic phosphorus and 97 percent
 inorganic nitrogen removal using 80 ppm glucose supplement.  Other investi-
: gators have since duplicated these findings.  Two major drawbacks to this
 nethod can be cited:  (l) Cost of carbohydrate supplements, and (2) increase
 in sludge volume.

        Feng (1950), in his laboratory studies, reported increased soluble
 phosphorus removal in proportion to increased aeration rates.  Levin  (1963)
 has further investigated the effect of increased aeration rates and has

reported removal of 3-^ ppm soluble phosphorus with three hours contact
time.  During these first three hours, no increase in numbers of organisms
was detected.  He has proposed that this is a "luxury" uptake phenomenon
resulting in the formation of intracellular granules or stored phosphorus.
Advantages of this method are:  (l) The elimination of the necessity of the
addition of organic carton substrate, and (2) no increase in final sludge
volume.  Field studies have shown promise, although optimum conditions for
removal were not effected.  One major misgiving of this process is the loss
of phosphorus to the medium after three hours and leakage cannot be stopped
at any aeration rate.

       It appears from these reports that modifications of activated sludge
process can be effective in removing nitrogen and to some extent phosphorus
but is, in general, limited to quantitative removal of only one or the other
of the two nutrients.

       The harvest of fish in Wisconsin lakes by sport fishermen undoubtedly
removes a sizeable quantity of nutrients from these waters, although it has
probably never been considered a benefit in this sense.  Prom creel census
records from two northern Wisconsin lakes (Escanaba Lake in Vilas County
and Murphy Flowage in Rusk County), the annual harvest of sport fish ranges
from 30 to 50 pounds per acre.  In southern Wisconsin the harvest rate is
somewhat higher.  In Lake Mendota, Herman et al. (1959) estimated the harvest
of yellow perch during the ice. fishing season at 50 pounds per acre.  Although
the harvest is not known for the rest of the year, the catch of other species
and the summer catch of yellow perch could likely boost this figure to 100
pounds per acre on an annual basis.  Records from Cox Hollow Lake in Iowa
County demonstrate the annual removal of some 50 pounds of game fish per
acre (northern pike and largemouth bass) during a" three-year period.  It
is, therefore, likely that an annual removal of 50 pounds per acre of fish
by anglers is probable in fertile Wisconsin lakes.

       In addition, a number of these lakes are also subject to rough fish
(mostly carp) removal.  For example, Helm (1951) reported in Lake Waubesa
an average of 317 pounds of rough fish per acre were removed from 1936 to
1950.  In Lake Mendota, some 20 to 30 pounds per acre of rough fish have
been removed annually in recent years (Uo Ibs./acre in late 1966).  It is,
therefore, probable that the total removal of fish from a number of fertile
Wisconsin lakes is over 100 pounds per acre annually which was also reported
by Threinen (19^9).

       As reported by Mackenthun (19^9)> "the nitrogen content of fish flesh
(wet weight) is approximately 2.5 percent and the phosphorus content is
approximately 0.2 percent.  Therefore, the removal of ho pounds of fish is
necessary to remove a pound of nitrogen and 500 pounds to remove a pound of
phosphorus.  At a harvest rate of 100 pounds per acre annually, the removal
of nitrogen and phosphorus is 2.5 and 0.2 pounds per acre, respectively.

       To obtain some insight as to the.significance of this removal, it
is convenient to use the estimates of nitrogen and phosphorus inflow and

outflow from the Report on the Nutrient Sources of Lake Mendota (1966).
It is estimated that Lake Mendota receives some kj, 000 pounds of phosphorus
per year of which about half goes out, leaving a "balance of 23,500 pounds.
The nitrogen input is roughly estimated to "be 550,000 pounds per year with
retention of 50 to 90 percent or 225,000 to ^95,000 pounds.  The harvest
of 100 pounds of fish per acre would remove some 2,000 pounds of phosphorus
and 25,000 pounds of nitrogen per year or slightly more than k percent of
each of these elements estimated to enter the lake.  To remove half of the
phosphorus entering the lake would require the annual removal of 1,175 pounds
of fish per acre and 2,000 pounds per acre in the case of nitrogen, obviously
impossible to attain.   '

       The removal of aquatic plants is also looked upon as a means of
nutrient removal.  Recently, Gerloff and . Krombholz (1966) analyzed rooted
aquatics in several lakes and demonstrated a luxury uptake of nitrogen and
phosphorus in fertile waters.  In Lake Mendota, six species of rooted aquatics'
contained an average of 3 percent nitrogen and O.kj percent phosphorus
(dry weight basis).  The amounts are almost twice the quantities reported
by Schuette and Adler (1928 and 1929) for Lake Mendota in earlier years.
On the basis of the recent rssults, a ton of rooted aquatics contains 7.2
pounds of nitrogen and 1.13 pounds of phosphorus.  In Lake Mendota, it
would take the removal of 4l,000 tons of aquatics to offset the estimated
input of phosphorus and 76,000 tons to offset the estimated nitrogen input.
Attainment of such huge harvests is likely impossible, but it is possible
to remove smaller quantities .

       Livermore (195*0 reported that aquatic harvesting machines are able  .
to cut up to four, tons of drained aquatic plants per hour.  The City of
Madison is removing close to 1,000 tons per year (Saley, 1966).  Madison's
experience during the last two years suggests that one ton per hour per
machine is a more practical estimate for sustained harvest.  The cost of
operating their harvester is approximately $65 per hour (includes depreciation,
maintenance, transportation, etc.), and the cost of removal of aquatics per
ton is
       If the present removal efforts were increased to double the harvest,
approximately 5 percent of the estimated input of phosphorus would be removed
in Lake Mendota.  This level would remove about 3 percent of the estimated
nitrogen input.  Among the limiting factors of aquatic plant harvesting
should be mentioned the possibility of favoring greater algae blooms if
significant areas of rooted aquatics are removed.  H&sler and Jones (195*0
report the antagonistic action of large aquatics on algae might be expected
to also act in reverse.

       Nees et al. (1957) in an analysis of removal methods suggest that
increased harvest of rough fish is definitely possible.  Initial or increased
effort in aquatic plant harvesting is also possible.  The combination of
increased harvest methods, while not being an obvious answer to the eutro-
phication problem should be carefully studied in more detail for consideration
as an important contribution in any program to improve water quality.

          Control of Excessive Algae and Rooted Aquatic Plants

       The concept of chemical control of weeds and pests has been used
successfully in agriculture where obtaining the highest yield from a single
crop, such as corn or wheat, has been emphasized.  Here, as many competitors
as possible are to be eliminated in order to enhance maximum growth.  In a
lake or river, on the other hand, there is a great diversity of life encom-
passing complex communities of plants and animals.  When man-induced
eutrophication sets in, the interactions among these associations are
distorted.  If chemicals are used to kill or prevent the growth of nuisance
organisms, complex distortions take place and a chain of undesirable
situations may occur.  There are, as yet, no chemicals which are specific
enough, in their inhibiting effect, to be used with inpunity.

       Some of the chemicals used affect a variety of organisms and their
delicate younger stages adversely, and some accumulate in the lake soils.
It is difficult to control the influence of a chemical added to a lake or
to apply it at the proper time.  A great deal more research is needed to
produce specific inhibiting agents which do not have undesirable side
effects on other organisms and which disintegrate promptly after application.
In the interim, we recommend a greater effort to harvest the surplus crops
of algae, higher aquatic plants and fish, and to apply more effort in the
devising of techniques to make this possible.

       According to Mackenthun (1959)> the ideal algicide or herbicide must
meet the following conditions.  It must be selective; in only rare cases is
the total destruction of the entire plant population desired.  It must be
non-toxic to fish and most fish-food organisms at the plant-killing concen-
tration.  It must not prove seriously harmful to the ecology of the general
aquatic area and it must be of reasonable cost.

       Palmer (1962) points out, as do others, that the most effective
pattern to follow in plant and algae control is to anticipate and prevent
problems rather than to delay until they become serious.  This plan of
attack, however, requires adequate records of the kinds, numbers and
locations of the various algae and weeds in the water supply.

       Of the many chemicals that have been used for the control of land
plants, only a few have been utilized in aquatic weed control.  Of these
chemicals, sodium arsenite has been most extensively used, at least in this
area.  Mackenthun (1958) has described the capabilities and application of
sodium arsenite.  Sodium arsenite is efficacious in controlling most types
of aquatic plants as well as those algae that produce pond scum.  The pond
scum algae, including species of Cladophora, Oedogonium and Hydrodictyon
are effectively destroyed by a concentration of 5.0 ppm AS203 while algae
growing below the surface are riot affected.  Sodium arsenite is not effective
against plants with a wax-like coating on their leaves, such as water lilies.
Chemical treatment of this sort is generally not effective against water
shield, the duckweeds, and stoneworts, muskgrass and floating-leaf pondweed.

       The application rate of sodium arsenite and other herbicides is governed
by many factors such as depth of the water, shape and size of the treated
area and the location of the treatment area as it is affected by wind, wave
action, etc.

       Arsenic is highly toxic to humans and its use should also "be governed
by accepted tolerance limits set by the United States Public Health Service
(1962) and others.

       A well-known herbicide, 2,4-D, has proved successful in the destruction
of water hyacinth and other emergent weeds (Eggler, 1953)-  Concentrations of
1,000 ppm have been sprayed on exposed leaves producing an effective kill.
The residual concentration in the surrounding water will be very much less
than 1,000 ppm.  Alligator weed was more resistant to treatment, but weaker
growths were effectively controlled with two treatments .  According to McKee
and Wolf v.1963), the toxicity of 2,U-D to aquatic life varies widely.  Many
specific examples are given, but the threshold toxicity for fish is about
       Bruns et al. (1955) have published studies on the use of aromatic
solvents for the control of aquatic weeds in irrigation ditches.  In this
report the solvents, which were mixtures of aromatic and cyclic hydrocarbons
of either petroleum or coal tar origin, were specified by certain ASTM
physical characteristics.  The solvent chosen is mixed with an emulsifier
and injected beneath the water surface to give a concentration of 300 to
600 ppm for 30 to 60 minutes.  Eventually the emulsion will break and the
solvent will evaporate, leaving the water reasonably unpolluted.  Aromatic
solvents are toxic to aquatic life, but do not harm crops in the concentrations

       To date, the algicide that is in most common use is copper sulfate.
Although copper sulfate is the chemical which, up to the present time, most
nearly fits the specifications mentioned earlier, it does have shortcomings.
According to Mackenthun (1958), copper sulfate will poison fish and other
aquatic life when used in excessive concentrations and it may accumulate in
bottom muds as an insoluble basic carbonate following extensive use.

       The solubility of copper in water is a function of pH and alkalinity;
for this reason, the application of standard toxicity tables is difficult.
Also, the resistance of different organisms to copper sulfate varies widely
(Goodey, 1946).

       McKee and Wolf (1963) give reference on the toxicity of copper sulfate
to various fish; in summary, the lethal doses range from 0.002 to 200 ppm
for various fish in different waters.

       Chlorine gas has been used as an algicide in some instances.  The
chief drawback in its use is the difficulty involved in applying the chemical
to the exact spots needing treatment.

       Chlorinated hydrocarbons, primarily benzenes, have been used for the
control of aquatic weeds in ditches and lakes.  Commercial chlorinated
benzenes under the trade name Benoclor are "still" runs of chlorobenzenes
consisting mainly of the trichloro isomer.  The compound is sprayed under
the surface of the water and forms a milky cloud that is readily absorbed
by plants; the plants generally die within 2k hours after application.
Aquatic animal life is destroyed by the treatment unless it is able to get
out of the treatment area.  Benoclor is not toxic to birds or animals.
Aquatic weeds vary in their response to Benoclor with Chara and "water Weed"

                                 - U6 «                                    3095

being two types that are easily killed.  Sago pondweed, coontail moss,
horned pondweed and water milfoil are intermediate in response (McKee and
Wolf, 1963) (Oglesby and Edmondson, 1966).

       Preliminary work has been carried out on the use of chlorophenyl
dimethyl urea (CMU) as an algicide (Maloney, 1958).  It was concluded from
the results of both laboratory and field tests that CMU at a concentration
of 2 ppm prevented growth of all species of blue-green algae and diatoms
and 65 percent of the green algae tested.  Good results were obtained with
filamentous algal growths of the types that blanket ponds and lakes and
attach themselves to reservoir walls.  CMU is reported to have a very low
tpxicity to fish and other aquatic animals at the concentrations used.
Care must be exercised in the use of CMU, however, because at higher
concentrations it is a soil sterilant and may destroy desirable vegetation.

       It has been demonstrated that 2,3-dichloronaphthoquinone is selec-
tively toxic to blue-green algae in concentrations of 30 to 55 ppb
(Fitzgerald and Skoog, 1951*).  At concentration as low as 0.5 ppm, it
controlled 28 percent of the blue-green algae being tested without being
toxic to green algae or diatoms.  No observable damage was done to fish,
zooplankton or higher aquatics present.

       Tests have been carried on at the R. A. Taft Sanitary Engineering
Center to determine effectiveness of quaternary ammonium compounds as
£lgicides.  One of the compounds tested controlled twice as many kinds of
gj?een algae at 1 to 2 ppm as did copper sulfate.  At 0.5 ppm, it controlled
29 percent of the green algae tested while copper sulfate controlled none.
This chemical appeared to be less toxic to fish than copper sulfate; its
k& hours median tolerance level was 0.65 ppm as compared to 0.19 ppro f°r
copper (Palmer, 1956).

       Rosin amines have been found to be effective algicides.  The rosin
amine D sulfate is selectively toxic to certain diatoms while the rosin
amine D acetate has more general algicidal properties.  Tests showed that
at 2 ppm the rosin amine D acetate controlled 90 percent of the algae present
compared to 53 percent for copper sulfate.  At 0.5 ppm, the amine was three
times as effective as copper sulfate.  Preliminary toxicity tests on fish
indicated that the toxicity of the rosin amines was about the same as copper
sulfate.  The effectiveness of the rosin amines seems to vary with pH,
hardness and other factors (Palmer, 1956).

       It has been found that certain antibiotics exhibit toxic or inhibitory
effects on algae.    Actidione is selectively toxic to certain green algae  ,
and diatoms while streptomycin, neomycin, terramycin and certain other anti-^
bidtics are effective against blue-green algae (McKee and Wolf, 1963)
(Palmer, 1956).

       A recent laboratory evaluation of the effectiveness of potassium
permanganate as a possible algicide for water reservoirs has been carried
out (Fitzgerald, 196^).  Concentrations of potassium permanganate ranging
from 0.5 to 2.0 ppm gave the same results as copper sulfate in the concen-
tration range 0.025 to 0.10 ppm.  Fitzgerald points out that potassium
permanganate is an algicidal rather than an algistatic agent.  Fitzgerald
and Faust (l963a) (l963b) have shown in laboratory tests that copper sulfate
is an algistatic agent; the growth of certain algae is merely inhibited by
copper sulfate and, after the copper is precipitated, these algae resume
normal growth.

                                 - 1*7 -                                    3096

       Potassium permanganate is not toxic to fish at the concentrations
mentioned above, but it may be toxic to certain fish-food organisms
(McKee and Wolf, 1963).  Acrolein has been found useful in destroying
water weeds, algae and snails in irrigation ditches and reservoirs in
concentrations of from 3 to 6 ppm.  Acrolein is generally toxic to fish
at these concentrations (McKee and Wolf, 1963).

       The above discussion of chemicals is intended to give a broad picture
of the classes and types of compounds that are "being considered and are
being found effective in algae and weed control.  The list of such chemicals
is growing rapidly, and an increasing amount of basic and applied research
is "being carried out on the problem of chemical algae and weed control.
The problem posed by increasing fertility and productivity is becoming more
and more apparent and is creating interest in and a need for research of
this type.

                             Other Methods*

       Thomas (1963) suggests several methods of eutrophication reversal
or improvement which include the harvest of plants and animals.  In addition,
he suggests as most important the control of nutrients that enter the waters.
Other environmental techniques suggested are dilution with large quantities
of nutrient-free water to flush out fertile water, drawing off nutrient
rich hypolimnion water during periods of thermal stratification, and deep
water aeration to mix and aerate lakes.  He felt that the hypolimnion draw
technique might prove most useful, but the addition of fresh water to the
hypolimnion and the ventilation of the hypolimnion did not look as promising
because the nutrients remained in the lake.  The experience to date with
continuous aeration and mixing at a current research project at Cox Hollow
Lake in Wisconsin (Wir'th and Dunst, 1966) suggests this method as one showing
considerable promise.  This 96-acre lake was destratified with several
resultant water quality improvements.  Further studies are necessary to
evaluate permanency of these improvements with continued operation of the
destratification equipment.

       Many of the methods that follow in this section were proposed at
one time or another for the Madison lakes.  The methods are general enough
that they can be and have been applied to other bodies of water.  The Madison
lakes merely offer a convenient example.

       One of the prime causes of artificially induced eutrophication in
lakes is the addition of domestic sewage and sewage effluents.  In Wisconsin,
the Lewis Bill which was passed in 19^3 required that the sewage effluent
from the metropolitan Madison area be diverted around Lakes Waubesa and
Kegonsa.  The treated effluent is discharged through a 5.1 mile, 5*4-inch
concrete pipeline into a 3.8-mile open channel which empties into the-
Badfish Creek.  The channel is provided with two cascade aerators to restore
dissolved oxygen.  Diversion was begun in December 1958 (Lawton, 1961).
The Madison sewage diversion project is probably one of the most studied
projects of its kind, but similar projects have been proposed and are being
put into operation on other lakes with similar problems.

*TMs section of the report is derived in part from a University of
 Wisconsin Water Chemistry seminar paper by Phil Kammerer (Lee & Fruh, 1965).

       Lake Washington is another example of a lake that has undergone
rapid eutrophication due to domestic waste pollution in recent years.
Lake Washington seems capable of tolerating a maximum phosphorus input
of 17 Ibs./acre/year.  Currently, 9 Ibs./acre/year is being supplied
from natural sources.  Phosphorus from sewage sources has increased from
about 2 Ibs./acre/year in the period 1916-30 to a current level of 6 Ibs./
acre/year (Brown and Caldwell, 1958).

       In some cases, tributaries can contribute appreciable amounts of
nutrients to lakes.  An example of this is cited in the Oscar Mayer Report
(1955) on the Madison lakes.  In the years 19^2-^4, an average of 10,000
pounds of inorganic nitrogen and about 3>000 pounds of organic nitrogen
per month was contributed to Lake Kegonsa by Door Creek.  In the month of
March 19^3 for example, it was found that Door Creek contributed 66,000
pounds of inorganic nitrogen and 20,000 pounds of organic nitrogen to the
lake while during the same period the Madison sewage plant contributed
55,000 pounds of inorganic and 6,200 pounds of organic nitrogen.  Two
approaches to solving this type of problem have been suggested.  One is
to employ stabilization ponds to remove nutrients from the stream water.
The other is to divert the stream, thus preventing the addition of the
nutrients to the lake.

       Another possible method of preventing nutrients from reaching a lake
is the diversion of treated sewage effluent into ground waters (Oscar Mayer
Report, 1955)-  The feasibility of this process depends on many factors.
A major factor is the total nitrogen content of the effluent - a buildup
in nitrogen in a ground water used extensively as a domestic water supply
may cause a high enough N0g~ level to make the water toxic to infants
(methemoglobinemia). Consideration of this method of disposal must be made
with caution.  Such factors as the "ion exchange" capacity and percolating
capacity of the soil must be considered in addition to the public health
hazard involved.

       The investigators in the Oscar Mayer Report (1955) feel that nuisance
conditions in the lower Madison lakes could be partially alleviated by
augmenting the flow through the lakes.  Higher flows would cause dilution
of the lake water, flushing out of stored nutrients and shorter detention
periods.  There are several possible methods of augmenting lake flow.  One
method is lake storage.  In the case of the Madison lakes, this could be
accomplished in a number of ways.  One possibility would be to maintain a
high level in, the lakes during early summer and reduce the level later to  •
increase the flow through the lower lakes.

       Another method of controlling flow in the lakes is through the use
of impounding reservoirs on tributaries to the lakes.  One possible site
for such a reservoir would be the Westport marsh area at the Yahara River
inlet of Lake Mendota.  Another possible site for a reservoir is a swamp
area southwest of Lake Waubesa.  Extensive hydrologic studies would have
to be made to determine the amount of water available to fill these
reservoirs.  It has been suggested that it might be necessary to pump
quantities of ground water or lake water into the reservoirs during the
spring in order to maintain the reservoir at the desired level.  The use
of reservoirs has the advantage that lake levels would not fluctuate as
widely as they would using lake storage.

       Another possible method of supplementing lake flow is dilution with
other surface water or ground water.  In the Madison lakes, the cost of
using well water or Wisconsin River water to augment flows in August and
September appear to be more costly than impounding reservoirs or lake  .
storage.  Sylvester and Anderson (19&0 propose the addition of low nutrient
Seattle city water to Green Lake in Seattle for the purpose of reducing
nutrient concentrations and reducing troublesome algae blooms.

       Dredging of shallow areas in Lake Kegonsa and Lake Waubesa has been
suggested to reduce "weed" nuisance. (Weed or weeds in this report is used
to include the larger aquatic plants and rooted vegetation.) Dredging will
reduce sunlight penetration with a resulting decrease in weed growths.
Sylvester and Anderson (1964) have suggested similar treatment for Green
Lake in Seattle.

       The last method that will be mentioned in this section is irrigation.
Irrigation in Wisconsin is practiced mainly with industrial wastes (canneries,
packing houses and milk processing plants).  Irrigation using municipal
wastes is used in Europe and the southwestern United States where water
is in short supply.  Not only is the water beneficial for irrigation, but
additional benefits may be derived from the nutrients present in the sewage
effluent.  Irrigation systems are difficult to operate during Wisconsin
winters.     ,

       There are natural losses that may enter into an over-all nutrient
balance which in a strict sense are not control methods.  Nutrient nitrogen
may be lost to a water by denitrification.  Outlet streams may carry dis-
solved and particulate nutrients out of lakes.  Emergent insects that leave
the aquatic environment represent still another loss.  These losses or
reductions vary greatly and no over-all estimate of their magnitude will
be made in this report.
                      V.  IMPROVEMENTS AND PROGRAMS

       Previous portions of the report discussed the problem of excessive
fertilization and its apparent causes, nutrient sources and an idea of their
magnitude and control methods.  With these as background information, where
do we go from here?  Citing various approaches of determining and solving
the problem and giving examples may be helpful prior to making specific
recommendations .

       Obviously, there is a need for further study and research.  The
causes and cures of excessive fertilization provide a gamut of areas for
an array of disciplines.  A particular problem of concern is accurately
measuring or appraising eutrophication in a body of water to determine its
over-all change or to compare it with another.  Incorporating the various
critical factors involved into a "Eutrophication Index" might be helpful.

       Baseline information is necessary.  Survey and inventory of our
surface waters and nutrient sources are vital.  Lake and stream classifi-
cation and surface water monitoring are examples of two such programs.  A
big gap in our inventory of nutrient sources is the contribution from marsh-
land drainage.

                                 - 5o -

       Legislation has been enacted for the protection of public waters.
Some examples of Wisconsin legislation include;  The prohibition of non-
degradable detergents,,s. lM;.l4; reporting of intended new waste sources,
So I^o555j exclusion of sewage plant effluent discharges to the Madison
lakes, s. lMf.05; laws relating to dams on the Wolf and Brule Rivers, ss.
30.25 and 31-3P; and excluding periodically flooded areas for garbage and
refuse disposal, s, l4^.0^5»  A law banning the use of phosphorus compounds
in detergents might be considered as a means of reducing the amount of that
nutrient reaching our surface waters.  However, similar legislation recently
proposed in New York and Pennsylvania didn't get past the committee stage.

       Education in some cases may be helpful in gaining support and getting
the job done.  Such an approach might be applicable in getting sewage treat-
ment plant operators to adopt procedures that could curb nutrient losses or
in having farmers improve their land fertilization techniques„

       An action program to reduce nutrients or their adverse effects in
surface waters would be desirable.  Diversion of effluents and storm waters
from lakes into large streams would'be one example.  Diversion often is not
practical because of the distance to a larger stream and opposition by
communities or individual parties oh the larger stream.  For some small
communities with favorable soil conditions, land disposal may provide a
fairly good solution.  In most cases, the development and use of tertiary
treatment methods for nutrient removal appears to be the only hopeful
method.  Runoff from manured land is a large contributor of nutrients,
particularly when the soil is frozen.  Liquid manure handling holds some
promise.  In some areas, there is apparently little that can be done and
this would include the inorganic nitrogen in ground waters.

       Intensive protection and study of key waters should be instituted.
Several lakes and streams having a unique property or long history should
be included.  The list should contain lakes with varying degrees of eutro-
phication as well as contrasting rivers.

       Obviously, there is no single, simple solution available to solve
the problem of excessive fertilization.  However,, our growing population and
its increased per capita nutrient contributions make it expedient that we
move ahead by all available means.  It takes time to develop the technology,
finance the improvements and put them into operation.  Undoubtedly, conditions
will worsen before they improve, yet they will not improve by themselves.
       The previous are examples of steps and measures that might be con-
sidered to handle the problems associated with excessive fertilization of
our surface waters.  Specific recommendations are shown in the forepart of
this report beginning on page 2.


                           Conversion Factors

Acre        = 0,kOk7 hectares        Hectare          = 2.Vfl acres
Cubic foot  = 0.02832 cubic meters   Kilogram/hectare = 0.892 pounds/acre
Cubic meter = 35.315 cubic feet      Liter            = 0.26^4-2 gallons
Foot        = 0.3048 meters          Meter            = 3.2808 feet
Gallon      = 3o?85 liters           Pound            = ^53-6 gr. or 0.^536 kgo
Gram        = 0.0022046 pounds       Pounds/acre      = 1.120 kgo/hectare
Gram/day    = 0»805 pounds/year



Algae and Metropolitan Wastes Trans, of i960 Seminar, Tech. Rept. W61-3, R.A. Ta/t
       San.  Engr.  Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Allison, E.  "Nitrogen and Soil Fertility"  Soil, The 1957 Yearbook of Agriculture  Gov.
       Drinting Office, Washington, D.C., 85-94(1957).

Anon.  "My Advice, Sir? Beware of De-icers on Concrete"  Milwaukee Journal (Dec.  18, 1966).

Anon.  "Sohio De-icer Heralds Use of Chemicals for Ice and Snow Removal at Airports"
       Chem.  Engr. News, p. 24  (August 9, 1965).

Anon.  "Wastewater Reuse Study"  J.WPCF,  _38  1, Hi (January 1966).

Baillie, E.P. (Madison Sewerage Dist.)  Communications (1966).

Bartsch, A.F. "Induced Eutrophication -  A  Growing Water Resource Problem"  Algae and
       Metropolitan Wastes  SEC TR  W61-3, R.A. Taft San.  Engr. Center, Cincinnati,Ohio

Bogan, R.H.  "The Use of Algae in Removing Phosphorus from Sewage"  ASCE Trans. 126
       231 (1961).

Braatz, D.R.  "Commercial  Fertilizer Summary - Wisconsin  1964-1965"  State Dept. Agr.
       Mimeo (1965).

Brown and Caldwell,  Civil and Chemical Engineers "Metropolitan Seattle Sewerage and
       Drainage Survey"  (March 1958).

Bruns, V.F., Hodgson, J.M., Arle, H.F. and Timmons, F.L.  "The Use of Aromatic Sol-
       vents for the Control  of Submersed Aquatic Weeds in Irrigation Channels"  U.S. Dept.
       Agr. Cir. No. 170, Washington, D.C. (1955).

Bureau of Sanitary  Engineering with Collaboration of State Laboratory of Hygiene and Wis.
       State Board of Health   "Public Water Supplies of Wisconsin"  Madison, Wisconsin
       (July 1935).

Bush, A.F., Isherwood, J.D. and  Rodgi ,  S.  "Dissolved Solids Removal from Waste Water
       by Algae" ASCE Trans. 39-57  (May 1961).

Buswell, A.M. The Chemistry of Water and Sewage Treatment The Chemical Catalog Co.:
       New  York (1958).

California Water Pollution Control Board  "Water Reclamation in Relation to Ground Water
       Pollution" Publ. No.  6, Sacramento, California (1955).

Canham, R.A.   "Comminuted Solids Inclusion with Spray Irrigated  Canning Waste"  Sew. Ind.
       Wastes,  30 8,  1028-1044 (August  1958).


Garmody, T. W.  "Detergent Chemicals Forecast"  Detergent Age, 2  1,  16-17  (June  1965).

Carrol, Dorothy Rainwater as a Chemical Agent of Geologic Processes -- A Review  Geo.
       Sur.  Water-Supply Paper  1535-G, Gov. Printing Office, Washington  D.C.  (1962).

Dane County Citizens' Planning Committee Blueprint For Growth  (December 1961).

Dugdale, V.A. and Dugdale,  R.C.  "Nitrogen Metabolism in Lakes - II. Nitrogen Fixation in
       Sanctuary Lake, Pennsylvania" Limn. Ocean.,  1_ 170-177 (1962).

Eck, Jackson and Bay, Annual Report, AES Project 791  (Phase 5) (1957).

Edmondson,  W.T.  "Water Quality ManagementandLake Eutrophication:  The Lake Washing-
       ton Case"  Based on papers prepared for a series of seminars at the Univ. of Washing-
       ton (Spring, 1964).

Eggler, W.A.  "The Use  of 2,4-D in the Control of Water Hyacinth and Alligator Weed in the
       Mississippi Delta, With Certain Ecological Implications"   Ecology, ^4 409  (1953).

Eliassen, R., Wycoff, B.M.  and Tonkins, C.D. "Ion Exchange for Reclamation of Reusable
       Supplies" J.AWWA,  57  113  (1965).

Ernest, L.A.  Avalon - Industrial Waste File Communications (1954).

Ernest, L.A.  (Milwaukee Sewerage Commission)  Communications (1966).

Feng, T.H.  "Removal of Phosphorus from Sewage Plant Effluents"  Ph.D. Thesis  in Civil
       Engr.,  Univ.  of Wisconsin  (1950).

Fitzgerald, G.P.  "Stripping Effluents of Nutrients by Biological Means"  Algae and Metropol-
       itan Wastes SEC TR  W61-63,  136-139,  R.A. Taft San. Engr. Center,  Cincinnati,
       Ohio  (1960).

Fitzgerald, G.P.  "Laboratory Evaluation of Potassium Permanganate  as an Algicide for
       Water Reservoirs" Southwest Water Works Jour.  Qanuaxy 1964).

Fitzgerald, G.P. and Faust,  S.L.   "Bioassay for Algicidal vs. Algistatic  Chemicals" Water
       Sew.  Works,  110 8  (1963a).

Fitzgerald, G.P. and Faust,  S.L.   "Factors Affecting the Algicidal and Algistatic Properties
       of Copper"  Applied Microbiology, JJ. 4, 345  (1963b).

Fitzgerald, G.P. and Skoog,  F.  "Control of Blue-Green Algae Blooms with 2,3-Dichloro-
       naphthoquinone" Sew. Ind. Wastes,  26  1136  (1954).

F^yn, E.  "Removal of Sewage Nutrients by Electrolytic Treatment"  15th Cong. Limn.,
       Madison, Wisconsin (August  1962).


Gates, W.E. and Borchardt, J.A.  "Nitrogen and Phosphorus Extraction from Domestic Waste
        Water Treatment Plant" J.WPCF, 36_ 443-462  (196^.

 Gerloff, G.C. and Krombholz, P.H.  "Tissue Analysis as a Measure of Nutrient Availability
        for  the Growth of Angiosperm Aquatic Plants"  Limn. Ocean., J_l 529 (1966).

 Goering, J.J.  "Studies of Nitrogen-Fixation in Natural Fresh Waters"  Ph.D. Thesis, Zoo-
        logy Dept.,  Univ.  of Wisconsin (1963).

 Golueka, C.G.  and Oswald, W.J.  "Harvesting and Processing Sewage-Grown Planktonic
        Algae" J.WPCF, 37_ 4, 471 (1965).

 Goode, P.P.  (State Laboratory of Hygiene)  Communication (September 1966).

 Goudey, R.F.  "Chemical  Weed Control"  J. AWWA,  38_ 2, 186 (1946).

 Hasler, A.D. and Jones, E. "Demonstration of the Antagonistic Action of Large Aquatic
        Plants on Algae and Rotifers"  Ecology,  _30      (1949).

 Helm. W.T.  "An Interpretation of Rough Fish Statistics from Lake Waubesa". WCD Invest.
        Rept. No.  751  (1951).

 Henricksen, A. "The Coagulation Process Applied to Phosphate Removal"  Proc. of the
        Coagulation Colloquium, Water Res. Assn.  (April  1963).

 Hensel, E.G.  "Soluble Phosphate Content of Safe and Unsafe Well Waters in Wisconsin"
        B.S. Thesis, Chemistry Dept., Univ. of Wisconsin  (1937).

 Herman, E., Wisby, W.,  Wiegert, L. and Burdick,  M.  "The Yellow Perch - Its Life His-
        tory, Ecology, and Management" WCD  Publ. 228 (1959).

 Hurwitz, E., Beaudoin, R., and Walter, W.  "PHOSPHATES  Their Fate in a Sewage Treat-
        ment Plant -- Waterway  System"  Wat. Sew. Works, 112 3, 84 (March 1965).

 Ingraham,  S.H. "Removal of Algal Nutrients from Domestic  Wastewater:  Parti.  Literature
        Survey" New York State Dept. of Health, Rept. No. 11,  Parti.  (November 1964).

 Johnson,  W.K.  "Nutrient Removals by Conventional Treatment  Processes"  Proc.  13th
        Ind. Wastes Conf.,  Purdue Univ.,  Ext. Ser.,  96 151 (1958).

 Johnson,  W.K.  and Schroepfer, G.J.  "Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removals by Conventional
        Treatment Processes" San. Engr. Prog. Rept.  104S, Univ. of Minnesota,   Minne-
        apolis  (September  1956).

 Johnson,  W.K.  and Schroepfer, G.J.  "Nitrogen Removal by Nitrification and Denitrification'
        J. WPCF,  36   1015-1036 (1964).

 Katz, W.J.  "The Chemical Removal of Phosphorus from Sewage Effluents" M.S. Thesis in
        Civil Engr., Univ.  of Wisconsin (1949).


Keefeir,  C.E.  Sewage Treatment Works 1st ed.  McGraw-Hill Book Co.: New York (1940).

Korbitz, W.D.  "Removal of NH3-Nitrogen from Sewage Effluent"  M.S. Thesis in Civil
      Engr., Univ. of Wisconsin  (1951).

Kuhn, P.A.  "Removal of Ammonia Nitrogen from Sewage Effluents" M.S. Thesis in Civil
      Engr., Univ. of Wisconsin  (1956).

Larson,  T.E. and Hettick, I.  "Mineral Composition of Rainwater" Illinois State Water
      Sur. Ciic. No. 56 (1956).

Lawton,  G.W. "The Madison Lakes Before and After Diversion"  in Algae and Metropolitan
      Wastes Tech. Rept. W61-3, R.A. Taft San.  Engr. Center, Cincinnati,  Ohio (1961).

Lawton,  G.W.,  Engelbert, L.E., Rohlich, G.A., and Forges, N.  "Effectiveness of Spray
      Irrigation as a Method for the Disposal of Dairy Plant Wastes"  Univ.  of Wisconsin,
      Engr. Res.  Rept. No. 15 and Agr. Expt. Sta.  Res. Rept. No. 6, Madison, Wiscon-
      sin (1960).

Lea, W.L. and Nichols, M.S.  "Influence of Substrate on Biochemical Oxygen Demand"
      Sew.  Works, 8  435 (1936).

Lea, W.L.,  Rohlich,  G.A. and Katz,  W.J.  "Removal of Phosphates from Treated Sewage"
      Sew.  Ind. Wastes,  26  261  (1954).

Lee, G.F. and Fruh,  E.D.(ed.) "Eutrophication of Natural Waters" Water Chemistry
      Seminar,  Univ.  of Wisconsin.  Mimeo (1965).

Lerch, W.  "WARNING! Use the Right De-icer"  Modern Concrete  (May 1962).

Levin, G.V.  Reducing Secondary Effluent Phosphorus Concentration Prog. Rept PHS
      Grant WP-99, Dept. of San. Engr. & Water Res.,  The Johns Hopkins Univ. (April

Livermore, D.F.  "Harvesting Underwater Weeds" Water Works Engr.,  107 2, 118(1954).

Ludzack, F.J. and  Ettinger, M.B.  "Controlling Operation to Minimize Activated Sludge
      Effluent Nitrogen" J.WPCF, 34 9, 920 (1962).

Mackenthun, K.M.  "The Chemical Control of Aquatic Nuisances"  Wis. Comm. on Water
      Poll., Madison, Wisconsin (1958).

Mackenthun, K.M.  "Summary of Aquatic Weed and Algae Control Research and Related
      Activities in the United States"  Wis. Comm. on Water Poll., Madison,  Wisconsin

Mackenthun, K.M.  "A  Review of Algae,  Lakes and Nutrients" J.WPCF, 34_  10, 1-0,77-1&85
      (October  1962).


Mackenthun, K.M. Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Water  U.S. Dept. H.E.W., PHS (1965).

Mackenthun, K.M. and Ingram,  W.M.  Limnological Aspects of Recreational Lakes PHS
       Publ. No.  1167, U.S. Dept. of H.E.W., Washington, D.C.  (1964).

Mackenthun, K.M. and McNabb, C.D.  "Stabilization Pond Studies in Wisconsin" J.WPCF,
       33 12, 1234-1251 (December 1961).

Malhotra, S.K.,  Lee, G.F. and Rohlich, G.A.  "Nutrient Removal from Secondary Effluent
       by Alum Flocculation and Lime Precipitation" J.AWP,  8  487 (1964).

Maloney, T.E. "Control of Algae with Chlorophenyl Dimethyl Urea" J.AWWA,  50_ 3, 417

Maloney, T.E. "Detergent Phosphorus Effect on Algae"  J.WPCF,  _38  1,  38-45 (1966).

McCord, G.K. (Portland Cement Assn)  Personal Communication (December 1966).

McKee, J.E. and Wolf, H.N. Water Quality Criteria 2nd ed.,  State Water Quality Control
       Board,  Sacramento, California, Publ. 3-A  (1963).

Merrill, J.C.Jr.   and Katko, A. "Reclaimed Wastewater for SanteeRecreational Lakes"
       J.WPCF,  _38  8, 1310-1318  (August  1966).

Midgley and Dunklee, Bui. 523, Agr. Exp. Sta., Univ.  of Vermont  (1945).

Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Commission "Jones Island Plant Operating Data for  1965".

Neel, J.K., McDermott, J.H. and Monday, C.A.Jr.  "Experimental Lagooning of Raw
       Sewage at Faueh, Missouri" J.WPCF,  33  603  (1961).

Neess, J.C.,  Helm, W.T.  and Threinen^ C.W.  "Some Vital Statistics in a Heavily Exploited
       Population of Carp"  J. Wildlife Mgmt., _2J.  279,(1957).

Nesselson, E.J.  "Removal of Inorganic  Nitrogen from Sewage Effluents"  Ph.D. Thesis in
       Civil Engr., Univ. of Wisconsin  (1954).

Nichols, M.S. (Emeritus Prof,  of San. Chem.)  Communications (1966).

Nutrient Sources Subcommittee of the Technical Committee of the Lake Mendota Problems
       Committee  "Report on the Nutrient Sources of Lake Mendota" Madison,  V/isconsin

Oglesby, R.T. and Edmondson,  W.T. "Control of Eutrophication"  J.WPCF,  38_  1391-
       1562 (1966).

Oscar Mayer and Company "The Madison Lakes Problem"  Part II  (September 15,  1955).


Owen, R.  "Removal of Phosphorus from Sewage Plant Effluent with Lime"  Sew. Ind. Waste
       25  548 (1953).

Palmer, C.M. "Evaluation of New Algicides for Water Supply Purposes" J.A'WWA,  48_
       9,  1133 (1956).

Palmer, C.M. Algae in Water Supplies PHS Publ. No. 657, Supt. of Documents, Washing-
       ton, D.C.  (1962).

Parker, C.D., Jones, H.C. and Taylor, W.S.  "Purification of Sewage in Lagoons"  Sew.
       Ind. Wastes, 22  6760 (1950).

Preul, H.C.  "Underground Movement of Nitrogen" J.WPCF,  38  3,  335-336 (March 1966).

Provalsoli, L.  "Micronutrients and Heterotrpphy as  Possible Factors  in Bloom Production in
       Natural Waters"  in Algae and Metropolitan Wastes SEC  TR W61-3, R.A. Taft
       San. Engr. Center, Cincinnati,  Ohio (1961).

Public Health  Service Drinking Water Standards,  U.S. Dept. of H.E.W. (1962).

Rafter, G.W. and Baker, M.N.  Sewage Disposal in  the United States  2nd ed.  D. Van
       Nostrand Company: New York (1894).

Rohlich, G.A, "Methods for Removal of Phosphorus and Nitrogen from Sewage Plant
       Effluents"  J.AWP,  7  427  (1963).

Rudolfs, W. "Phosphates in Sewage and Sludge Treatment - I. Quantities of Phosphates"
       Sew. Works J.our.,  _19  1,43-47 (January  1947).

Rudolfs, W. and Heinemann, B.  "Growth-Promoting Substances in Sewage and Sludge -
       I. Review of Literature"  Sew. Waste Jour., 10_ 4, 643 (July  1938).

Saley, B.  (Madison City Health Department) Personal Communications (1966).

Sanderson, W.W.  "Studies of the Character and Treatment of Waste from Duck Farms"
       Proc.  8th Ind. Waste Conf. Purdue Univ., 38  1,  170-176 (1953).

Sawyer, C.N. "Fertilization of Lakes by Agricultural and Urban Drainage" J. New Engl.
       Water Works Assn., 61   109 (1947).

Sawyer; C.N. Chemistry for  Sanitary Engineers McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.:
       New York (1960).

Sawyer, C.N. and Ferrullo, A.F. "Nitrogen Fixation in Natural and  Laboratory Conditions",
       Algae  and Metropolitan Wastes  W61-63,  p.  100, R.A. Taft San. Engr. Center,
       Cincinnati, Ohio  (1961).^


-Sawyer, C.N. Lackey, J.  B. and Lenz, A.T.  "Investigations of the Odor Nuisance Occur-
        ring in the Madison Lakes" Madison, Wisconsin  (1943-1944).

 Sawyer, C.N., Lackey, J.B.  and Lenz, A.T.  "Investigation of the Odor Nuisance Occur-
        ring in the Madison Lakes,  Particularly Lakes Monona, Waubesa and Kegonsa from
       July 1943 to July 1944"  Kept, to the Governor's Comm., Madison, Wisconsin (1945).

 Schraufnagel, F.H.  "Chlorides" Wis. Comm. Water Poll., Madison, Wisconsin  (August

 Schuette, H.A. ana Alder, H.  "Notes on the Chemical Composition of Some of the Larger
       Aquatic Plants of Lake Mendota"  II. Tran. Wis. Aca. Sci.,  Arts, Letters, 23
        249  (1928) and III. 2A 135 (1929a).

 Scott, R.H.  "The Reduction of Soluble Phosphorus in Sewage Plant Effluents"  .Ph.D.  Thesis
        in Civil Engr., Univ.  of Wisconsin (1947).

 Seesing, J.  R.  "The Physical and Chemical Properties of Soils and Growths of Plants as
       Affected by Irrigation with Sewage Effluent" Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Wisconsin

 Shah, K. S.  "Sulfur and Nitrogen Brought Down in Precipitation in Wisconsin"  M.S.  Thesis,
        Soils Dept., Univ. of Wisconsin  (1962).

 Sharratt, W.J., Peterson, A.E. and Calbert, H.E.  "Whey as a S ource of Plant Nutrients
       and its Effect on the Soil" J.Dairy Sci.  42   7,  1126-1131  (July  1959).

 Sherman, J.V. "Phosphorus Chemicals"  Barren's (October 12, 1966).

 Stahl, E.H.A.  "Development and Uses of Ground Water Supplies" J. AWWA,  57  9, 1123
       (September 1965).

 Sylvester, R.O.  Limnological Aspects of Recreational LakesPHS  Publ.  1167 (1960).

 Sylvester, R.O.  "Nutrient Content of Drainage Water from  Forested, Urban and Agricultur-
        al Areas"  in Algae and Metropolitan Wastes  SEC TR  W61-3,  R.A.  TaftSan.
        Engr. Center, Cincinnati, Ohio (1961).

 Sylvester, R.O. and Anderson, G.C.  "A Lake's Response to its Environment"  ASCE  San.
        Engr. Div.  90, SA 1, Parti (February  1964).

 Tanner, C.B.  Mimeo, Soils Dept., Univ. of Wisconsin (1966).

 Thomas,  E.A.  "Die Veralgung yon Seen and Fldssen, deren Vrsache und Abwehr"
       Monatsbull. Schweiz. Ver. Gas-  und Wasserfachm., Nr. 6/7, 12s.  (1963).
        (The Eut rophication of lakes and streams, their cause  and prevention.)


Threinen, C.W.  "An Analysis and Appraisal of the Rough Fish Problem of Wisconsin"
        WCD Invest. Kept. No. 715 (1949).

 U.S. Bureau of the Census Statistical Abstract of the United States:  1965  86th ed.,
        Washington, D.C. (1965).

 U.S. Bureau of the Census "Census of Manufacturers, 1963 Industry Statistics: Cleaning
        and Toilet Products"  MC63(2)-28D. U.S. Gov. Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

 Vacker, D., Connell, C.H. and Wells, W.N.   "Phosphate Removal Through Municipal
        Wastewater Treatment at San Antonio, Texas"  Presented at the annual short school
        of the Texas Water and Sewage Works Assn.,  Texas A & M University (March 9,

 Wanick, L.F.,  Wisniewski, T.F. and Sanborn,  N.H.  Bull. Wis. State Board of Hlth and
        Natl. CannersAssn.  p. 27  (1945).

 Weibel, S.R., Anderson, R.J.  and Woodward, R.L.  "Urban Land Runoff as a Factor in
        Stream Pollution"  J. WPCF,  36_  7, 914-924 (July 1964).

 Wirth, T.L. and Dunst, R.C. "Limnolqgical Changes Resulting from Artificial Destrati-
        fication and Aeration of an Impoundment"  28th Midwest Fish. Wildl. Conf.
        (December 1966).

 Wirtshafter, Z.T. Minerals in Nutrition  Reinhold Publishing Corporation: New York (1942).

 Wisconsin Comm. on Water Pollution  "A Review of Chemical Monitoring on Badfish Creek
        and Lower Receiving Rivers  1960-1965"  Madison, Wisconsin (June  1966).

 Wisconsin Department of Resource Development  Land Use in Wisconsin  (1963).

 Wisconsin Geological Survey, Personal Communications  (1966).

 Woodburn, J.G., Polk, W.J.  and Nelson, G. A. "Thirty-sixth Annual Report of the Comm-
        issioners of Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District for the Calendar Year 1965."

 Woodruff, C.M.  "Estimating the Nitrogen Delivery of Soil from the  Organic Matter
        Determination   as Relected by Sanborn Field"  Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc.  14_
        208-212 (1949).

 Wuhrmann, K.  "Tertiary Treatment"1 Sweiz, Z. Hydrol.,  19_ 409  (1957).

 \Vuhrmann, K. "Nitrogen Removal in Sewage  Treatment Processes"  Verh.  Internat. Limn.
        15_ 580-596 (1962).

 Young, G.K., Bungay, H.R., Brown,  L.M. and Parson,  W.A.  "Chemical Reduction of
        Nitrate in Water"  J.WPCF, 36 395(1964).


 1                              FREEMAN HOLMER

 2                     It la suggested, sometimes blithely and

 3           blandly —

 4                     MR. STEINi  Is that blandly or blindly?

 5                     (Laughter.)

 6                     MR. HOLMER:  — that Wisconsin, Michigan

 7           and Indiana should divert their municipal and Indus-

 8           trial wastes outside the basin of the Lake.

 9           Mr. Klassen addressed himself to this problem

10     .      earlier.  Such a response to the problems of pollu-

11           tlon—divert the burden to someone else--cannot be

12           entertained lightly.  The initial and operating
r ~  •

13           costs would be substantial.  The analysis of costs

14           and benefits, and consideration of the kinds of

15           institutional arrangements required, thinking in

18           terms of the numbers of industries and municipalities

17           that would be involved in such an arrangement, would

             be an essential prerequisite to further consideration

19           of such a proposal.  A decision of this magnitude

             can, of course, be made only In the light of consi-

             deration of all of the consequences and all of the


                       Let las reiterate, this is a suggestion

             which Is often made.  It is not rejected out of

             hand.  It, as well as all of the other alternatives

 1                              FREEMAN HOLMER

 2           that are open to us as we face this crisis, need

 3           to be considered fully and carefully and completely

 4           to assure that we do deal with the problem in  the

 5           way that measures up to the best knowledge we  have.

 6                     The key to the success of the conference

 7           will lie in our ability to deal, in an organized

 8           and comprehensive fashion, with the complexity of

 9           the problem.  Wisconsin takes pride, as you heard

10           yesterday from Governor Knowles, in its Water

H           Resources Act precisely because it seeks to approach

12           water quality and water management with a coordinated

13           program.  That program requires such elements  as

14           comprehensive planning, shoreland and flood plain

15           zoning and the mandatory training and certification

16           of sewage treatment plant operators.  They are

17           described in our application for a program grant

18           submitted to the Federal Water Pollution Control

19           Administration.  We think that this has many sug-

20           gested items that the Conferees ought to be aware

21           of and to consider in dealing with this comprehen-

22           sive problem.  Efforts of the kind described in

23           the application are essential to supplement the

24           more customary pollution abatement activities.  It

            is, therefore, requested that the formal statements

 !                               FREEMAN HOLMER

 2            of Wisconsin   flood plain and shoreland management

 3            programs also be incorporated in the Conference

 4            record and that the Conference consider recommenda-

 5            tions on these subjects jf shoreland and flood

 6            plain zoning.  We are confident in Wisconsin that

 7            the control of the land usage adjacent to streams

 g            and lakes is a critical key to the effective pre-

 9            vention of pollution as well as to its abatement,

10            and we think that this deserves attention.

11                      I would suggest, too, that another item

12            with which we are involved in Wisconsin, and all

13            of us in the other States as well, is in the area

14            of the private sewage disposal facilities, which I

15            think we need to speak to rather explicitly when

16            we come to the development of our Conference Report

17            and summary.

18                      On Thursday, with the concurrence of

19            members of the Conference, I distributed to the

20            Conferees what we called an Opening Statement.  It

21            was a kind of a working document which I submitted

22            to the Conferees suggesting what seemed to us in

23            Wisconsin to be the appropriate contents of the

24            Summary Report of this Conference and made some

25            suggestions with respect to the sequence with which

    	       •	,	3111
  I                               FREEMAN HOLMER

,2            we ought to approach the development of our recom-

  3            nendatlons*  I wanted to do this for several reasons.

  4            That Opening Statement suggests that In the Summary

  5            Report of this Conference there should be a somewhat

  6            more extensive treatment than is offered In the

  7            PWPCA's working document relating to the nature  of

  g            delays In dealing with this problem.  We are hopeful

  9            and confident of the success of the efforts in
  "                                _
 10            which we are engaged, but we are also concerned

 H            that we make it clear to the people of these four

 12            States that there are necessary steps which must

 13            be taken in sequence and that there will be a alg-

 14            nifleant period before the effects of some of the

 15            steps which we are proposing to take will be effec-

 16            tive, that they will in fact achieve the results

 17            for which we all hope.

 18                      And so it is necessary to include, we

 19            would suggest, in the Summary Report of this Confer-

 20            ence a general description of the kinds of lead

 21            times that are required for engineering and con-

 22            structlon and,where necessary,research, that we

 23            Identify the research gaps and the kinds of time

 24            that will be required to fill them.  We must deal,

 25            it seems to &e, with the problem of the shortages


 1                               FREEMAN HOLMER

 2            of  technical  personnel  and in those areas where

 3            legislative action is required some idea of legls-

 4            lative  lead time.   We need to address our attention

 5            to  the  simple magnitude of the task that is involved

 6            in  such areas as  sewer  separation and those areas

 7            which are  involved in the combination of municipal

 8            and industrial treatment or inter-municipal waste

 9            treatment, which  is one of the recommendations in

10            the PWPCA  Report  and which will obviously require

11            a somewhat longer period of gestation than is required

12            for some of the other facets of this problem we are

13            coming  to  grips with.

14                      As  we consider the alternatives before

15            us, let me suggest that we seek to agree, first,
             in  the  areas  where our present knowledge is inade-
17            quate,  to establish a set of specific research

18            priorities and rigorous  schedules for implementa-

19            tion of new procedures resulting from such research.

             Next, we should seek agreement on the standards to

             govern  our handling of the problems for which present

             technology offers practical guides (as in the

             handling of municipal and industrial wastes).  Then

             we should seek concurrence with respect to our

             respective responsibilities in areas where our


 1                              FREEMAN HOLMER

 2           knowledge la less certain (as In control  of  alewives)

 3           but where promising alternatives appear to be  avail-

 4           able.

 5                     And may I suggest also In  reiteration  that

 6           we bear In mind as we proceed with our deliberation

 7           the necessity for establishing priorities on our

 8           needs and our actions as was suggested by

 9           Governor Knowles yesterday.

10                     TSie national interest in the problems  of

11           the Lake Michigan Basin would appear to warrant  a

12           substantial Federal Investment in those areas  where

13           more knowledge is needed.  Especially in  the Green

14           Bay area, where a commercial fishery Is at stake,

15           a Federally-financed pilot project,  supplementing

16           present research efforts, may be in  order.

17                     In Wisconsin, the application of present

            technology to the handling of municipal and  industrial

19           wastes will proceed as rapidly as is possible.   We

            are committed to doing so.  The cost of dealing

            with the nutrient enrichment of the  Lake, however,

            computed on the basis of known technology, is

            widely regarded as prohibitive.  At  least it was

            two weeks ago.  But "prohibitive" is a relative

            word.  If research now underway fails to  produce

 1                              FREEMAN HOLMER

 2           significant breakthroughs in the near future we

 3           suggest that this Conference also seek agreement on

 4           the means to be considered for future action on

 5           this problem.  I would modify that to conform with

 6           what I had to say earlier on this subject.

 7                     Our environment is in delicate balance.

 8           Man can alter it significantly but we dare not

 9           alter it beyond our power to reverse our own errors.

 10           And let us not deceive ourselves.  We face a long and

 11           costly struggle and we cannot succeed fully without

 12           using tools that either do not yet exist or are

 13           now viewed as impractical.  To succeed we must be

 14           aggressive and persevering.  Constant vigilance is

 15           not only the price of liberty; it is also a part

.18           of the price of survival.

 17                     MR. STEIN:  Thank you, Mr. Holmer, for

 18           a very excellent statement.

 19                     Do we have any comments or questions?

 20                     MR. JAHNKEi  Could I ask him a question?

 21                     MR. STEINs  We don't take any questions

 22           from the floor.  I am sorry.  If we threw this open

 23           to., the floor, I think we would get a permanent lease

 24           on the hotel.

 25                     Are there any other questions or comments?

 1                              FREEMAN HOLMER

 2                     MR. POSTON:   I would  like  to aak Mr.  Holmer,

 3           In the first part of his paper,  as I understand

 4           this there will be set  Intrastate standards on

 5           Intrastate waters In the State  of Wisconsin and

 6           that you would expect to achieve these standards

 7           In 10 years?  Is this —

 8                     MR. HOLMER:   Let me clarify that because

 9           It is a more far-reaching statement  than  appears

10           on Its face.  Indeed, there are those In  Wisconsin

11           who have serious doubts as to whether It  is possible

12           to achieve the goal as  stated here within 10 years.

13                     "The long-range goal  of Wisconsin

14           intrastate standards..JB to permit the use of

15           water resources for all lawful  purposes,  including

16           the reproduction of game fish and minnows."

17                     This is our highest standard of use.

18           And we have adopted as  our own  Internal challenge

19           the achievement of this objective within  10 years.

20           This Is more than we have promised anybody else

21           but ourselves.                                   /

22                     MR. STEIN:  This goes above and beyond that.

23                     MR. HOLMER:   Yes, sir.

24                     MR. STEIN:  Are there any  other further

25           comments or questions?


 1                               FREEMAN HOLMER

 2                      I think you have a very constructive

 3            statement here,  and In looking at all these rthink

 4            we are very close together, but necessarily because

 5            of the complexity of this all the four States have

 6            come In with something slightly different.   I think

 7            we have a real challenge In trying to get our pro-

 8            grams dovetailed to meet the Lake Michigan  Conference.

 9                      Are there any other questions?

10                      (No response.)

11                      MR. STEIN:  Do you have any further

12            people from Wisconsin?

13                      MR. HOLMERj  We do not.

14                      MR. STEIN:  You do not.

15                      We have consulted with the Conferees,  and

16            because of driving conditions—I will take  the

17            blame for this;  Mrs. Rankin calls me a slave driver—

18            we are going to go right through.  I am Just calling

19            a recess now for 10 minutes.  We will reconvene  at

20            that time and the next thing we will take up will

21            be the Federal Conclusions and Recommendations

22            which have been presented by Mr. Robert Schneider

23            earlier.  We deferred comment on these until now.
                       Before that,  I do think that Mr.  Poole
             has  a statement to make.


 1                         STATEMENT OF H.  LaBRANT


 3                    INDIANA PRESENTATION  (CONTINUED.)


 5                     MB. POOLE:   I have a statement here that

 6           has been handed in this morning by  Mr.  H. LaBrant,

 7           of Whiting,  Indiana, which I would  merely like to

 8           enter into the record, Mr. Chairman,  without reading

 9           it.

10                     MR. STEIN:   Thank you.

11                     (which said  statement is  as follows:)


13                         STATEMENT OP H.  LaBRANT

14                             WHITINQ, INDIANA


                      February 6 press reports  allege that the

            State of Indiana produces the  majority  of the

            pollution of Lake Michigan.  This places great

            importance on the acts of the  City  of Hammond,

            Indiana, which has dumped most of this  pollution

            into Lake Michigan.

                      The acts of  the City of Hammond have

            nullified hundreds of  millions of dollars of

            construction of the Sanitary District Cal-Sag Canal

            designed to  scavenge the domestic and industrial

 1                          STATEMENT OP H. LaBRANT
 2            wastes of the Calumet District of Indiana by
 3            drainage of the Calumet Rivers.
 4                      The City of Hammond, Indiana, has diverted
 5            the majority of the,Industrial and domestic filth
 6            of Gary, East Chicago, Indiana Harbor, and Hammond,
 7            Indiana, from the Cal-Sag Canal and dumps It into
 8            Lake Michigan.
 9                      The enormity of the pollution contribution
10            by the City of Hammond and the relative ease, speed,
11            and low cost of reversing this pollution diversion
12            makes it difficult to understand why public exposure
13            of this gross pollution has been suppressed.
14                      While all water pollution must be condemned
15            and corrected, if we must choose between the tempo*
16            rary pollution of a stream or a lake we should
17            choose the stream because a stream can be flushed
18            and rejuvenated, a lake cannot.  If we must choose
             between emptying Calumet area wastes into Lake
             Michigan or the Cal-Sag Canal, it should be the
21            Cal-Sag.
                       -Three Indiana steel mills reported by
             the press to be the greatest polluters of Lake
             Michigan were scavenged by the Grand calumet River
             and the Cal-Sag Canal before the unjustifiable acts


 1                         STATEMENT OP H.  LaBRANT

 2           of the City of Hammond diverted these and other

 3           industrial  and domestic pollutants into Lake Michigan.

 4                    Eleven years ago the City of Hammond,

 5           Indiana,  desired to replace the two-lane Columbia

 6           Avenue Bridge across the Grand Calumet River with a

 7           four-lane "causeway fill" to save the cost of a

 8           bridge and  petitioned the Corps of Engineers for

 9           permission  to dam the river which had been navi-

10           gated and had many lift bridges.

11                    A remonstrance against  permitting the dam

12           across the  Grand Calumet River was presented at the

13           Corps of  Engineers hearing alleging that the culverts

14           proposed  were inadequate to carry the flow, that

15           they would  become silted and obstructed resulting

16           in diversion of most of the polluted wastes this

17           stream carried into Lake Michigan thru the Indiana

18           Harbor Ship Canal.

19                    The Colonel in charge of the hearing

20           agreed that diversion of pollution into Lake Michigan

21            would probably result,  but stated he had to reject

22           the remonstrance because the Corps of Engineers was

23           authorized  by law only to consider the effect on

             navigation  and flood control,  not pollution and

             public health,  safety,  and welfare.   Certainly


 1                          STATEMENT OP H.  LaBRANT

 2            Congress should promptly correct this limitation;

 3            water pollution and public health are more important

 4            considerations than the navigation of a coal barge.

 5                      The silting and obstruction of the culverts

 6            by debris and vegetation has exceeded the expecta-

 7            tions of the remonstrators.  As a consequence, near

 8            the Illinois-Indiana State line the formerly navi-

 9            gable Grand Calumet River has  been reduced by the

10            Hammond Dams to an ankle deep, six foot wide creek

11            with little current.  By contrast, the outflow from

12            the Grand Calumet River in the Indiana Harbor Ship

13            Canal at the Columbus Drive Bridge is navigable by

14            Great Lakes freighters and has a strong current

15            rushing out into Lake Michigan and carrying most of

             the Calumet area pollutants.

                       This can be reversed by removing the

             Hammond Dams and placing a temporary coffer dam

             across the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal near Columbus

             Drive:  to force hydraulic cleaning of the silted

             Grand Calumet channel caused by the Hammond Dams.

                       Positive flow in the Indiana Harbor Ship

             Canal away from Lake Michigan can be provided

             with a large volume low head screw or other type

             of irrigation pump to move water past the coffer

              STATOdENT  JP  H.  LaBRANT
dam until  locks are built at  the mouth  of  the

Indiana Harbor Ship Canal to  protect  Lake  Michigan,

similar to the protecting locks at  the  mouth of  the

Chicago River.

                                (Signed) H. LaBrant

                                Whiting, Indiana
           (The following photograph was submitted

 by H. LaBrant:)

        Grand Calumet  - West of Holmann Ave. bridge

 2                      MR. STEIN:  Do you have any other state-
 3            ment to introduce?

 5                     FEDERAL PRESENTATION (CONTINUED.)

 7                      MR. POSTON:  We have, I think, about
 8            two statements,  Mr. Cook has those, that I would
 9            like to distribute to the Conferees at this time
10            and have them introduced into the record.
11                      MR. STEIN:  These statements will be
12            distributed and entered into the record, if there
13            is no objection, as if read.  And if I hear no
14            objection, I am presuming they will be entered into
15            the record.
16                      (Which said statements are as follows:)

18                                STATEMENT OP
20                            8120 WOODMONT AVENUE
21                           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20014

23                                            February 2, 1968



 2           Mr. Grover Cook

 3           Great Lakes Region

 4           Federal Water Pollution Control

 5             Administration, USDI

 6           33 East Congress Parkway, Room 410

 7           Chicago, niinois 60605


 9           Dear Mr. Cook:

10                     It was a pleasure to attend  the  first  two

11           days of the Enforcement Conference on  the  Pollution

12           of Lake Michigan and  I wish that  I could have  stayed

13           longer.

14                     There was a question asked following

15           Dr. Carbine's report at the close of the day on

16           Thursday, February 1, which I  felt should  have

17           further comment.  However, the time of day was not

18           propitious for an extended gratuitious answer  from

19           the floor.  Nevertheless, the  following comments

            may be of interest to.the panel if it  is not too

            late to insert them into the record.

                      Dr. Carbine had indicated that the present

23           levels of pesticides  in Lake Michigan  were not yet

            at a critical level but some of them were  approach-

            ing such levels.  Mr. Idassen  asked, what  are

 2           considered lethal levels of pesticides and how are
 3           they determined?  The answers given by Dr. Carbine
 4           and Mr. Stein were correct, since it is true that
 5           no satisfying simple answer can be given to this
 6           question.  Nevertheless, it would be unfortunate to
 7           leave the panel with the impression that little or
 8           nothing is known on this important subject.  The
 9           facts are that a great deal of excellent research,
10           both in the laboratory and In the field, has been
n           done on hazards to fish and other aquatic organisms
12           from a variety of pesticides.  Much of the data on
13           EC 50's (the concentration which produces the
14           expected effect in 50 per cent of the test popula-
15           tion) have been gathered and are being evaluated by
16           the National Technical Advisory Committee to the
17           Federal Water Pollution Control Administration on
18           Water Quality Criteria.  However, all of this
19           research does not provide a straightforward simple
20           answer to such a generalized question as, What is
21           the lethal level of pesticides?, because the problem
22           is far more complex than is implied in the question.
23           In the first place, there are a wide variety of
24           pesticides each with its own toxic characteristics.
25           Secondly, with many different species of fish some of



 2           them will have a very different sensitivity to

 3           pesticides than do others.  Moreover, fry are

 4           frequently much more sensitive than are more mature

 $           fish.  For example, in some species of fish the fry

 6           may be especially sensitive to certain formulations

 7           of the weed killer 2,^-D but quite resistant to

 8           other forms of the same weed killer.  Another im-

 9           portant fact is that most of the pesticides of

10           especial Interest have extremely low solubility in

11           water.  Nevertheless, they may adhere to particles

12           and contaminate the sediment on the bottom.  More-

13           over, they will be concentrated in various organisms

14           in the food chain.  Therefore, the most significant

15           hazard to fish under certain circumstances might be

16           due to the effect upon the food chain rather than

17           because of their direct toxlcity to fish.

18                     If I might be permitted to offer some

19           interpretations, I would suggest that these compli-

            cations should not be a cause for despair or for

            insisting on a simple though possibly inadequate

            answer.  Rather, I believe that the excellent

            scientists who are currently studying this problem,

            both In the four States involved in the Conference

            and in the Federal Government, should be encouraged



 2            to continue  if  not  expand  their studies.   At the

 3            same time, efforts  to  find substitutes  for the

 4            toxio pesticides should be continued or expanded

 5            and techniques  should  be sought to reduce the con*

 6            tamlnation of lakes and streams by such pesticides.

 7            Advantage should be taken  of the fact that the

 8            levels in Lake  Michigan are not yet critical so

 9            that an orderly solution to this problem  can be

10            found,

11                     The potential danger of a premature

12            solution might  be illustrated by the current claims

13            in the cotton growing  areas of the Southwest that

14            restrictions on the use of persistent chlorinated

15            hydrocarbon  pesticides have resulted in more severe

16            damage to the environment  than would have occurred

17            from DDT. Specifically, two non-persistent pesti-

             cides, carbaryl and azodrin, have been  used in

             place of DDT for the control of certain cotton

             insects. Carbaryl, a  carbamate, does not persist

             in the environment  but it  is extremely  toxic to

             honeybees and it is claimed that it has nearly wiped

             out bees and other  Important pollinators  from wide

             areas.  Similarly,  azodrin, an organic  phosphorus

             insecticide, likewise  disappears rapidly  from the

   I                                                            3127


 2          environment but is nevertheless  very  toxic to certain

 3          birds and has killed  large  numbers of quail and doves

 4          in these cotton growing areas.

 5                    I have no factual data on the  accuracy of

 6          these reports but they sound reasonable  and illua-

 7          trate my suggestion that we should not risk an

 8          unknown danger in order to  forestall  a known danger

 9          which has not yet reached critical proportions.

10          Rather we should take advantage  of the grace period

11          still remaining before us to find more desirable

12          alternatives.

13                    I will be looking forward to the recommen-

14          datlone of this Conference  with  a great  deal of

15          interest.  I am sorry that  I could not remain

16          through the balance of the  presentations.

17                           Sincerely  yours,


19                           William M. Upholt, Ph.D.

                             Executive  Secretary

                             Federal Committee on Pest Control





 1                        STATEMENT OP VERNE M.  BATHURST


 3                        STATEMENT BY VERNE M.  BATHURST


 5                           EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN


 7                      Mr.  Chairman:

 8                      I appreciate this  opportunity  to make a

 9            statement at this  Conference.   The U.  S.  Department

10            of Agriculture and the Soil  Conservation Service

11            have an interest in pollution problems,  particularly

12            as they relate to  pollution  from sediment.

13                      The Soil Conservation Service  (SCS) is the

14            U. S.  Department of Agriculture technical arm of

is            action for soil and water conservation.   It cooperates

16            closely with Federal and State agencies  that deal

17            with loans, cost-sharing,  fish, wildlife, recreation,

is            and other matters  related to land  and water use.

H                      We stand ready to  cooperate in any way

20            which  we can to control  erosion and thereby reduce

21            pollution by sediment in Lake Michigan.

22                      The problem of water pollution, especially

23            that caused by sediment, cannot be dealt with effeo-

24            tively without considering the lands upon which it

25            falls.   The treatment of those lands is  a primary

 1                      STATEMENT  OP VERNE M.  BATHURST
 2          concern to the Soil Conservation Service.
 3                    The discharge of sediment  into water
 4          supplies has, in the past, often been  associated
 5          with only agricultural lands.  This  is no  longer true.
 6                    Serious erosion, sediment  production,  and
 7          resulting pollution occurs on lands  used for any and
 8          all purposes -if those lands are left  unprotected.
 9          There is evidence that major sediment  deliveries
10          are taking place in our streams and  lakes  within
11          the Lake Michigan drainage area from other than  agri-
12          cultural lands.  This  is particularly  true of those
13          areas of suburban and  industrial development near
14          our major cities, many of which are  in close proxim-
15          ity to water areas.  The same is true  to a large
16          degree of any industrial, municipal, or recreational
17          development which Includes scarifying  the  land and
18          leaving it uncovered to the ravages  of erosion during
19          periods of construction.  The extent of the severity
20          of sedimentation will  depend upon  the  erosiveness
21          of the soil, the length of time which  the  soil is
            left exposed, the season which it  Is exposed, and
23          the topography in the  area, plus the proximity to
24          streams or lakes.
                      Excessive sediment is essentially harmful


 1                        STATEMENT OP VERNE M. BATHURST

 2            to all beneficial uses of water.  The coat of

 3            filtration of water for domestic and industrial

 4            uses generally exceeds all other costs.  Sediment

 5            smothers and Inhibits aquatic life and greatly

 6            reduces the recreation potential of the Nation's

 7            lakes, streams, and reservoirs.  It fills streams,

 8            channels and lakes, requiring costly maintenance,

 9            It impairs the oxidation of organic pollutants in

1°            streams.  Sediment causes erosion of power turbines,

11            pumping equipment, and other structures.

12                      The quality of our water depends upon how

13            it IB treated from the time it falls as precipitation.

14            Since practically all of our precipitation falls on

15            land.  The treatment that it receives has a major

18            bearing on water quality.

17                      The treatment measures of which I speak

18            are those which reduce the velocity of water to the

18            point where it will not carry significant amounts

20            of sediment.   Also Important are those measures

21            which provide sufficient cover for the land to pre-

             vent the dislodging of soil particles which later

             become detrimental sediment in our lakes, rivers,

             streams, such as Lake Michigan and its tributaries.

                       The same practices which have so


 1                       STATEMENT  OP VERNE M.  BATHURST

 2           effectively  controlled erosion on  agricultural lands

 3           can,  with modification,  be  applied to all other land

 4           uses  where erosion  is  a problem.   The same principles

 5           Apply in either  case.

 6                    All  sources  of sediment  must have unified,

 7           coordinated  attention  if we are to overcome this

 8           threat to our  water resources.   Whether the sediment

 9           source is farmland, surface-mined  areas,  roadsides,

10           streambanks, or  from land being converted to urban

ll           or  Industrial  uses; the greatest progress can be

12           made  when all  Interests,  public and private,  in a

13           drainage area  unite their efforts.   Attempts  to deal

14           with  the problems piecemeal are costly and in many

15           instances ineffective.   Many land  users,  public

16           and private, have not  fulfilled their responsibility

17           toward pollution abatement  through sediment control.

18                    Preliminary  studies  in Michigan Indicate

19           that  as much as  100 tons  of soil per acre per year

             were  being eroded from sites undergoing urban devel-

21           opment.  This  is twenty times  that considered an

             acceptable loss  from agricultural  land.   Soil can

             be  conserved in  place  for three to five cents per

24           cubic  yard.  The costs  of removing sediment from  -

             water or streambeds are many times  higher.


 1                       STATEMENT OP VERNE M.  BATHURST

 2                     The  Soil  Conservation Service and the

 3           U.  S.  Department  of Agriculture has  a wealth of

 4           experience and skill In dealing with soil,  water,

 5           plants,  and animals - the basic resource elements

 6           in  our environment.  Limited as the  programs are for

 7           dealing  with roadsides,  atreambanks  and surface-mined

 8           areas, we have knowledge and skills  that can be

 9           applied  to these  sources of sedimentation and pollu-

10           tlon.  This knowledge and skills are those which

11           have been developed in carrying out  an effective

12           nationwide soil and water conservation program.

13                     Much has  been and is being done to correct

14           erosion  problems.   The Soil Conservation Service

15           works  closely  with  soil conservation districts.

16           These  districts,  which are local entities of State

17           Government, provide local leadership for soil and

18           water  conservation  programs.  The  Service also

19           cooperates closely  with planning commissions, land

20           use boards, health  officials,  county governments,

             and others by  providing soils information and tech-

             nical  counsel  in  erosion control and the wise use

23           of  land.

                       Our  soil  scientists conduct soil surveys

             to  determine the  erosivenees,  and  other characteristica


 1                       STATEMENT OF VERNE M.  BATHURST

 2           of the  Individual  soils.   Soil Conservation Service

 3           soil conservationists then develop conservation

 4           plans,  with the  landowner, which spell out the

 5           conservation practices necessary to control erosion

 6           and excessive runoff.  This assistance Is available

 7           to all  landowners  and land users - be they individual

 8           or group,  public or private.   Technical assistance

 9           Is then provided as necessary In the Installation

10           of the  needed conservation measures. Other agencies

11           within  the Department can In  some  cases provide

12           cost-sharing or  loans for conservation measures.

13                     Soil Conservation Service engineers have

14           worked  closely with the Bureau of  Public Roads to

15           develop guidelines for minimizing  possible soil

16           erosion from highway  construction.  We have worked

17           with County Governments in some parts of the Nation

18           as they developed  county sediment  control programs

19           to control sediment In the urbanizing areas of

20           their counties.  We stand ready to provide the

21            same cooperation with individual or groups of

             counties in the  Lake  Michigan basin should they

23           desire  to  Implement such  a program.

                       In summary,  I would again stress the

             seriousness of sediment as a  pollutant.   I would

 1                        STATEMENT OP VERNE M. BATHURST
 2            also strees the fact that we now have the technical
 3            know-how to control excessive sedimentation on
 4            nearly all land uses.  Additional efforts and a
 5            willingness to carry out necessary conservation
 6            measures is needed by all land users to effectively
 7            control the sediment pollution problems in Lake
 8            Michigan and its tributary streams.
 9                      We in the U. S. Department of Agriculture
10            and the Soil Conservation Service stand ready to
11            participate in active programs to solve the problem.
13                      MR.  STEIN*  We will stand recessed for
14            ten minutes.
15                      (Recess.)
16                      MR.  STEIN:  May we reconvene?
                       All the material that was presented by
18            Mr.  Poston will  be entered into the record as if
19            read,  the material that he presented before the
             recess,  as there is no objection.
21                      Mr.  Schneider.
                       We will now give the Conferees an
             opportunity to comment on the Federal Conclusions
             and  Recommendations.


                             ROBERT J.  SCHNEIDER



 *                           IN THE PWPCA REPORT


 6                     MR. STEIN:   Who  wants to start?

 7                     Or  would you suggest that I go down

 8           these one at  a time?   I hope the people in the

 9           audience can  find this.  This may be a little

 10           better procedure; let me see If we might get

 11           uniformity.

 12                     I will start on  page 63.  Is that

             correct, Mr.  Schneider?

 14                     MR   POSTON:  Sixty-five.

 15                     MR. SCHNEIDER:  The conclusions start

             on 63 and the recommendations on 65.

 17                     MR. STEIN«   Sixty-five, right.  All

             right.  I thought my  reading glasses were


                       To  save time I will not read these.

             If you want to follow the  ball game, get one

             of these books out.

                       No. 1 conclusion.   Any comment?

                       MR. MITCHELL:  Mr. Chairman.

                       MR. STEIN:   Yes.

 I                           ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
 2                     MR. MITCHELL:  Page 65 la the recommenda-
 3           tlons and you say No. 1 conclusion.
 4                     MR. STEIN:  Yes.  I am going to cover
 5           the conclusions first on page 63.  No. 1.
 6                     Are you all set?  Any comment or
 7           question?
 8                     (No response.)
 9                     MR. STEINi  If not. No. 2.
10                     (No response.)
11                     MR. STEIN;  There la no comment?
12                     By the way. If we pass one, we can go
13           back,  in other words, you are not foreclosed
14           if I pass one.
15                     No. 3.
16                     MR. HOLMER:  Mr. Chairman. .
17                     MR. STEIN:  Yes.
18                     MR. HOLMER:  The next to last sentence
19           of this conclusion is that feasible methods exist
20           for bringing this problem under/control.  I presume
21           that this does not mean that our present research
22           projects at Green Bay and Milwaukee would be
24                     MR. SCHNEIDER:  I wouldn't think so, no.
             We would still want to continue on with the research


 1                            ROBERT J.  SCHNEIDER

 2            program.

 3                      MR.  STEIN:   Any  other comment?

 4                      MR.  HOLMER:   Well,  let me pursue this

 5            juat  a  bit.

 6                      Would it  be  more appropriate to modify

 7            that  or limit  it to technical feasibility?  We

 8            may be  talking in some of  these methods about rather

 9            expensive methods,  and your feasibility in this

10            sense is  restricted to technical feasibility

11            rather  than  a  description  of  economic feasibility.

12                      MR.  SCHNEIDER:   I think based on Dr.

13            Weinberger's testimony, he feels that feasible

14            methods do exist and we based our conclusions on

15            the information that we had from Dr. Weinberger.

16                      MR.  HOLMER:   Some of that Information

17            indicated certain removal  capabilities for certain

18            of  the  chemical precipitation processes were

19            achieving 99 percent  removal capability, for

20            example.   This,  however, was  in at least two

             instances, to  our knowledge,  In Wisconsin based

             on  the  use of  filter samples.   The data submitted

             by  Dr.  Weinberger were to  the effect that we

             could hope for three-cent,  four-

 1                           ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2           yesterday, I recognize, at least In part, for the

 3           cost of chemicals.  But we are talking here In a

 4           range of increased sewage treatment costs all told,

 5           including capital Investment and disposal of sludge,

 6           et cetera.  Are we not talking about an Increase In

 7           total cost of sewage treatment In excess of 50 per-

 8           cent over current conventional methods?

 9                     MR. SCHNEIDER:  Well, before hearing

10           Dr. Weinberger I would probably have agreed with

11            that, but the cost, as I recall, that he quoted

12           Included the capital Investment.

13              ...     MR. HOLMER:  Yes.  But what I am asking

14           really is the comparison between the costs he

15            cited, which are up, let's say, at 4 cents and did

16            not include the sludge removal.  Are the total

17            costs not in excess of 50  percent of current

18            secondary treatment?

19                      MR. SCHNEIDER:  Frankly, I wouldn't—

                       MR, HOLMER:  I think we would want to

             pursue this further when the appropriate time

             comes.  But I wanted to raise this question

             because it is a matter which we should understand

             before we proceed with concurrence on proposed


 1                            ROBERT J.  SCHNEIDER
 2                      MR.  SCHNEIDERi   Well, again my impression
 3            from Dr.  Weinberger's presentation was that the
 4            costs he  presented were the total costs for this
 5            additional removal; and I think when Mr. Fierce
 6            discussed their projects  yesterday that, well, he
 7            said the  cost  was only for the chemical addition,
 8            this was  based on incomplete mixing of the chemi-
 9            cals, there was no flocculation provided, and they
10            were Just introduced in a lift station, for example,
11            where there wasn't adequate mixing.  So there is
12            a difference in the cost  from what Dr. Weinberger
13            was talking about and what Mr. Pierce was dis-
14            cussing.   It is going to  cost more, there is no
15            doubt about it.
16                      MR.  WISNIEWSKI:   Mr. Schneider,
             Weinberger's costs are based on plants with a
             10 million gallon per day capacity.  He says
             they can  hit 5 cents per  thousand gallons.  This
             is what Weinberger said.
                       Now,  how many plants do we have in
             this entire drainage basin which have capacities
             of 10 million  to 20 million gallons per day?  We
             have many little plants of 100,000 gallons; capac-
             ity, 200,000,  500,000. Certainly these are not

 1                           ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2           going to be able to do this at the 5 cent per

 3           thousand gallon rate.  Theira are going to be

 4           more nearly 10 cents to 15 cents per thousand

 5           gallons, and the practical test, Manitowoc, said

 6           10-1/2 cents per thousand gallons.

 7                     MR. SCHNEIDER:  Well, I think if you

 8           want an answer to that, we would have to go to

 9           the recommendations.  The recommendations did

W           not call for removal of phosphates in the smaller

11           plants beyond the percentage indicated in Recom-

12           mendation No. 2, which apparently can be achieved

13           through modifications in existing secondary treat-

14           ment facilities.  In other words, there wasn't an

15           intent here to get the maximum phosphate removal

16           that Dr. Weinberger was talking about in all of

17           the plants in the basin.

18                     MR. WISNIEWSKI:  That seems to be the

            inference, however, of the conclusion and the

            recommendation related to it.

21                     MR. STEIN:  Are you people agreed on

            what you mean?  Because I think this can be


24                     MR. WISNIEWSKI:  I think we can certainly

            agree that maybe Dr. Weinberger's processes will

 1                            ROBERT J.  SCHNEIDER

 2  x         accomplish removal  of 80 percent  of the phosphate

 3            at a cost of 5 cents  per thousand gallons in plants

 4            in the range of 10  million gallons to 20 million

 5            gallons per day,  but  these costs will not apply

 6            for the communities that have flows of 100,000

 7            to 500,000 gallons  per day.  Their costs will

 8            be considerably higher than this unit figure.

 9            They just don't have  this  economy-sized package.

10                      MR.  SCHNEIDER:  Well,  again I think

11            that Dr.  Weinberger's cost figures were aimed

12            toward removal beyond what you can expect in a

13            secondary treatment plant  with minor modifications.

14            Now, hopefully you  can achieve this 80 percent

15            removal in smaller  plants  without the costs that

16            he was talking about.

17                      MR.  WISNIEWSKI:   The actual test runs

18            upon which Dr. Weinberger  based his conclusions

19            indicated that on a full plant scale they were

20            doing from 4?  percent to  77 -percent removal,

21            on full-scale  plants.  The other higher figures

22            were obtained  on  pilot scale and on lab scale

23            sizes.   So that when  you get to actual full-

2*            scale you are  not going to get anywhere near
             80 percent  removal, and  the  bigger  the plant

 1                            ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2            the less your chances of getting a high removal.

 3                      MR. KLASSEN:  I have a question,

 4            Mr. Chairman.

 5                      MR. STEIN:  Yea, Mr. Klassen.

 6                      MR. KLASSEN:  Are you through, Mr.

 7            Holmer?

 8                      MR. HOLMER:  Yea.

 9                      MR. KLASSENs  There la one point that

10            i want to Inject here.  I first hope that we

11            have feasible methods.

12                      There is one phase of this that Dr.

13            Weinberger did not cover; and I say this from

14            our own personal experience because we are right

15            In the process now of having a plant designed in

16            the Chicago area for nutrient removal, phosphate

17            removal, and this is the problem of adding to the

18            effluent dissolved chemicals.  In other words, you

19            can add chemicals to remove the phosphates, but I

20            believe—and I would like a comment from somebody

21            who knows more about it than I do—that you also

22            are at the same time increasing the dissolved

23            chemicals In the effluent.

24                      As I recall, in Michigan I think they

             referred to this where they were using some iron

 1                           ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
 2           Salts that they noted an increase In the iron
 3           content of their effluent.  Does somebody want
 4           to comment on that?
 5                     MR. STEIN:  I asked Or. Weinberger
 6           about that myself,  you know, after he gave his
 7           testimony.  I don't want to necessarily give
 8           second-hand information, but his reply to me
 9           was that it would not be a significant problem.
10                     MR. KLASSEN:  It would not be?
11                     MR. STEINz  That is what he said.  This
12           was the one thing that occurred to me, Mr. Klasaen,
13           and right after his testimony I questioned him on
14           that very carefully, but I am not, of course,
15           making the reply as having expert knowledge on
16           this.  I am Just reporting my conversation with
17           Dr. Weinberger.
18                     MR. KLASSEN:  The Conferee from Michigan,
19           or Mr.  Post on?
20                     MR. POSTON:  I might comment on that
21            briefly,  Clarence.
22                     MR. KLASSEN:  All right.
23                     MR. POSTON:  The use of iron as a
24           coagulant, the iron is put in there in Michigan
25            in the  form as iron chloride, and it is the intent

 1                           ROBERT  J.  SCHNEIDER

 2            that  the phosphate  la picked  up  by  the  Iron and

 3            settled out, and  so that,  at  least  theoretically,

 4            all of the  Iron would go to the  bottom  and be

 5            removed with the  sludge and the  phosphate.

 6                     The  chloride  radical would remain in

 7            the solution,  and If excess of lime were  used

 8            some  of the additional  dissolved solids would  also

 9            come  out similar  to a water softening plant where

10            excess lime treatment Is used.

11                     So depending  upon the  process,  the

12            method that is applied. It could actually reduce

13            the dissolved  solids.

14                     MR.  KLASSEN:  But it could also increase

15            lt?

16                     MR.  POSTON:   But It could also  increase

17            it.

18                     MR.  VOGT: I  might  comment about that,

19            Clarence, a little  bit. As you  noted from our

             presentation yesterday, we did find some  Increase

             in the iron in the  effluent,  and of course the

             amount of iron will vary depending  upon the limits

             that  we go  to  or  we attempt to reach In removal of

             the phosphates.   If we  want to remove higher quanti

             ties  of phosphates  and  necessarily  have to add

 1                           ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2           additional Iron, then we are going to have some

 3           additional iron in the effluent, and a lower

 4           phosphate residual we will have less iron in the

 5           effluent.

 6                     MR. KLASSEN:  Thank you.

 7                     MR. VOGT:  It seems to me, Mr. Chairman,

 8           that we are getting into some technical discussions

 9           here that might well involve some of our more tech-

10           nical colleagues to answer some of these questions.

11                     MR. KLASSEN:  I think, Mr. Chairman,

12           too, like Mr. Vogt said, that this might be a

13           reason for our maybe reconsidering something

14           that Is as definite as here in the recommendations,

15           because we are right today faced with approving or

16           disapproving methods for phosphate removal,  I

17           think that I am for coming out with something real

18           definite, but I also hope that in so doing we are

            on a pretty firm technical basis so we won't be

            accused of spending money unnecessarily or making

            the city spend it.  I know we all feel this way.

                      MR. STEIN:  I think you are entirely

            right.  The questioners will have the advantage of

            seeing where we need to produce the technical

            people to get up this Information.

 1                            ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2                      in Lake Michigan we are faced with a
             problem.  If what was said here in the statements

 4            is true and Lake Michigan is eutrophying at a

             pretty rapid rate, I am not sure we have the time

             to make too many mistakes.  We have to be pretty
             sure we are going to come up with the right kind
             of program.  We may not have the second chance.
             And BO we are going to have to look at these problems

             very, very carefully.

                       All right.  Are there any other comments
             on that?
                       MR. VOGT;  Mr. Chairman, along this line,
             Conclusion No. 3, in the second line where it
             makes reference to other lakes within the basin,
             and then also going back to Item No. 2 where it
             says water uses of Lake Michigan and its tribu-
             taries, we have a question about the applicability
             of any conclusions or recommendations to tributaries
             as well as the lake*
                       In other words, for example, these water
             uses of Lake Michigan which are impaired, or
             which are alleged to be impaired, we pointed out
             in our report that swimming has not been impaired

 1                           ROBERT J.  SCHNEIDER

 2           In Lake Michigan whatsoever.

 3                     Now,  the  question I raise is how do

 4           these conclusions and recommendations bear on the

 5           tributaries?  It would seem that they might well

 6           be appropriate  to direct discharges Into the lake

 7           and In the tributaries possibly to those parameters

 8           where the discharge Is to a tributary where the

 9           parameter Is not changed In any way by the forces

10           of nature before entering Lake Michigan and do not

11           produce an Injury.

12                     MR. STEINt  Are there any other comments

13           on that?

14                     MR. SCHNEIDER:  Well, my only comment is

15                     MR. VOOT:  In other words/ Bob, as you

16           will recall, when your report was presented,

             Mr. Oemlng raised the question about how might

             any depletion of oxygen at Lansing affect the

19           oxygen content  of Lake Michigan.  And as I recall,

             your conclusion was that you didn't think that

             this would be affected.

                       MR. SCHNEIDERS  I am sure in that case

             the stream probably recovers before It discharges

             to Lake Michigan, but—

25                      MR. VOOT:  This is the point that I

 1                            ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2            wanted to make, is it appropriate for all of these

 3            recommendations to be equally applicable to the

 4            tributaries as to Lake Michigan?

 5                      MR. SCHNEIDER:  Well, I think that the

 6            biochemical oxygen demand that is exerted, say,

 7            at 50 miles upstream does have effects on Lake

 8            Michigan, and that the by-products of it, phos-

 9            phates, for example, are still carried into the

10            lake.

11                      MR. VOGT:  All right, we won't dispute,

12            we won't have any question at all as to phosphates.

13            So, therefore, I think we need to be more specific

l4            in our conclusions.  And if you are referring

15            specifically to phosphates, as far as Michigan is

16            concerned, this is not an item of dispute.

17                      MR. STEIN:  Are there any further—

18                      MR. SCHNEIDER:  No, I don't think we

19            are saying here that there is an oxygen deficiency

20            in the lake because of a particular depletion of

21            the oxygen sag $0 miles upstream, for example.  But

22            I think we are saying that the tributaries are

23            polluted in regard to these parameters.

24                      MR, VOOT:  Which parameters again?  See,

             in other words, you have to be specific again.

 1                           ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2                     MR. SCHNEIDER:  I think it goes down—

 3                     MR. VOQT:  And as you mentioned, phos-

 4           phates being one of them,, we agree that phosphates

 s           discharged at Lansing ultimately end up into Lake

 6           Michigan.   I think it is clear that some of the

 7           other parameters which might well affect a trlbu-

 8           tary a short distance downstream from a point of

 9           discharge  would not adversely affect Lake Michigan.

10                     MR, POSTON:  I think, Mr. Chairman, that

11           our major  concern here ia the nutrient problem in

12           Lake Michigan, and that dissolved oxygen, while

13           we still  have concern for all waters of Michigan

14           usable for desired water uses, our major concern

15           here in interstate pollution is the nutrient

16           problem.

17                     MR. VOGT:  I think that this coincides

18           with our statement in the conclusions of our

19           report,  which I would Just like to read here,

             that, "The Michigan agencies recognize the pol-

             lution problems on waters tributary to Lake

             Michigan and have in operation aggressive programs

             for their  full and timely correction.  The present

             deficiencies in waste treatment at Inland loca-

             tlons do not contribute to pollutional conditions


 1                            ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2            in Lake Michigan except as a residual phosphate

 3            loading carries on down to the lake."

 *                      So that in effect it appears that we

 5            were saying the same thing.

 6                      MR. STEIN:  Are there any other comments?

 7                      MR, HOLMER:  Well, certainly Wisconsin

 8            would reserve the right to question whether some

 9            of our phosphorous-laden waters which start on

10            the upper Fox and run through Lake Wlnnebago

11            could be demonstrated to reach Green Bay and

12            hence Lake Michigan.  But certainly we would not

13            contest as a natter of principle the application

14            of conclusions of this Conference to the trlbu-

15            tary waters under terms that Mr. Vogt has been

16            talking about.  In other words, the applicability

17            to the quality of Lake Michigan la the key

18            criteria.

                       MR. STEINt  May I make a suggestion

             here?  And this is one, as I see It, that may

             facilitate this.

                       A lot of the conclusions here may

             relate to tributary streams of shoreline areas.

             I think that the views of the States have been

             made clear on this.

 1                         ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
 2                   Now, I think we can reserve that
 3         until we define this.  We would like to have this
 4         statement Just largely for olarifioation and
 5         better understanding of the comment.  But we oan
 6         continue this general comment all the time.
 7                   On this question of jurisdiction, obviously,
 8         in an interstate pollution problem there are certain
 9         aspects of the case which are the important ones.
10         The other points may be intrastate operations now.
11                   This is a question that the Conferees
12         are going to have to resolve.  As the Secretary
13         pointed out to me before I left, after he looked
14         at this report, he said that it looks as if what
15         happens on these lakes is that we get severe
16         situations around the end and sides and we begin
17         to pick them to death and then we can't get at it
18         at the middle sometimes before it is too late.
19                   Now, the question here in these
20         descriptive operations, I think, will be to
21          determine, I would suggest, whether these state-
22         ments are correct or clear.  As to whether there
23          is a Jurisdictional matter for this Conference
24          to consider, we can take up when we formalize
25          these into conclusions and recommendations of the

 1                           ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
 2           Conferees to see what our Jurisdiction is.  But  I
 3           think we can keep raising this Jurisdiotional
 4           question on every one of these.  The point is
 5           well taken, but let's see if we can confine It
 6           to this go-around, because this is a point that
 7           can be repeated over and over again.
 8                     This is an essential point, I might
 9           add, that the Conferees will have to come to
10           grips with when we promulgate our conclusions
11           and recommendations.
12                     No. 4.
13                     (No response.)
14                     MR. STEIN:  No. 5.
15                     MR. POOLS:  Mr, Stein.
16                     MR. STEIN:  Yes.
17                     MR. POOLS:  I Just want to reserve the
18           opportunity to examine some of the background
19           data on this business of sludgeworms all the way
20           from Chicago to Muskegon, Michigan.  I have seen
21           a good many of the Indiana beaches to the east
22           of Gary that I certainly wasn't aware of their
23           being any sludgeworms there.  I am Just making
24           that point.
25                     MR. STEIN:  Right.


 1                           ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2                     Now again let me make It olear.  We are

 3           just going through this right now In a preliminary

 4           fashion.   You can come back to any point.  By-

 5           passing over any point, you haven't waived any

 6           right to discuss or any rights In any way.  We

 7           are Just trying to go through this as we went

 8           through the other reports for an attempt at

 9           clarification, to see how close we can get

10           together.  The way It looks to me, we are getting

11           pretty, pretty close.

12                     No. 5.

13                     MR. SCHNEIDER:  Mr. Chairman, I have a

14           comment on the conclusion as it appears In the

15           report.  There la a typographical error.  Benton

16           Harbor should have been moved Into the next—or

17           down the line,

18                     MR. STEIN:  Where does it come?

19                     MR. SCHNEIDER:  Well, it says Michigan

20           City and Benton Harbor, Indiana.  That should

21           have been down the line.  It should have been

22       '    Muskegon and Benton Harbor, Michigan,

23                     MR. STEIN:  0. K.

                       Any other comment?

25                     ,             »
                       (No response.)

 !                            ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
 2                      MR. STEIN:  If not, let's go to No. 6.
 3                      (No response.)
 4                      MR. STEIN:  No. 7.
 5                      MR. HOLMER:  Mr. Chairman.
 6                      MR. STEIN:  Yes.
 7                      MR. HOLMER:  The last sentence of Item 7
 8            says, "A special evaluation of the combined impact
 9            of siting many reactors on the shores of the lake,
10            in relation to retention and flushing characteristics
n            and to accumulation of radionuclides in aquatic
12            organisms, is desirable."
b                      I assume that this is intended as a
u            declaration of Federal responsibility?
15                      MR. STEIN:  Qo ahead.
16                      MR. POSTON:  Mr. Chairman, I think this
17            was intended that this be a joint responsibility
18            here.  It appears that many people have concern
19            about this, and I know Senator Muakie has indicated
20            he will hold hearings out in this area concerned
21            with these particular problems.  We have had a
22            request from the Assistant Secretary that we
23            develop plans for special studies and we have had
24            some talks with some of the people concerned with
25            these particular power plants  and I feel that the


 1                            ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2            States should be Involved In this special atudy

 3            as well.

 4                      MR. HOLMER:  We are certainly very

 5            Interested and desirous of assuring ourselves

 6            that no harm can result from the proposed installa-

 7            tlons, but these are, after all. Federally-

 8            approved  installations, and while we want to

 9            cooperate with you in the collection of data in

W            order to  protect our own interests, the leader-

11            ship for  such investigation certainly must be

12            accepted  as a Federal responsibility.

13                      MR. STEIN:  I think that point is well

14            taken, Mr. Kolmer.  And as some of the people

15            at the table know, that is probably—at least I

16            spent a  good deal of time in this battle on

17            nuclear energy and radioactivity in water.  And

18            very often, because of the nature of the program,

19            we have to do the testing and provide the incen-

20            tive.

21                      But in the cases that we have moved on

             this, I have always found that we have had unanim-

23            ity with  the State agencies concerned with water

             pollution control.  And I might say that our hand

             in protecting these waters from radioactive

 1                            ROB2RT J.  SCHNEIDER

 2            contaminants has been materially strengthened

 3            by joining with the States, and I hope you will
 4            Join with us in this activity, because some of
 5            these battles get pretty complex and pretty
 6            tough and we would like to have your aid.
 7                      For example, I think when we did this
 8            in the Colorado Basin States, we and the seven
 9            States there were unanimous on every point, and
10            I think unless we stayed together we wouldn't
11            have achieved the victory out there and the clean*
12            up out there that we did.   We need your help, we
13            hope you work with us, but we recognize this aa a
14            responsibility and we won't let it go by the board.
15                      MR. HOLMER:  Thank you.
16                      MR. VOQT;  Mr. Chairman, even though
             these nuclear energy plants are licensed by AEC,
             we in Michigan have still felt that we had respon-
             sibility in connection with any waste discharges,
             and certainly we want to participate in any evaluation
             of this nature,
                       MR. SCHNEIDER:  John, aren't you already
             sponsoring a study of one of the tributaries aa
             an example of what the heat effect, at least, would
             be upon the lake?

 1                            ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2                      I understood from Mr.  Oeming  in  conver-

 3            sations with him that there is a study  being con-

 4            ducted under sponsorship of the  Public  Utilities

 5            Commission in Michigan.

 6                      MR. VOGT;  Offhand, I  am not  aware of

 7            this. Bob.  The nuclear energy plants that we have

 8            now are right on the lake rather than tributary

 9            to a—

10                      MR. SCHNEIDER:  No, but I  think  this

11            is one of the points that I made in  my  presenta-

12            tlon, that the discharge from these  nuclear plants

13            is of the same magnitude as some of  these  tributary

             streams, and apparently there is one of your larger

15            tributaries that have about the  same temperature

16            differential that could be expected  from a nuclear

17            powerplant.    In other words, it was Intended,  as

18            I understood, to study the—

19                      Well, go ahead, Ralph.

20                      MR. PURDY:  This is Purdy  from Michigan.
                       One of thecompanies1..new proposed:;nuclear.realtors
             as a part of their initial statement and proposed
23            use and information to be furnished to  the  Water
24            Resources Commission, has contracted for a  study
             to be made of the effect of, say, the heated

 I                            ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
 2            discharge of the Grand River.   The Grand River runs
 3            at a higher temperature  than Lake Michigan.   It
 4            also has an average flow about  equivalent to that
 5            of the new proposed reactor.  And so  study is being
 6            made on the effect of this heat and where it goes
 7            into Lake Michigan at the present time and this
 8            information will be presented to us in our evalua-
 9            tion of the problems that might be caused and the
10            restrictions that might  have to be placed upon the
11            heat of discharge from this new reactor.
12                      MR. SCHNEIDERS  I think in  addition to
             the temperature effects  there are other  effects
             that can be anticipated  in terms of the  growth
             of slime, and so forth,  in the  conduits  or pipes,
             and whatever application of chemicals is  used to
             control this may have an effect upon  the  water also,
             considering the large volumes of water that will be
                       MR. PURDY:  This study will include the
             effects on the aquatic environment also.
                       MR. STEIN:  If there  are no further
             comments, may we go to 8?
24                      /
                       (No response.)
                       MR. STEIN:  9?


 1                           ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2                     (No response.)

 3                     MR. STEIN:  10?

 4                     (No response.)

 5                     MR. STEIN:  11?

 6                     MR. HOLMER:  Mr. Chairman.

 7                     MR. STEIN:  Yea.

 8                     MR. HOLMER:  In this list of items which

 9           is recited up through 11, there is no mention of

10           the potential Increase in the salt content of the

11           lake as a result of its use as a snow control

12           measure,  we recognize that there is apparently

13           no adverse effect at this point, .but I would hope

14           that somewhere in this report, before it is con-

             eluded, that there would be some reference to a

             concern for this and advance protection against

             any danger.

18                     MR. STEIN:  Mr. Schneider, was that

             overlooked or could that be an addition that we

             could put in, a concern.for the—

21                      MR. SCHNEIDER:  I think there were

             some studies made on it by our office and I

             think that we could have a concern here, yes.


                       MR. HOLMER:  This is all that we can

             offer from Wisconsin.  We have engaged in a pretty


 !                            ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2            careful study of the problem because we - use* a lot

 3            of it, mountains of it.  It undoubtedly finds its

 4            way into the streams and into the lakes and we are

 5            concerned.  To this point the concern is not

 B            demonstrable to a degree that would warrant the

 7            abandonment of its use, but we are afraid of the

 8            kind of drift that brought us to where we are, and

 9            so we would want to express some concern about it.

10                      MR. STEIN:  I think that point is well

ii            taken and that is something that has to be guarded

12            against in the lake.

13                      How about No. 11?

14                      (No response.)

15                      MR. STEIN:  12?

l6                      (No response.)

17                      MR. STEIN»  13?

18                      (No response.)

19                      MR. STEIN:  That finishes the Conclusions.

20            Now we will move on to the Recommendations.

21                      MR. KLASSEN:  Mr. Chairman, are you

22            waiting for comments on 1?

23                      MR. STEIN:  Yes.

24                      MR. KLASSEN:  General comments on

             several of these, and I will refer specifically


 1                           ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2           to their numbers.  We feel these are too general

 3           and some rather vague, and specifically on

 4           Recommendation 1, and I will file these with you

 s           as a document for this report.

 6                     (Which said document submitted by

 7           Mr. Klassen Is as follows:)


 9                           MJLHOIIANDUM



12                     January 31* 1968

13              DATE:  February 1, 1968

14              PROM:  C. W. Klassen, Technical Secretary

                       Illinois Sanitary Water Board


                       We have had an opportunity to pre-revlew

             the general recommendations of the Federal Water

             Pollution Control Administration In connection with

             the Four State Conference on Lake Michigan pollution.

             We would like to offer the following comments

             numbered In accordance with the recommendations


                  1.  Reference Is made "to the extent necessary".

                  It appears that this statement should be more

                  specific.  Also reference Is made to standards


 1                             ROBERT J.  SCHNEIDER

 2                  However,  no standards were recommended and

 3                  In view of the uaage  of the word standards

 4                  In the Water Pollution Control Act of

 5                  we believe that this  Is a reference to water

 6                  quality criteria.

 7                  5.  The words "maximum treatment" is used.

 8                  We believe this requires further definition

 9                  as to what is meant by maximum treatment of

10                  all Industrial waste.

11                  8.  The words "maximum practicable^1 are Used.

12                  We believe this requires further definition

13                  as to what is meant by the terminology*

14                  9-  The word "maximum^1 is used.  It appears

15                  that a more positive  level of protectloh

16                  desired is necessary  rather than just the

17                  terms maximum protection.

18                  10.  We do not understand the purpose or the

                   value of maintaining  accurate recordd of

                   quantities of pesticides utilized on a

                   county basis.  Other  than pure statistics, we

                   do not understand the intent and purpose of

23                  this item.

                   11.  The statement "initiation of corrective

                   action where needed"  appears to need


 1                           ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2                clarification.  Particularly of the words

 3                where needed.

 4                16.  in connection with the reference  to

 5                control over the discharge from watercraft,

 6                we would be interested in knowing  the  status

 7                of the proposed Federal regulations involving

 8                interstate vessels on the Great Lakes.

 9                18.  Reference is made to prohibiting  discharge

10                of oil.  We are interested in knowing  how  the

11                 presence of oil, or absence of It, will be

12                measured.  What concentrations are indicated?

13                Would this mean 15 mg/1, 10 mg/1 or zero mg/1.

14                 19.  The statement "where necessary" appears

15                 to need clarification.

16                 21.  Reference is made to polluted dredginga.

17                 This needs definition and particularly the

                  use of the word polluted or the meaning of

19                 the word pollution.  Illinois recommends that

                  there be no dredginga of any nature or any

                  solid material deposited In the lake.

                  24.  Where on Lake Michigan are hydroelectric

                  plants located and specifically where  are  any

                  which would Influence water temperature In

                  Lake Michigan.


 1                            ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2                      Urtder specific recommendations  reference

 3            Is made to substantial reduction  of nutrients.

 4            What is meant by this terminology and what  level

 5            of measurable nutrient?  The  statement  substantially

 6            eliminate pollution from combined sewers  needs

 7            clarification as to what is meant by substantially.

 8      •                It is recognized that moat of these points

 9            will be discussed in connection with the  prepara-

10            tion of final recommendations.  However,  we desire

11            to point out the need for clarification at  this

12            time.


14                    (Signed) Clarence W.  Klassen

15                             C. W. Klassen, Technical Secretary

16                             Illinois Sanitary Water  Board


18                      MR. KLASSEN:  In reference to the words

19            "to the extent necessary," it appears that  this

             statement should be more specific.

21                      Also reference is made  to standards,

             that Is the last word.  However1,  there  are  no

             standards recommended in the  report. Are we to

             assume, in view of the usage  of this word

             "standards", that they will be the criteria that


 1                           ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2           are referred to In those approved by the Secretary?

 3           Or will this Conference come out with standards to

 4           reiterate it?

 5                     MR. SCHNEIDER:  No, it refers to the water

 6           quality standards approved by the Secretary.

 7                     MR. STEIN:  This is a question of

 8           drafting.  I don't know if you are going to feel

 8           any better about this, Mr. KLassen, but so far

10           I have gone right down the line with you on your

11           comments for the record.  That is well taken.  But

12           I think what you have indicated would require a

13           tightening up of these so we are specific and we

14           have a blueprint to move on from here.

15                     Do you want to confine yourself to one

16           now or do you want to bring up the others?

17                     MR. KLASSENi  No, as you come down to

18           these.  There are only four or five of them.

19                     MR. STEIN:  All right.

20                     MR. VOOT:  Mr. Chairman.

21                     Also I have a question as to the defIni-

             tlon of advanced waste treatment.  I infer from

             other comments in the Recommendations that this

             is referring primarily to the removal of phosphates.

                       Is that correct, Bob?


 1                            ROBERT  J.  SCHNEIDER

 2                      MR. SCHNEIDER:   Well,  I think we are

 3            thinking  in  terms  of additional  removal.  If  you

 4            remove phosphates  you will get additional removal

 5            of  other  constituents.

 6                      MR. VOGT?  But back over here where you

 7            get into  your specific  recommendations, I infer

 8            from the  language  there that you are  really pri-

 9            marlly interested  in the removal of phosphates

10            when you  refer to  advanced waste treatment.   I

11            have a feeling that this needs to be  clarified.

12            .          MR. STEIN:  I think again that point -

13            to.,be well taken.  Sometimes I am not sure that

14            we  are not hoist by our own petard when we talk

15            about primary treatment. Maybe we are all right

16            there. But then when we talk about secondary

17            treatment, tertiary treatment, advanced waste

             treatment, and not being sure precisely what  we

             mean or every State or  every person having a

             slightly  different idea, it may  be wise when  we

             are talking  about  this  to  try to be as specific

             as  possible.

                       You know, we  talked about secondary

             treatment in one State  and then  the State came

             out with  a definition of secondary treatment

  I                                                            3167

 1                            ROBERT J.  SCHNEIDER

 2            which didn't coincide with our people, and I

 3            have been out there adjudicating the flap ever

 4            since.  I think the more we talk in terms of

 5            percentages or items like phosphate removal or

 6            pounds per day and the more specific we can get,

 7            the better off we are going to be in carrying out

 8            these programs.

 9                     May we go to 2?

10                      MR. POOLE:  Mr.  Chairman, on No. 2, I

11            am generally in accord with the 90 percent BOD

12            removal and the 80 percent phosphate removal, but

*3            I want to point out that if we are going back

14            onto the watersheds we have a few small trickling

15            filter plants in the State of Indiana that the 90

             percent removal is going to be pretty tough on.

17            We have indicated in our report to the Secretary

             that trickling filter plants had to do at least

             80 percent removal and activated sludge plants

             90 percent removal, and we would decide on the basis

             of the given situation which system was applicable.

22                      MR. POSTON:  Mr. Poole, I think we like

             to deal from a position of strength, and this is

             what we think will do a good Job.  And that is the



 1                            ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2                      MR. STEIN:  I tell  you, Mr.  Poole's

 3            comment is not the first time I have heard a

 4            comment like that.  We are going to have  to

 5            meet that problem, obviously,  with  a practical

 6            program when we get down to really  dealing with

 7            pollution abatement.  I don't think any statements

 8            are going to make the problem go away.

 9                      I do think, Mr. Poole, that  your

10            statement is pertinent indeed.. The problem

11            here is in dealing with a tremendously able e.nd

12            conscientious administrator like Mr. Poole,

13            when you talk about at least  90 percent,  that is

14            what it means, and when you have a  little old

15            plant where you may have a trickling filter and

             80 percent, but it is not really affecting thie>'

             if the# are in technical violation  of  this, you

             have a problem.

                       I think, Mr. Poole,  your  point  is well

             taken, and I would hope that  the Conferees come

             to grips with that realistically as early as

             possible, because if you don't do it now,  when

             we get to working out the program we are  sure

             going to meet it.

                       MR. VOOT:  Mr. Chairman,  I would Just


 1                           ROBERT  J. SCHNEIDER

 2           like to support Blucher's comments in  this

 3           respect.  This is basically  our position  in

 4           Michigan too.

 5                     MR. STEIN:  M*y we go to 3?

 6                     MR. POOLEi  I have a comment on 3,

 7      .     Mr. Chairman.

 8                     MR. STEIN:  Yes.

 9                     MR. POOLE:  I have some reservations

10           about flat recommendations for year-round

11            chlorlnation in the St. Joe  basin.  We have

12           said that Gary and Hammond and East Chicago or

13            any other place that has a bearing on  either a

14            beach or a public water supply—well,  no, on a

15            public water supply should go to year-round

16            chlorination.  In the St. Joe basin we had

17            said chlorination from  April through October,

18            and I believe Mr. Klassen yesterday or the  day

19            before raised the question about this  chlorination.

20                      MR. STEIN:  Michigan has no  problem

21            with this, I take it.

                       MR. POOLE: No, I understand  that.

                       MR. STEIN:  Are there any other comments

             or questions?

                       Let's go to No. 4.

 1                            ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER              317°

 2                      MR. HOLMER:  Mr. Chairman.

 3                      MR. STEIN:  Yes.

 4                      MR. HOLMER:  I would assume that thia

 5            sentence should read "Organic wastes and sanitary

 6            sewage discharged by Industries receive the same

 7            degree of treatment as recommended for municipal

 8            wastes" rather than "the same treatment."

 9                      MR. STEIN:  Yes.  That Is what is meant,

10            isn't it?

11                      MRi SCHNEIDER:  Right.  I think that

12            that would make sense.

13                      MR. KLASSEN:  I just want to raise the

i4            point here,  I don't believe that we should tie

1s            down industrial waste treatment, for example, to

16            a 90 percent BOD removal.  Wouldn't It be possible

17            to—no, let me say, it is possible to have an

18            industrial waste with a BOD, we'll say, of 2,000

19            so you have a 90 percent removal and you are still

20            going to end up with a pretty strong effluent.

21                      I  think we ought to get something more

22            specific than this to know what kind of a Job is

23            going to be done.

24                      MR. STEIN:  Possibly.  Don't they say

             at least 90 percent?  Ninety percent is the minimum.

   a                                                           3171
  1 I                          ROBERT J.  SCHNEIDER
          MR. SCHNEIDERS  Well,  I can  tell  you
what we intended.  Number one,  In talking in
terms of advanced waste treatment, we  expect that
you oan get better removal  than 90 percent  in
that type of treatment, and in  many industrial
wastes I am sure you can get better than  that.
          MR. STEINi  Do you really mean  what
you Just said, Bob?
          MR. SCHNEIDERt  What  is that?
          MR. STEINi  Do you really mean  what
you just said, that you intended that  in  No.  1
to be the answer to this?   Because if  you did, I
think Mr. Klaaaen's point is well taken,  that
these sure have to be tightened up.  I will give
you my notion.  In reading  this  No. 4, if I
thought that to go above 90 percent or something
in the municipal treatment  I automatically  had to
refer back to No. 1 to get  the  answer, I  guess I
misunderstood.  And I think we  had better go
through these with the notion of clarifying them.
          MR. VOOTi  Mr. Chairman, it  seems to me
that this discussion that is going on  here
emphasizes the problem or points up the problem
that we get into when we Just specify  any degree


 1                            ROBERT J.  SCHNEIDER

 2            of  treatment.   It  seems to me what  we are really

 3            interested  In  is to prevent injuries  and to pro-

 4            tect  legitimate uses  of these waters.  And,  there*

 s            fore,  it  seems to  me  that  we need to  do whatever

 6            is  necessary to protect the uses  in that particular

 7            stretch of  the stream or in Lake  Michigan.

 8                     And  one  of  the practices  that we follow

 9            in  our orders  is not  necessarily  to specify a

10            degree of treatment,  but,  rather, to  impose a

11            loading on  a particular discharger, whether it

12            be  industry or whether it  be a  municipality.  And

13            in  terms  of poundage  allocation.  And in this way

14            you are actually—then they do  whatever treatment

is            is  necessary to get down to that  load.

18   .                  MR.  STEIN:   That is always  preferable.

17            I certainly agree  with you on that, and we have

18            worked with Michigan  on this problem  many,  many

19            times. I think, though, what Mr. Schneider was

20            giving was  the area that we would tie  going for in

              these conclusions.  Again, if you are a State

              agency?  I  am  in favor of  coming  up with the

23            poundage  of load rather than a  degree because

              then  you  know  where you are and.the City and

              industry  knows where  they  stand.

   I                                                           3173
 !                            ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2                      May we go on to 5?

 3                      MR. KLASSEN:  On 5, Mr. Chairman,  I

 4            have a comment and that is the words  "maximum

 5            treatment."  I think that this requires further

 6            definition as to what is meant by "maximum treat-

 7            ment."  is this maximum as technically possible

 8            or—I think I know what the implication is here

 9            as much as is necessary.

10                      MR. STEIN:  Yes.

11                      MR. KLASSEN:  But I do feel that

12            maximum should be a little more definitive.

13                      MR. STEIN:  I think you are right, but,

14            Clarence, I think what we are doing is hitting a

15            variant on the same point.  They will probably

16            answer that this comes back to that advanced

17            waste treatment in No. 1.

18                      Now, I think we should flag all  these

19            things, but you know, this sometimes reminds me

20            of when my younger girl went to elementary school

21            and she took a math test, she would make a mistake

22            and repeat that in every example and the grade

23            would go down.

24                      I think your point is well taken and It

25            should be flagged.  I think what they meant  when

 1                             ROBERT J.  SCHNEIDER
 2             they  referred to this  Is  that you apply that
 3             advanced waste treatment,  No. 1,  to all of
 4             these things  to bring  it  up.   I do agree with
 5             you that we need a sharpening up of these things,
 6             and wherever  you make  the point,  it is well taken;
 7             we will  have  to work on that.
 8                       MR.  KLASSEN: I think the same thing,
 9             Mr. Chairman,  so I won't  have to repeat myself,
10             applies, the  same point,  the  same argument, to
11             No. 8;  "maximum practicable," Is  another type of
12             thing.   It refers to a different  area.
13                       MR.  STEIN:  Right.
14                       MR.  KLASSEN: But when we have maximum,
15             maximum  practicable, is this  economically practical
16             03? what?
17                       MR.  VOOT: Mr.  Chairman.
18                       In  connection with  the  Industrial waste
19             discharged to municipal sewer systems  where at
20             all possible,  I think  this is basically sound.
21             I am  sure Bob had in mind that if the  industrial
              wastes were not compatible to the biological process
23             and would seriously interfere with the biological
              process  at the municipal  plant, then this would
              not be required.


 1                       N    ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2                     MR. SCHNEIDER:  Yes,  that  la right.

 3                     MR. POOLE:  I just wanted  to endorse

 4           what Mr. Vogt and Mr. Klassen said.   I was going

 5           to raise the same question they did.

 6                     MR. HOLMER:  Mr. Chairman.

 7                     MR. STEIN:  Yes.

 8                     MR. HOLMER:  I would  like  to say that I

 8           intended to raise the same questions  that the

10           preceding three Conferees raised.

11                     (Laughter.)

12                     MR. STEIN:  And I am  sure  they didn't

13           consult.  These Just come to mind.   I think both

14           those points are very well taken.

&   .                  No. 6.

                       (No response.)

17                     MR. STEIN:  7.

18                     MR. KLASSEN:  On 6.

19                     MR. STEIN:  Yes.

20                     MR. KLASSEN:  I think that really needs

21           a little tightening  up.  I know this wasn't done

             by design, but when we say "Wastes from Federal

23           activities"—this is a little vague—"be treated

             to degrees at least as good as  that  recommended

             for other sources,  now, if this  isn't a

 I                             ROBERT J.  SCHNEIDER

 2             combination of vagaries,  I have never read it.
 3             What other sources?  A degree as good as, this
 4             doesn't mean—  I know what is going to be
 5             expected of the Great Lakes Naval Training Center at
 B             Port Sheridan, but I think this really needs
 7             sharpening up in order to  make the Federal
 8             agencies themselves look good.  I am not here

 9             to —
10                       MR. STEIN:  I agree with you.  I think

11             I know what they mean.
12                       MR. KLASSEN:  I  do too,
13                       MR. STEIN:  But  we have to rewrite
14             that.
15                       7.  la there any comment on 7*
16             combined sewers?
17                       MR. BOSTON:  Well, I think I have had
18             some question about combined sewers and elimination,
19             I think here again we feel that we have a demon-
20             stration and research program on ways to treat

21             the combined sewer overflows, such as Milwaukee,
22             and here in Chicago  they  have the deep tunnel
23             plan, and in such cases where there are other

24             provisions taken to handle this overflow problem,

              we do not intend that separation sewers be required.


 1                            ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2                      MR. KLASSEN:  Would you say that again,

 3            Mr. Poston?

 4                      MR. POSTON:  We don't Intend that sewers

 5            be separated—for example, In Milwaukee or Chicago

 6            they have a deep tunnel plan. They have a plan

 7            that they are experimenting with in Milwaukee,

 8            and if these prove satisfactory and will treat

 9            this storm overflow, we don't feel that it is

10            necessary to separate the sewer for that particular

11            area where there are other devices employed.

12                      MR. KLASSEN:  I also feel that this

13            again is—this is a real Important question in

14            the Chicago area, like it is all over.  Talking

15            about combined sewers, I think that new combined

16            sewers ought to be prohibited, not necessarily In

17            newly-developed urban areas but in existing urban

18            areas. According to this it might leave the impres-

19            aion, and I know that isn't what you want to leave,

             that new combined sewer-s could be built in existing

             urban areas.  Here it says "be prohibited in all

             newly-developed urban areas."  We have prohibited

             combined sewers in Illinois since 1929.

                       I think that needs sharpening up,

             Mr. Chairman.


 1                             ROBERT J.  SCHNEIDER

 2                       MR.  STEIN:   I would agree with you, air.

 3                       8.

 4                       MR.  KLASSEN;  Well, I have already

 5             commented on 8.   I think when you talk about

 6             maximum practical amount,  this again needs aone

 7             little more definitive language.  We are talking

 8             about tremendously large expenditures, and I

 9             don't like to  leave It open to conjecture and

10             whatnot on somebody else's part because we know

11             that these are going  to be laid under our eyes

12             when they question some of these things and say,

13             well, this Is  what the Conferees recommend.  I

14             know the Importance of these.  This Is why we are

15             a little particular on the language.  These are

16             going to be used by people and when they might

17             question degrees of treatment In these things,

18             they are going to say, well, this Is what the

19             Conferees agreed to,  and I Just want to make sure

              that the language In  here  Is something that Is

              not  going to alter our getting this Job done In

              a hurry.

23                                                              _
                        MR.  VOGT;  Mr. Chairman, I presume No. 8

              is referring to  overflow regulating devices on

              existing combined sewers?

  1                            ROBERT J.  SCHNEIDER
  2                      MR.  SCHNEIDER:  Yea.
  3                      MR.  VOGT:  Is that correct?
  4                      MR.  SCHNEIDER:  Yes.
  5                      MR.  VOGT:  0. K.
  6                      MR.  STEIN:  Maybe that should be made
  7            clear.
  8                      No.  9.
  9                      MR.  HOLMER:  Mr. Chairman, I think we
 10            owe to the agriculturists  a little more specificity
 11            here as to the means to be used.  We agree that
 12            improvement is desirable,  but I think we need to
 13            tell them how.
 14                      MR.  STEIN:  Is there  any comment on
 is            that?  When I first saw this report, that was
 16            the first comment I made,  I think.  I agree.
 17            And I think that will have to be done.
 18                      MR.  POSTONi  I don't  think we really
 19            know how all the pesticides can be handled.  I
 20            think as a result of this  meeting it is clear
 21            to me that we not only need an  Inventory to tell
 22            where these pesticides are put  out and sampling
 23            needs to be done, but we need some licensing
 24            laws, probably, in the State or Federal level
25            to control the application of these pesticides.

 1                             ROBERT J.  SCHNEIDER

 2                       MR.  KLASSEN:  Being on the State level,

 3             I think I am glad you added that "or possibly

 4             Federal laws"  to tell a farmer when and how he

 5             could apply fertilizer.

 6                       (Laughter.)

 7                       MR.  POSTON:  Well,  I was thinking primari-

 8             ly of the contractors who  would do this, maybe,

 9             with airplanes or do  It on a large scale.

10                       MR.  KLASSEN:  This Is only about 15

11             percent of the application In Illinois, Mr. Boston.

12             I am talking about the other 85 by Individual

13             farmers.

"                       MR.  STEINt   Yes.  Both Mr. Holmer and

15             Mr.  Klassen as well as Mr. Poston have outlined

16             the  problem.  I think if there-is anything we can

17             do on this—and there may  be things we can do—

18             we have to come up with a  fairly specific program;

19             because I don't know  that  No. 9 tells anyone to

20             do anything or you have got any kind of program

21             that you can move forward   on  unless we come up

22             with something.

23                       I recognize the  limitations in working

24             with the pesticide program, one for which we

25             don't have standard techniques that we can put

 1                            ROBERm J,  SCHNEIDER

 2             forward) and secondly,  It  is  hard to tell a

 3             farmer what  to  doj and by  the same token, when

 4             wr  deal with these pesticides or other  poisons,

 5             remember it  is  just as hard to tell that house-

 6             wife who is  in  an apartment on the 14th floor of

 7             one of your  buildings  what to put down  the sink.

 8             And a  Federal or State law doesn't necessarily

 9             handle this  question.

10                      This  is a very difficult problem, and

11             I think if we are going to make any impact on

12             it  we  have to come up  with some specific and

13             meaningful discussions on  the way to move.

"                      MR. MITCHELL: Mr.  Chairman.

15                      MR. STEIN:   Yes.

16                      MR. MITCHELL: It seems to me that one

17             item that has been left out or maybe overlooked

18             here is what contribution  is  being made by runoff

19             from our land in terms of  a nutrient being sent

20             to  the lake.  I don't  know that this problem has

21             ever been specifically looked at by any agency

22             of  the Federal  Government,  although there is a

23             lot of work  being done to  control erosion through

24             the small watershed program and upstream report

25             station programs.  It  seems to me it might be


 1                             ROBERT J,  SfHTEIDER

 2             worthy for us  to give consideration to Joining

 3             together some  forces  here  to give a real serious

 4             look at this erosion  problem.

 5                       MR.  STEIN:   I think,  Mr. Mitchell,  that

 6             point is well  taken.   If we are talking in terms

 7             of—these are  the figures  I have heard here—if

 8             we are talking in terms of two-thirds  of phosphates

 9             coming from municipal and  industrial sources  and

10             one-third coming possibly  from land runoff, and

11             we think phosphates are the critical element  that

12             will have to be controlled, if  we go around and

13             don't pay any  attention at all  to that one-third,

14             maybe we haven't done our  Job.

15                       MR.  WISNE3WSKI:   Mr.  Chairman.

16                       MR.  STEINs   Yes.

17                       MR.  WISNIEWSKI:   I would like to make

18             a point of the fact that agriculture is not the

19             only source of pesticide contamination of surface

20             waters and that we should  give some consideration

21             to including in our recommendations a  reference

              to the use of  pesticides for forest and non-foreat

              and non-crop lands by the  people in their house-

              holds, by the  resort  owners that are spraying for

              mosquito control, and many of them are using  the

 1                            ROBERT  J. SCHNEIDER
 2            non-degradable pesticides.
 3                      We find In studies, for  example,  that
 4            some  of our resort lakes which are far  removed
 5            from  agricultural operations do contain in  the
 6            flah  within the lakes substantially higher
 7            quantities of pesticides than some of the areas
 8            that  are right in the agricultural area.  This
 9            may just be coincidence, but we do find it.
10                      MR. STEIN:  I think that point is  well
11            taken.
12                      You know, in  the Federal establishment,
13            the Forest Service is in the Department of
14            Agriculture.  I do think they consider  them
is            agricultural, although  there may be some differ-
16            ences of opinion,
17                      MR. KLASSEN:  I think we have neglected
18            the farmer pretty much, Mr. Chairman, and I  think
19            maybe, and I know from  our own legislative experl-
20            ence  they kind of back  away as to  how you can
21            control, but we have got a gun control  law now
             and they are going to control how  much  you can
23            spend abroad.  It seems that to control pesticide
24            and fertilizer application by the  farmer certainly
25            isn't as complicated as either of  those two.   I

 1                             ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2             think this la something that the Federal Govern-

 3             ment should address Itself to as well as the States.

 4                       I know In our State the last two sessions

 5             of the legislature this came up and It was swept

 6             under the rug.  They appointed .a committee or a

 7             commission.

 8                       MR. STEIN:  Clarence, we may be able to

 9             regulate or control how much you can spend abroad,

10             but we will never be able to regulate how much a

u             broad can spend.

12                       (Laughter.)

13                       MR. KLASSEN:  I don't agree with you.

14                       MR. STEIN:  No. 10.

15                       MR. HOLMER:  Mr. Chairman.

16                       MR. POOLE:  Mr. Chairman, I personally

17             think No. 10 needs to be firmed up considerably

18             and be made more specific.  It seems to me that

19             if I gathered anything from this last six days

20             it Is that we have got a common nutrient problem

21             in Lake Michigan and that we may be on the verge of

22             a common pesticide problem which goes clear back

23             to the watersheds and isn't confined solely to

24             the borders of the lake.

                        I for one would favor that that


 1                             ROBERT J.  SCHNEIDER

 2             recommendation  be  changed  and that it include that

 3             the  States  consider legislation to start the

 4             regulation  of pesticides.   We can at least license

 5             the  commercial  applicants, which admittedly don't

 6             handle all  of the  stuff, but we have got to start

 7             somewhere and it seems to  me there is one place

 8             to start.

 9                      MR. KLASSEN: Yes, I agree with Mr. Poole.

10             It is seldom we agree, but I agree with him on this.

11                      (Applause.)

12                      I think  that what I said before, a

13             recommendation  coming  from these Conferees would

14             be real helpful in the legislatures of these four

15             States because  I know  what we are up against.

16                      MR. HOLMER:   Mr. Chairman, I would

17             certainly endorse  what they have said.  My

18             concern with items 10  and  11 is a little different.

19                      In both  cases the reference is to the

20             State water pollution  control agency,  and in many

21             of the States this may be  appropriate, but certainly

              it might be a Department of Agriculture in one case

23             or a Department of Natural Resources.   Certainly in

24             our  own State we might do  better in 11, for example,

              by having  our conservation agency,  which is another


 1                            ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2            division In our Department,  have that responsl-

 3            blllty.   So I hope we won't specify in the

 4          - recommendations.

 5                      MR. STEIN:  I think that comment Is

 6            very well taken.

 7                      Are there any other comments on 11?

 8                      MR. KLASSEN:  On 10 or 11 I merely add

 9            to what  has been said.  We have tried to get data

10            on the amount of pesticides and fertilizers used

H            In at least two of our counties not too far from

12            where we are now.  If anybody has any.,idea :how

13            you can  go about this—I asked one of the other

14            speakers, an agricultural man—I have got two points

15            on this, are we just going to collect this Informa-

18            tlon, which Is all right, we need it, but if anybody

17            has got  any ideas on this, I would sure like to know

18            it because we have tried it and have not been too

19            successful.

20                      MR. STEIN:  12?

21                      (No response.)

22                      MR. STEIN:  13?

23                      (No response.)

24                      MR. STEIN:  14?

                       (No response.)


 1                           ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2                     MR. STEIN:  15?

 3                     MR. HOLMER:  Mr. Chairman.

 4                     MR. STEIN:  Yea.

 5                     MR. HOLMER:  Our law requires us to

 6           foster the creation of sanitary districts with one

 7           goal, being the elimination of septic tanks.  How-

 8           ever, we would prefer not to eliminate septic tanks

 9           until there is an appropriate treatment replacement.

10                     (Laughter.)

11                     Also we would have an objection to the

12           proliferation of all inefficient treatment plants,

13           not only the small ones.  In other words, this is—

14                     MR. STEIN:  Yes.

15                     MR. HOLMER:  We agree that generally

16           consolidation is a desirable proposition.

17                     MR. STEIN:  I think those points are

18           well taken.

19                     Are there any other comments?

20                     MR. MITCHELL:  I didn't think Holmer

21           could talk so seriously about that situation.


23                     MR. STEIN:  16.

24                     MR. KLASSEN:  16, Mr. Chairman.

                       I agree basically with what ia said here.


 1                            ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2            However, along with this I think deadlines ought

 3            to be—maybe I am allergic to deadlines—deadlines

 4            should be established on this when there will be

 5            these uniform regulations as now provided by the

 6            City of Chicago Code.  That is one comment that I

 7            think we will have to address ourselves to.

 8                      The other, and this is more a point of

 9            information, knowing the status of any proposed

10            Federal regulations involving Interstate vessels

11            on the Great Lakes.  I must agree with some of the

12            comments made by the small boat owners that there

13            should be some, direction toward regulating these

14            large lake vessels and interstate traffic.  This

15            is a Federal responsibility.  And Just what is

16            the status of any proposed Federal regulations on

17            interstate vessels?  Can somebody tell me?

18                      MR. POSTON:  Mr. Klassen, at your

19            request we have had a copy made of S.2525, which

              is Senator Muskie'a bill on the Federal Water fblliUcn

              Control Act to control pollution from vessels

              within the navigable waters of the United States.

              This bill I think has passed—or, no, has been

              introduced and this is as far as it has gotten at

              this time.

 1                             ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2                       I will now pass this to you for  your

 3             information.

                        (Which said S.2525 is as follows:)




















                         r*H fl^
           OCTOBER 11 (legislative day, OCTOBER 10), 1&67
Mr. MUSKEE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred
               to the Committee on Public Works   :'
                    A  BILL
To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
    to control pollution from vessels within the navigable waters
    of the United States.
 1      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
 2  tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled.,
 3  That the Federal Water Pollution  Control Act (70 §ta%
 4  498), as amended, is amended—
                    • t         •   •
 5          (a)  by redesignating sections 11 and 12 as sections?
 6      13 and 14 and renumbering succeeding sections; and
 7          (b)  by inserting after section 10 two new sections
 8      to read as follows:



 3      "SEC. 11.  (a) The Secretary,  after taking into consid-

 4  eration  technological feasibility, economic costs, the types of

 5  .vessels,  their operating  patterns,  and  such  other factors

 6  as  he deems appropriate,  shall  prescribe  in  the Federal

 7  Register—

 8           " (1)  Regulations  establishing standards for  the

 9      control of  sewage  discharges from-any vessel or class

10      of vessels into the navigable waters of the United States

11      for  the  purpose of  preventing the pollution of such

12      waters. The  Secretary  shall prescribe standards  that

13      apply, to the extent  feasible,  uniformly to each class of

14      vessels under  similar circumstances. Such regulations

15,      shall prescribe reasonable schedules for compliance, after

16      taking into consideration  the cost, of compliance. 'The

17      schedules for compliance shall 'distinguish between new

18      and existing vessels, and shall give special consideration

19      to vessels conforming to any State requirement or recom-

20!      mended levels of control set forth  in the Handbook on

21      Sanitation and Vessel Construction, Public Health Serv-

22      ice,  1965.

23          '" (2) Regulations governing the discharge of ballast

24      and bilge water into the navigable  waters of the United

25      States from vessels engaged in  commercial activities.

 1           " (3) Regulations governing the discharge from any
 2       vessel of litter, sludge> garbagie, or other substances of
 3       any kind or description, other than oil or dredge spoil,
 4       which originates  on board  a vessel or which is tran's-
 5       ported thereon into the navigable waters of the Uiiited
 6     .  States. Where the Secretary :of the Army  acting through
 7       the Chief of Engiiieers: determines, after the effective
 8       date of any regulations issued urider this paragraph, that
 9      'the discharge of such substances from a vessel may con-
10       stitute a potential obstruction to navigation, a permit to
11       discharge such substances shall'be  issued solely1 by the
12       Secretary of the Army or his designee in accordance with
13       existing authorities and consistent with such regulations.
14       "(b)  Regulations to carry out the provisions  of  this
15  section shall prohibit  Discharges in ' quantities, under condi-
16  tions, and at times and locations deemed appropriate by tli^
1^  Secretary, after taking^ into  consideration the  deleterious
IS  effects  of such  discharges on  the public health, recreation,
19:  and fish and wildlife.
20       " (6)  Regulations to 'carry  out'the 'provisions  of  this
21  section:
22          '.'.' (i). may exempt classes of vessels from all or part
23       of: a :re^gulation: for such periods of  time and under sucn:
24= •      conditions as the  Secretary1 deems appropriate.
25           ff (2)  shall -apply to' vessels owne:
 1      by the United  States unless the Secretary of Defense
 2      finds that compliance would not be  in  the  interest of
 3      national security.
 4      "(d)  Before any regulations  under  this  section  are
 5  issued,  the Secretary shall  consult  with the  Secretary of
 6  State; the  Secretary  of  Health, Education, and Welfare;
 7  the Secretary of Transportation; the Secretary of Defense;
 8  the Secretary of Commerce; other interested Federal agen-
 9  cies;  and the States and industries affected.  The Secretary
10  shall  also correlate any regulations issued under this  section
11  with  efforts  to  control or eliminate  other  sources of  pollu-
12  tion .under this Act  and other provisions of law. After regu-
13  lations  are issued, the Secretary shall afford all  interested
14  persons and public and private  agencies and  organizations a
15  reasonable opportunity to comment thereon before they be-
16  come effective.
17      " (e) Any manufacturer of  a device which is designed to
18  control the discharge of  sewage from vessels  or classes of
19  vessels in accordance with the standards  prescribed  under
20  subsection (a)  of this section may request the Secretary to
21  issue  a certificate of  conformance for  such device on such
22  terms and conditions  and for such period as the Secretary
23  deems  appropriate. The manufacturer shall perform such
24  tests  as the Secretary may require and make  the  results
25  thereof available to  the Secretary. The Secretary of the De-

 1   partment in which the Coast Guard is operating shall from a
 2   safety standpoint prescribe regulations relating to the design,
 3   construction, alteration, and repair of, and the materials used
 4   in, any such device. Whenever the Secretary of the Interior
 5   determines  that the  device will  control  the  discharge of
 6   sewage from vessels or classes of vessels in accordance with
 7   such standards,  and  the  Secretary of the  Department in
 8   which  the Coast  Guard  is operating  determines that the
 9   device is satisfactory from a safety standpoint, the Secretary
 10   of the Interior shall issue the  certificate. Any device manu-
 11   factured under said certificate which is in all material respects
 12   the  same  as the certified device shall  be  deemed to be in
 13   conformity with such regulations. The manufacturer of a
 14   certified device shall maintain  such records and provide such
 15   information and reports as the Secretary deems appropriate
 16   and shall permit any employee of the Secretary  to  have
 17   access to and  copy such records during business hours. All
.18   information reported to, or otherwise obtained by, the Sec-
 19   retary or his representatives pursuant to  this subsection which
 20   contains or relates  to  a trade secret or other matter referred
 21   to in section 1905  of title  18 of the United States Code shall
 22   be considered confidential for the purpose  of that section,
 23   except that such information may be disclosed to other officers
 24   or employees concerned with carrying out this subsection. It
       S. 2525	2

 1  shall be unlawful for the manufacturer of a certified device to
 2  sell a device pursuant to such certificate if the device is not
 3  in all material respects the same as the certified device or to
 4  violate the terms and conditions of such certificate.
 5      "(f)  After the  effective date of any regulations  issued
 6  hereunder, it shall be unlawful for any vessel to pollute the
 7  navigable waters of  the United States  or to make any  dis-
 8  charge from any vessel into such waters, except in accordance
 9  with such regulations.
10      " (g)  Any person  who knowingly violates the  provi-
11  sioiis  of this  section  or any regulations issued thereunder or
12  the conditions of any certificate issued thereunder shall, upon
13  conviction, be punished by a fine not  exceeding $2,500 or
1*  by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both.
1^      " (h) Any vessel violating the provisions of this section
16  or any regulations issued thereunder shall be  liable for  a
1^  penalty of not more than $10,000.  Clearance of a vessel liable
1°  for this penalty from a port of the United States may be with-
1-   held until the penalty is paid or until a bond or other  surety
20  satisfactory to the Secretary is posted. The penalty shall con-
2*  stitute a lien on the vessel which may be recovered by action
22  in rem in the district court of the  United States for any dis-
2   trict within which the vessel may be found. This penalty shall
**  not apply  to a vessel owned and operated by  the  United
    States, or a  State, or, except where such vessel is engaged

 1  in commercial activities, a foreign nation, or to any vessel
 2 ,- subject to the provisions of subsection (i)  of this section.
 3      '"(i)  In the case of any  vessel which is  required by
 4  the Federal Boating  Act of  1958  (72 Stat.  1754),  as
 5; amended  (46 U.S.C.  527-527h), to have a number and
 6  which violates the provisions of this  section or any regula-
 7  tions  issued thereunder, such number may be suspended by
 8  the appropriate enforcement agency administering the 1958
 9  Act in  each State for such period of time as  that agency
10  deems reasonable, and (the owner  or operator of such vessel
11  shall, in addition to any other penalty incurred under this
12  section, be liable to a penalty of $100 and such vessel  shall
13  be held liable and may be proceeded against in the district
14  court of the United States where  such vessel is found.
1^      "(j)  Anyone authorized  by  the Secretary to enforce
16  the provisions of this section  may  (1)  board and inspect
17  any vessel within the navigable waters of the  United States,
18  except  a  vessel  owned and operated by the United States
19  or a State,  or, except where such  vessel is engaged in com-
20  mercial activities, a foreign nation, to insure compliance with
21  the provisions of this section, (2)  with or without a warrant
22  arrest any person who violates the provisions of this section
23  or any  regulation issued thereunder in his presence or view,
24 and  (3)  execute any warrant or other process issued  by
25  an officer or court of competent jurisdiction.


              The provisions  of this section shall  be enforced

 2  by employees of the Secretary of the Interior and by person-

 3  nel of the Secretary of the Department in which the  Coast

 4  Guard is operating, and the Secretary may utilize by agree-

 5  ment with or without reimbursement law  enforcement of-

 6  ficers or other personnel and facilities or other Federal agen-

 7  cies to carry  out the provisions of this section, including the

 8  enforcement thereof. Law  enforcement officers of any State

 9  enforcing a numbering system approved under  the Federal

10  Boating Act of 1958, as amended, shall also enforce the pro-

11  visions of this section which are applicable to vessels covered

12  by that Act.  The Secretary is also encouraged to enter into

13  agreements or other arrangements with any State in carry-

14  ing out  the provisions  of this section, including  the enforce-

15  ment thereof.

16      " (1)  As used in this section—

17          " (1) the term 'person' includes an individual, com-

18      Panyj partnership, corporation, or association who is the

19      owner, charterer, operator, master, officer, or employee

20      of a vessel, and any individual on board such vessel, but

21      does not include a person on board a vessel owned or

22      operated by the United States or a State, or,  except

23      where such vessel  is engaged in commercial activities, a

24      foreign nation.

 1          " (2)  the term 'United States' includes the Com-
 2      monwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and
 3      the Virgin Islands.
 4          " (3) the term 'discharge' includes spilling, leaking,
 5      dumping, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, throw-
 6      ing, or depositing.
 7          . " (4)  the term 'sewage' includes wastes from sani-
 8      tary facilities on hoard vessels, such as toilets,  wash
 9      basins, and laundries, and other contaminated waters.
10          " (5) the term 'manufacturer' means any individual,
11      corporation, partnership,  or association engaged  in the
12      manufacturing or assembling of a  device to control the
13      discharge of  sewage from vessels,  or in the importation
14      of such device for  resale, or who  acts for  or is under
1^      the control of any such individual or organization in con-
16      nection with  the distribution of such device, but shall not
17      include any dealer of such device.
18      " (m)  In  the case of Guam actions arising under this
1^  section  shall be brought in the  district court of Guam, and
20  in the case of the Virgin Islands such actions shall be brought
21  in the district  court of the Virgin Islands.  In  the case  of
22  American Samoa such actions shall be brought in the district
23  court of the United States for  the  district of Hawaii and
24  such court shall  have  jurisdiction of such actions.

 4      "SEC.  12. (a)' After the effective date;of  any regula-
 5  tions  prescribed under this  section,  it shall:-be'unlawful to
 6  discharge from any vessel sewage, ballast and bilge water,
 7  sludge, garbage; or other substances of any kind or descrip-
 8-  tion into the waters of the' Contiguous  Zone  established
 9 .under Article 24 of the Convention on  the Territorial Sea
10  and the Contiguous Zone which may pollute or contribute
11  to the pollution of the waters of the territory or the tern-
12  torial sea of  the United States,  except m ease of an emer-
13  gency imperiling life  or property, or unavoidable collision,
'1*  stranding; or accident, or except under regulations prescribed
    by  the  Secretary.
  •     "(fe) The Secretary shall prescribe  regulations goverh-
 '  ing the  discharge from any vessel  of sewage,  ballast arid
   • bilge! water,  sludge, garbage,  or other  substances  of any
    kind or description; other than dredge spoil, "which originate
 ?  on  board such1 vessel or whidh.are transported thereon into
    ithe waters of said contiguous zone  in such quantities and
  •  :under  such' conditions^ and at £uch trnies and places as,  in
  ' ; has  judgment aftefc consultation-;with'other:mterested-Fed-
    eral agencies/''will' not be deleterious to;fhealth> or ^marine
    life or dangerous to persons or property within the territory


 1  or the territorial sea of the United States. Where the Secre-

 2  tary of the  Army  acting  through the Chief  of Engineers

 3  determines, after ,the effective date of any regulations issued

 4  under  this paragraph, that the discharge of such substances

 5  from a vessel may constitute a potential obstruction to navi-

 6  gation, a  permit ,to discharge such substances shall  be issued

 7  solely  by the Secretary of  the  Army or  his designee in

 8  accordance with existing authorities and consistent with such

 9  regulations.

10       " (c)   The  penalties prescribed by  section  11 of  this

11  Act for violations of that section or regulations issued there-

12  under  shall apply to violations of this section or regulations

13  issued thereunder. The provisions  of said  section  11  with

14  respect to enforcement, jurisdiction,  and definitions shall be

15  applicable to this section.

16       "(d)  Regulations prescribed pursuant to  this section

17  shall apply  to vessels owned and  operated by  the United

18  States unless the Secretary of Defense finds that compliance

19  would not be in the interest of national security."

S.  2525
            A BILL
To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control
   Act, as amended, to control pollution from
   vessels within the navigable waters  of the
   United States.

             By Mir. MUSKID

   OOTOBEB 11 (legislative day, OCTOBER 10), 1967
Bead twice and referred to the Committee on Public


 1                            ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2                      MR. KLASSEN:  I Just wondered about the

 3            date of Introduction, this year?

 4                      MR. PQSTON:  October 10, 1967.

 5                      MR. POOLEt  Mr. Chairman.

 6                      MR. STEIN:  Yea.

 7                      MR. POOLEs  I am aware that Federal

 8            Conferees can't agree to recommendations that involve

 9            Federal legislation, but as far as the State of

10            Indiana is concerned we see no reason why the

11            State Conferees can't include a recommendation

12            when we come out of this Conference that there be

13            Federal regulations to regulate and control consmer-

14            cial vessels.

15                      MR. STEINs  Yes.  That procedure has

16            been adopted in Conferences before.  You can be

17            sure the Chairman won't stand in your way.

18                      MR. MITCHELL:  Mr. Chairman, I didn't

19            quite understand Mr, {Classen's comment about

20            putting deadlines on when laws should be enacted.

21            I had difficulty with our legislature telling

              them they had certain deadlines.  Did you mean a

23            deadline before the Federal Government would enact

24            the act?

                        MR. KLASSEN:  No.  No, on each State


 1                           ROBERT J.  SCHNEIDER

 2            regulation.  Chicago has their enforcement date,

 3            I believe May 1st  of this  year.  As has  been

 4            appropriately pointed  out,  this is  a start,  it

 5            is a pattern.   Do  the  other States:

 6                     1.  Do the other States need State

 7            legislation for their  water pollution control

 8            agencies to pass these regulations?

 9                     2.  Can  the  State water pollution agency

10            pass the regulations?

11                     If so, this  ought to be uniformly done

12            so that the same applies in all four States, what-

13            ever this date  might be.

14                     MR. MITCHELL: Are you suggesting that

15            maybe  the four  States  get  together  and see if they

16            can agree on a  uniform regulation and then go back

17            to their Individual States and try  to get it enacted?

18                     MR. KLASSEN: Yes.

19                     MR. MITCHELL: I think that is a good


21                     MR. STEIN:   1?.

                      MR. VOGT:  I have & question here,

             Mr. Chairman.   Perhaps Mr.  idassen  can answer


                      Does  Chicago require facilities for


 1                             ROBERT. J.. SCHNEIDER

 2             dewatering holding  tanks,  Clarence?

 3                       MR.  KLASSEN:   I think that there either

 4             are or will be facilities  In Chicago for dewatering

 s             these holding  tanks.  And Just as kind of a policy

 6             on  this thing, we feel  that regulations should

 7             assure that no sewage shall be disposed of In any

 8             manner as  to reach  the  waters of Lake Michigan

 9             except through sewage treatment facilities which

w             have been  approved  by the  appropriate State agency.

11             And this means so far as Chicago is concerned

12             that it would  be pumped out of these tanks into a

13             sewer that is  tributary to the treatment facilities

14             in  Chicago. Wiis would apply also to the other

15             cities.

16                       I believe that these facilities are being

17             provided.

18                       MR.  VOGT:  Currently the State of Illinois

19             doesn't have a requirement for this,  is that correct?

20                       MR.  KLASSEN:   Hot Statewide at the

              present time.   As a matter of fact,  we are—-I was

              going to mention this later—as of yesterday calling

              a special  water board meeting the 19th to review

              the recommendations from this Conference to se©

              what action that we have to take in order to be


 1                             ROBERT J.  SCHNEIDER

 2             In complete  conformance with these.  We do have a

 3             regulation already  in existence on all Federal-State

 4             impoundments.   But  we have stated this, that we

 $             subscribe to the Chicago ordinance approach that

 6             there  be holding tanks and no discharge from any

 7             facilities aboard a watercraft until and unless

 8             this has been approved by  the particular State

 9             agency.

10                      And while I am on that,  I don't want to

11             open up this whole  question again of yesterday,

12             but reference was made to  the National Sanitation

13             Foundation and  the  regulations that are going to

14             be adopted.  These have not been adopted,  in spite

15             of what one  of  the  men has said.  I know this

16             because I am a  voting member of the committee that

17             adopts these.   I have voted against adopting these.

18             They are hot regulations for States to adopt.  They

19             are regulations,  I  think as possibly Mr.  Poole

              mentioned, for  testing.  I don't think we ought

              to let ourselves be confused by statements that

              we should follow the National Sanitation Founda-

              tion standards  that are on the verge of being


                       The National Sanitation Foundation is


 1                            ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2            doing a tremendous job.  We depend on them, but

 3            they have no standards at the present time that

 4            have been approved, and I want this to stand in

 5            the record.

 6                      MR. STEIN:  18.

 7                      MR. POOLE:  I find a little difficulty

 8            with the last two words, "stopped entirely."

 9                      MR. STEIN:  Oh, this is that zero

10            tolerance.  We have dealt with the same problem

11            in the southern end of Lake Michigan.  We said

12            "no visible oil."  I think we will meet that.

13            This is not a new one and your point is well

14            taken.

15                      No. 19.

16                      (No response,)

17                      MR. STEIN:  No. 20.

18                      (No.response.)

19                      MR. STEINs  No, 21.

20                      MR. HOLMER:  This is not entirely in

              accord with the report of the Corps of Engineers,

22            as I heard it earlier in this Conference.

23                      MR. STEINi  Yes, I think you are right.

              This raises some questions:  What do you mean by

              polluted dredgings?  Do you put any dredgings?


 1                           ROBERT J.  SCHNEIDER

 2            I  think  the Conferees  are  going  to  have to meet

 3            both  those questions.

 4                     MR. HOLMER:   Right.

 5                     MR. STEIN:   Whether any dredgings at all

 6            are put  Into the  lake;  If  so, under what circum-

 7            stances  and when.   I think these have to be met

 8            before we can draw  up  a tight proposal on dredgings,

 9            and I hope we will  all be  able to work very closely

10            with  the Corps  of Engineers to try  to get something

11            that  we  can all live with.

12                     You know,  I  think again we have a very

13            special  case here with the operating agency.  It

14            is very  fine for  the States and  the Federal Govern-

15            ment  to  come up with one,  or, rather, the Department

16            of the interior,  but we have to  recognize that the

17            Corps is going  to have to  operate with this.  I

18            would hope that a reasonable procedure could be

19            worked out that the Corps  could  live with in the

             same  manner as  we try  to work out a reasonable

21                               '
             procedure with  you  where your cities and industries

             come  into it.

                      MR. KLASSEN:   Would this  involve a new

             agreement between the  Department of the Interior

             and the  Secretary of the Army?


 1                             ROBERT J.  SCHNEIDER

 2                       MR.  STEIN:   I don't know.

 3                       MR.  KLASSEN:  They have an existing

 4             agreement that was,  I think, signed in July of

 5             last year that one  of the  Corps of Engineer's

 6             speakers  referred to, but  in reading this agree-

 7             ment the  final word isn't  with the Federal Water

 8             Pollution Control Agency,  unfortunately,  it is

 9             with the  Corps of Engineers.  And the way the

10             agreement now  stands, the  Corps can decide if it

11             is  to dispose  of material.

12                       I am Just wondering, in view of your

13             statement, if  this  will take a new agreement

14             between the Secretary of the Interior and the

15             Army?

16                       MR.  STEIN:   Well,  I am not sure what

17             it  will take.  But in  this  case if we can work

18             out a program  that  the States think is acceptable,

19             that we think  is acceptable  and the Corps thinks

              is  acceptable, I am sure,  whether we have to take

              State,  Federal or any other  action, we are going

              to  take whatever action is necessary to put that

              program into effect.

24                       22.

                        MR.  HOLMER:  Mr. Chairman, I have a


 1                           ROBERT  J.  SCHNEIDER

 2           couple  of questions here.

 3                     I couldn't  tell  from the last line on

 4           page 66 requesting the  reports to be  submitted to

 5           the appropriate agencies for  review if this  included

 6           the Federal agencies  or if we were Just referring

 7           to State agencies.

 8                     MR.  SCHNEIDER:   No, we were referring to

 9           State agencies and I  changed  that in  my statement

10           when I  read them.

11                     MR.  HOLMER:  Now, with respect to  the

12           substance of this recommendation.  We have upgraded

13           our inspections from  an annual schedule to a semi-

14           annual  schedule.  Now it is suggested that we go

15           to a quarterly basis.  Certainly we want to  improve

16           our performance as rapidly as we can.

17                     Is this recommendation justified in

18           terms of specific benefits that have  been

19           demonstrated in any way that  the increased frequency

             is necessary In addition to the monthly reports?

21            And furthermore, I think we might also have  to

             reckon  with the definition of what constitutes

             an inspection. You can drive by some plants and

             call it an inspection,  and I  would suspect that

             we want to define what  we  expect to find with an

 1                            ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2            inspection.
 3                      But more importantly, or the toughest

 4            question I had was, how do I meet my Joint finance

 5            committee and explain.why we have got to increase

 6            our budget in order to make quarterly rather than
 7            semiannual inspection?

 8                      MR. SCHNEIDERi  Well, I think Michigan
 9            Is already inspecting on a quarterly basis, and
10            maybe Mr. Vogt could tell you the results of his
11            program.

12                      MR. HOLMER:  All right.
13                      MR. VOGT:  I think I will have to correct

14            that a little bit, Bob.  This was our goal to on

15            an average get into plants quarterly.  We are not
              reaching that at the present time.  And also we
              set a goal as an average.  In other words, we don't
              mean that we have to get into every plant on a
              quarterly basis.  And I think this is common
              knowledge amongst ray counterparts here from the
              States—that they find, as do we, that in some
              instances it is more Important to get into some
              plants more frequently than this.  In other cases,
              once or twice a year would be very adequate.
                        So I was going to comment about this


 1                            ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2            recommendation along this line where it says

 3            "conduct inspections of all waste treatment plants

 4            at least quarterly."  I think this would be a goal

 5            which we could not support and it is going beyond

 6            what we really need to do,

 7                      MR. STEINj  I think that these points

 8            again are well taken.  We have to work within the

 9            resources of the State agencies and come up with

10            a realistic program.  It is also my notion that

11            when you come up with a program that isn't met

12            you are in worse shape than coming up with no

13            program at all, because then you get built-in

14            neglect and violations right in your operation.

15            I think we will have to look at this very carefully.

16                      23.  What does that mean, that we are

             going to come up with improvements?  In other

             words, I wouldn't know how to follow that up.

             Don't you think we can get some people to come up

             with something specific on that?

                       MR. SCHNEIDER:  I think we can.  We

             can get together with our technical program people

             who are--

                       MR. STEIN:  I think that is a job.

                       In a good many of the things, Bob, as

 I                         ROBERT  J. SCHNEIDER
 2         far as  I see—we are coming to  the end  of  this—
 3         a lot of the  Judgments  here are semantic Judgments.
 4         The points  that you raise are very,  very good ones.
 s         However, I  think if the Conferees are going  to  set
 6         something like this up—I am not suggesting  that we
 7         necessarily do this—a  meaningful suggestion is
 8         that we give  this to a  technical group  with  repre-
 9         sentatives  from each State and  the Federal Qovern-
10         ment. In three to six months or  something they can
H         come up with  a specific program for  improving the
12         monitoring  and programs geared  to changes  in water
13         quality.  Then we will  go over  this  and see  what
14         we can do to  put it into effect.  Otherwise  I am not
15         sure we are on our way.
16                   MR. SCHNEIDER]  Well,  I think this can
17         be handled  through our  ongoing  program.
18                   MR. STEIN:  This may  be.   But then again
19         we have to  give someone a specific charge  to do
20         the job.
21                    MR. SCHNEIDER:  I agree.
22                   MR. STEIN:  All right.  24.
23                   MR. HOLMER:   Mr. Chairman, in our
24         Judgment this is not a  possibility,  although I
25          suspect there is a substance to this recommendation


 1                           ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2           which deserves our attention.  It seems quite

 3           obvious to us that you cannot regulate stream-

 4           flow ao as to assure the availability of optimum

 5           etreamflow for all legitimate uses concurrently.

 6           And while I am sure the Intent is to assure that

 7           there Is optimum—an effort to optimize the benefits

 8           from regulations of the flow, I think It needs to

 9           be restated, Bob, In some way that doesn't have

10           the conflict between the desire for flood storage

11           as opposed to the need for regularity of hydro-

12           electric flow as opposed to the need for seasonal

13           diversion for irrigation and the need for regularity

14           of other kinds of flows, and so on.

15                     I think this as stated is impossible

16           of attaining.

17                     MR. STEIN:  Again that point is well

18           . .

                       Do you have any comment on that?

20                     MR. SCHNEIDER:  Well, we have had

             complaints in connection with the rellcenslng


                       MR. STEIN:  Yes.  But here is the issue.

             I think Mr. Holmer has this, and I face this

             all the time.

17            in what we are doing  in making provisions  for







                ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

          If you want to regulate a plant to

insure the availability of optimum streamflow

and you go to a power company, the fellow brings

you into his office.  Right there framed is a

license from another Federal agency, the Federal

Power Commission^ to do what he is doing, and he

says, "Aren't I operating legally and what does

this mean?"  And of course he ia.

          The notion that anyone in a State or a

Federal water pollution control agency can overturn

an existing license for a man who is engaged in a

legitimate business is something that you might

desire, but you can't do.

          Now, in the licensing procedures, the

Federal Power Commission is how very interested
water flow.  But I think Mr. Holmer's statement

is well taken.  Where someone has a license from

the Federal Power Commission, that license is

going to be obtained and the best we can do is

try to get voluntary compliance  or make represen-

tations when the license comes up for renewal.

          Is this a fair statement?

          MR. HOLMER:  I think I have another


 1                            ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2            element of this.  One of the purposes of this

 3            regulation, I suspect, Is to have low flow

 4            augmentation to tend to Insure the quality of

 5            the water/. And if this is a part of it this Is

 6            going to conflict with certain other uses such

 7            as flood prevention, for example, quite apart

 8            from the licensing, although the licensing is

 9            another aspect of this and a good Illustration.

10                      MR. STEIN:  I think you are right.

11            But doesn't he mean insure the availability of

12            optimum streamflow for all legitimate uses?

13            I think flood control is the kind of legitimate

14            use you would have.  Obviously water quality or

15            the use of extra water for water quality has to

16            compete with other water uses.  This is Just a

17            fact of life and if the Conferees ignore this

18            you are going to find yourselves up against

19            something that just won't go away,

20                      No. 25.

21                      MR. HOLMER:  I hesitate to come on

             again on this one, but let me stress what I tried

             to eay this morning, namely that I think we need

             to be very careful in connection with the review

             of this recommendation that we do at least three


 1                            ROBERT.J.  SCHNEIDER

 2            things:

 3                      First, to review these recommendations

 4            very carefully to be sure  that they are reasonably

 5            Inclusive of the principal areas in which research

 6            is  needed so that we do cover the waterfront.

 7                      Second, that we  establish some set of

 8            priorities with relation to them as to which seem

 9            to  us to be in most Immediate need of attention.

10                      And third, that  we establish an assign-

11            ment of  responsibility and a timetable to the

12            jurisdiction agency or industry whom we expect

13            to  undertake the activity.

14                      MR. STEIN:  Right.  I think you have a

15            point.  Again we have this question of my making

16            a list whether you are going to be Inclusive or

17            exclusive.  I think we have thla danger and the

18            priority system may be the one that works.

                        But, you know, if you come up with a

              tremendous list of projects, the chances of your

              getting  any begin to diminish as your list grows.

                        Conferees might  want to determine whether

              they just want to have this—I have no conclusion

              on  this—just want to have an exhaustive list, or

              they may want to pick three or four or five in


 1                            ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2             order of priority that we hope  to  get  moving  in

 3             the near future and give the  others honorable

 4             mention somewhere else.  No matter where

 5             you put something on the list,you  are  going to

 6             have people with a special interest in that phase

 7             of it who are going to start  pushing, and  this

 8             makes it more difficult to get  your other projects

 9             going.

10                      This is something the Conferees really

ll             should think of very carefully,

12                      MR. HOLMERi  I agree  to  the  idea  of a

13             short list, because I think your point is quite

14             relevant.  All I am asking is that we  be  sure that

15             in our own Judgment we have evaluated  a sufficiently

i6             long list that our short list is the high priority

17             one.

18                      MR. STEINs  Yes, I  would agree  with that.

19                      I am not going to ask for comments  on

              the specific cities because that would take a

              long time and, as indicated,  some  of this material

              has to be updated.  But if anyone  wants to  comment

              now, we are not asking for this, that  in  general

              the municipalities provide secondary biological

              treatment or its equivalent and treatment for

 1                             ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2             phosphate removal by 1972.

 3                       MR. MITCHELL:  Mr. Chairman.

 4                       MR. STEIN:  Yes.

 5                       MR. MITCHELL:  Are you now moving to

 6             26, the recommendations?

 7                       MR. STEIN:  Yes, specific recommendations,

 8             just the 1, 2, 3.

 9                       MR. SCHNEIDER:  Mr. Chairman, he is

10             referring, I think, to the numbered recommendations

11             in the statement, I think you have a copy there,

12             NO. 26, that the—

13                       MR. POSTON:  Read it.

14                       MR. MITCHELL:  There were two recommenda-

15             tions that were added the other day, 26 and 27.

16                       MR. POSTON:  Can you read them?

17                       MR. SCHNEIDER:  No. 26, "The treatment

18             required by the above recommendations shall be

19             provided in facilities placed in operation by no

20             later than July 1972, unless the State water

21             pollution control agencies require a lesser amount

22             of time."

23                       And then No. 27, "The Conferees reconvene

24             at least annually to assess progress."

25                       MR. KLASSEN:  Mr. Chairman, have you


 1                             ROBERT J.  SCHNEIDER

 2             taken the  necessary action that  these new

 3             recommendations  will replace  the ones in the

 4             report?

 5                       MR.  STEIN:  No,  I think the Conferees

 8             are going  to have  to do this.   It Is your report.
              \              .

 7                       MR.  KIASSEN:  It is  your report.

 8                       MR.  STEIN:  I don't  quite understand

 9             thii, and  I have a clarification question first.

10                       You  mean your recommendation is to

11             handle the combined sewer  problem by f?2?

12                       MR.  BOSTON:  It  says by «77.

13                       MR,  STEIN:  Where?   Not in the new one.

14             Where?  You have got—

15                       MR.  SCHNEIDER:   Under  the Specific

16             Recommendations  it called  for  handling the com-

17             blned sewer problem by 1977.

18                       MR.  STEIN:  Right.   Now,  as I understand

19             your proposal, again we have  to  do this, that the

              kind of treatment  we are going to have for municl-

              palities and industries, including phosphate or

              other appropriate  nutrient removal,  will be com-

              pleted in  all  cases by not later than '72, right?

24                       MR.  SCHNEIDER:   That is right.

                        MR.  STEIN:  And  the  combined sewer


 1                             ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2             problem would be the work would be completed

 3             by '77.

 4                       MR. SCHNEIDER:  That is right.

 5                       MR. STEIN:  We also have a problem, as

 fi             you know, the question of whether the four-State

 7             Conference is going to subsume the two-State

 8             Conference.  We do have time schedules set up

 9             for the Indiana and Illinois industries and

10             this has to be met too.

11                       But I would suggest we confine ourselves

12             to the '72 and '77 dates first.  I am not sure

13             that either one of those dates really, unless there

14             is a generalized comment, concern Indiana or Illinois

              because you are well within those now except for

16             the phosphates.

17                       MR. MITCHELL:  I would like to make a

18             comment, Mr. Chairman.  And so that it won't be

19             misunderstood, I have taken the opportunity to

              write it and I would like to read it and it is

              in regard to the '72 deadline and in regard then

              to the nutrient removal, if I may read it.

23                       MR. STEIN:  Surely.




 1                               JOHN E.  MITCHELL


 3                                 STATEMENT BY

 4                        JOHN  E. MITCHELL,  CO-CONFEREE


 6                               STATE OP INDIANA


 8                      MR. MITCHELL: This four-State Enforce-

 9            ment Conference  on the pollution of Lake Michigan

10            has  spent six long days In listening to a tremen-

11            dous amount of information, statistics, and recom-

12            mendatlons.   Much  of the testimony was being made

13            public for  the first time  and will contribute to

14            the  successfulness of the  Conference.

15                      All of us  came to this Enforcement

16            Conference  knowing that Lake  Michigan Is a sick

17            lake.  We did not know how sick.  As a result of

18            the  six days  of  work we have  studied the symptoms,

19            with the aid  of  such experts  as  Dr.  A. P. Bartsoh,

20            Dr.  Donald  Baumgartner,  and Dr.  Weinberger,  and

21            we can say  the patient,  Lake  Michigan, Is not only

22            sick but seriously 111.

                       We needed  to know more about our patient

             and  we needed to know how  to  determine the causes

             of the sickness.  As a result of this  Conference

 1                               JOHN E. MITCHELL
 2             we have been told that nutrient pollution IB the
 3             number one pollution problem and the number one
 4             cause for the Increase of eutrophicatlon or aging
 5             process of the lake.
 6                       The most Important knowledge that we
 7             have gained as a result of this Conference Is
 8             the knowledge as to how to cure the Illness.  Many
 9             of us came to the Conference with adequate knowledge
10             of how to reduce organic> bacterial, harmful chem-
11             leal, and thermal pollution.  But we did not have
12             adequate knowledge as to how to control the nutrient
13             pollution.  Today we have a greater amount of
14             Information and the future looks much brighter as
15             a result of this Conference.
16                       We were told that municipalities were
17             the greatest contributors of the nutrients and
18             it now appears that a high priority should be
19             given to the removal of the nutrients at our
              municipal sewage treatment facilities.
                        This Conference has brought information
              to our attention that Indicates we must move rapidly
              to cure this disease of our sick lake.  Deadlines
              must be established for adequate control of nutrient


 1                               JOHN E. MITCHELL

 2                      We have  had  many  speakers from the

 3            national, State, and local  governments that have

 4            Indicated their deep concern  in saving Lake Michigan.

 5            Everyone from all  levels  of Government have

 6            pledged to  join  efforts  to make sure we get the

 7            Job done.

 8                      But all  of this knowledge,  all of this

 9            concern, and all of this  agreement will be for

10            naught unless adequate finances are made available

11            by all levels of Government,

12                      I do not believe  we can avoid giving

13            consideration to the financial situation that

14            exists.  In a general  way,  we now know the amount

15            of the sickness, we now know  how to diagnose the

             sickness, and we now know how to cure the sickness.

             No longer will we  be limited  by a lack of concern

             or by a lack of knowledge.  The only limitation

             we face is  a possible  lack  of adequate finances

             to do the job.

                       It seems to  me  all  levels of Government

             must contribute their  fair  share to "save our lake."

             As Conferees and as representatives of the Federal

             Government  and the Pour States and their Governors,

             we cannot be satisfied with our efforts if we only

 1                               JOHN E. MITCHELL
 2             describe the cure and set the deadlines and expect
 3             the municipalities to be the ones to pay the bill.
 4                       if we are to be fully realistic in our
 5             recommendations to Secretary of the Interior Udall,
 6             it is my belief that we should recommend that all
 7             timetables for municipalities in regards to
 8             additional treatment facilities for nutrient
 9             removal must be tied to the availabilities of
10             State and Federal funds.
H                      . If we are going to give high priority
12             to the saving of the lake,  then we must also give
13             high priority for adequate financing.  It is only
14             reasonable that deadlines be coordinated with
15             availability of funds from the governments that
16             are establishing the deadlines in the first place.
17                       The report of this Conference must clearly
18             point out to the citizens of our four States and
19             the citizens of the whole Uhlted States that know-
              how Is available to save Lake Michigan and that
              everyone must share in the responsibility to
              provide the funds needed to do the Job.

24                       MR. STEIN:  Thank you, Mr. Mitchell, for
              a very clear and concise statement of the problem.

 1                             ROBERT J.  SCHNEIDER

 2                       Does  anyone have any other comments on

 3             this?  Because,  as  you know,  the deadline question

 4             Is  a  very,  very serious one and the one we are

 5             going to  come up with.

 6                       MR. HOLMER:  Yes, Mr. Chairman.

 7                       MR. STEIN:   Yes, sir.

 8                       MR. HOLMER:  One minor quibble and then

 9             a more Important subject.

10                       We have one project at Green Bay which

n             Is  already under way  which looks to a September 30,

12             1972,  date for  the  earliest possible completion.

13             This  was  another one  of those specifics we ought

14             to  direct our attention to.

15                       But the question Mr.  Mitchell raised is

16             a much more fundamental one and it is one that

17             perplexes me Just a bit.   We  have been told that

18             the reason for  the  deferral of full Federal appro-

19             priations of the funds authorized for these works

20             is  the fact that we are engaged in a costly war

21             and that  we should, therefore,  resist the tempta-

22             tlon  to engage  in extensive public works.

23                       We agree  with the urgency of this

24             program and the  desirability  of an early deadline,

25             whether it be July  '72 or  some other, for the


 1                            ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2            first deadline dates, and Wisconsin,! can assure

 3            you, will cooperate fully with the other States

 4            in this region in accomplishing that goal.

 5                      It will, however, if we are to achieve

 6            this goal, require a substantial expenditure of

 7            public funds for public works, and if these are

 8            not forthcoming from the Federal Government they

 9            will necessarily have to come from State and

10            local Governments.

n                      I am wondering about the consistency of

12            the Federal position if it is to produce a report

13            which requires such early action in the face of


14            an adopted policy of the national Government, and

i5            it leaves me in a grave quandary, as I am sure it

16            does you.

17                      MR. STEIN:  Are there any further comments

18            or questions?

19                      MR. KLASSEN:  Just on that, I am not

20            necessarily one to defend ;the Federal Water Pollu-

21            tlon Control Agency, but I would express myself on

22            this.

23                      It is your job to clean up the waters of

24            this country, but not your Job to provide the

25                                                    •
              money, and I don't think we ought to mix the two.

 1                             ROBERT J.  SCHNEIDER
 2             If the Federal Government  can't give us the funds,
 3             then the local people ought to pay for it,   And
 4             Illinois hasn't geared its program to a program of
 5             Federal control,  because this gets to be a real
 6             elusive thing.  I must disagree,  I don't think
 7             just because  the Federal Government has presented
 8             a report here that the same agency that presents
 9             this has got  the responsibility to give us the
10             money,
11                       One other question while I have got the
12             microphone, Mr.  Chairman.   I want to ask you as
13             Chairman and  as  a Conferee, we have, since it has
14             been referred to, this Federal Water Pollution
15             Control report with recommendations.  We also
              have,  and I am reading,  a statement by Mr.  Schneider
17             representing the  Federal Water Pollution Control Adml
18             that  has  different recommendations in it.  Basically
19             they  are  essentially the same, but there are changes.
                        And I am asking you which are to be
              considered the official recommendations from the
              Federal Water Pollution Control Agency, the ones
              in  the book or the ones that Mr.  Schneider presented?
              And if it is the  latter, have you taken action to
              make  such a statement for the record?


 1                             ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2                       MR. STEIN:  Let me indicate this:

 3                       One, what you have from us—and I would

 4             like to raise this question with you and canvass

 5             the Conferees—what you have from us is an investi-

 6             gator's report.  We are sitting here with you as

 7             Conferees to try to work out a joint position if

 8             we can on conclusions and recommendations.  We

 9             have recommendations not only from our investigating

10             team, as delivered by Mr. Schneider, we also have

11             had suggestions and recommendations from the four

12             States, all of them pertinent.  And we have also

13             listened to testimony, as Mr. Mitchell has pointed

14             out, for six days.

15                       I think in effect what the Conferees have

16             now is a blank sheet of paper where they can write

17             their own recommendations and conclusions and see

18             if we can come to an agreement on them.  None

19             of these reports or none of these ideas have any

              more status than the others or than those of any

              of the people in the audience who have participated,

              as far as I am concerned.

                        The question that I would like to ask

              you, Mr. Klassen, in view of the complexity of

              this, do you think that we can oome to these


 1                            ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2            conclusions now or we may need some more time

 3            to reconvene?

 *                      MR. KLASSEN:  No.  This Is my reason,

 5            again,  for asking this question, because when I

 6            go back to my Board to consider these, I want to

 7            know which—they are going to ask which are the

 8            Federal recommendations.  I will answer the other

 9            question In Just a moment.

10                      As I interpret your answer, we have

11            two sets of Federal recommendations, these from

12            the Federal Water Pollution Control Agency and

13            these from Mr. Schneider.

14                      MR. STEIN*  No, no, no.  There are none

15            from the Federal Water Pollution Control Admlnlatratlpn,

16            You have conclusions and recommendations, at the

17            most, from our Investigating team.

18                      Mr. Poston.

19                      MR. POSTON:  I think what was done here,

              Clarence, was the report was developed and Instead

              of presenting the whole report to us It was briefed

              down.  We included statements by Dr. Bartsch,

              Dr. Baumgartner and Dr. Weinberger to clarify,

              and this report was sent out prepared prior to

              this Conference to give technical information

 1                             ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2             aa we saw it on this basin ahead of time.  The
 3             fact that there have been some changes In the
 4             recommendations I think was done by Mr. Schneider

 5             in order to isake them clear.
 6                       MR. KLASSSN:  I think Mr. Schneider's
 7             statement has Improved on the report.  Really.
 8             This ia why I am wondering.  I guess I won't get
 9             the answer.
10                       MR. SCHNEIDER:  I think the only—
11                       MB. KLASSEN:  I will read both of them,
12             then, and—

13                       MR. STSIN:  Let's see if we can get thla
14             clarified.
15                       I do think that a good many of the crlti-

16             cisnus of the conclusions and recommendations in
17             the report, and they were well taken, largely
18             related to lack of clarity, semantics, and so forth.
              I think we had a notion of what was meant, but I
              do agree with the Conferees that if we are going
              to come up with a meaningful program we have to
              have tightly-knit conclusions and recommendations.
                        I also do think that when this report
              was put out, the Conferees alone, and this may
              include us and others, may have had the same notion

 1                             ROBERT J.  SCHNEIDER

 2            and  may have  formally  or informally conveyed

 3            their  feelings  to Mr.  Schneider,  and he did, as

 4            you  pointed out, come  up with a clarification.

 5                       We  recognize two things.   We do have a

 6            substantial Job of  redrafting to do in the kind

 7            of stuff  that will  be  meaningful, and I think the

 8            bulk of the comments were directed to that.  We

 9            also have some  very hard substantive problems to

10            meet.

11                       Now,  I am asking—I will again start my

12            question—Mr. JCLassen,  do you think we can meet

13            this today or you will need some time to consider

u            It?

15                       MR. KLASSEN:   Definitely not here today.

16            I think that  anything  as Important as a program

17            such as this, we had better make awfully sure

18            that what v/e  come up with and all agree to or

19            disagree  to is  something of which we have complete

20            knowledge.  I believe  that the Conferees—I am just

21            speaking  for  myself—need some time to digest

22            particularly  this last statement and some of these

23            other  things  before we can properly evaluate and

24            make a decision on  what your redraft is going to

25            dp.  I want to  see  your redraft of these


 1                            ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2            recommendations again before I will comment  on  It.

 3            Obviously you are not going to do that today.

 4                      Let me express one final hope and  that

 5            is with reference to Recommendation 27, that I

 6            think It is excellent that the Conferees will

 7            reconvene at least annually.  I hope when we

 8            reconvene that the ground rules will permit  a

 9            vote by the Conferees at a progress meeting.

10                      (Laughter.)

11                      MR. STEIN:  I am with you.  You know, I

12            hope your schedule will permit you to stay for  the

13            full session of the progress meeting.

l*                      (Laughter.)

15                      DR. BORUFF:  Mr. Chairman.

16                      MR. KLASSEN:  If I know where it is

17            going to meet, I will be there.

18                      (Laughter.)

19                      MR. KLASSEN:  I am not accustomed  to

20            meeting on buses, frankly.

21                       And I might say, since you raised  the

22            point, that only one Conferee was there the  next

23            day, and I don't see how you could get a consensus

24            of the Conferees, because the only Conferee  there

              was the Federal Conferee.  Mr. Egan, Mr. Poole

 !                            ROBERT J.  SCHNEIDER

 2            and myself were not at the second day meeting.

 3                      MR. STEIN:   Mr.  Egan communicated with

 4            us.   We were in Chicago.   You know,  Chicago is  a

 5            big city and I am a big city boy and I know how

 6            to  use the telephone  and  so does Mr. Egan.   I

 7            never thought a bus was too bad and I always

 8            thought U. S. Steel was still united States

 9            territory and we  could do business there.

10                      MR. KLASSEN: This is true.   But  this vote

11            was not taken at  a regular session.

12                      MB. STEIN:   No  vote was taken,  sir.

13                      DR. BORUPP:  Mr.  Chairman.

14                      MR. STEIN:   Yes.

15                      DR. BORUPP:  May I get the train  on

16            another track?

17                      As a member of  the Illinois  State

18           ' Sanitary Water Board, speaking as only one  member,

19            I would prefer that Mr. Klassen take these

20            recommendations,  not  only of the Federal  Conferee

21            but the other Conferees,  back to the Board  and  have

22            time  to discuss them, then Mr. Klassen to come

23            back  to a meeting of  the  Conferees for your final

24            deliberation.

25                      MR. STEIN:   May we call on Indiana?


 1                             ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2             Mr. Poole?

 3                       MR. POOLE:  Well, we certainly endorse

 4             Dr. Boruff's suggestion.   That Is, I haven't had

 s             a chance to digest the recommendations that have

 6             been made by the various  States.  I work for a

 7             Board, and while I have one Board member here, I

 8             would like to do the same thing Di*. Boruff suggests.

 9                       MR. STEIN:  Michigan, Mr* Vogt?

10                       MR. VOGT:  I firmly believe that any

11             final conclusions should  be deferred at this

12             time.  I am also a member of a Commission and our

13             next Commission meeting is on February 21 and 22.

!4             And I think it would be very important for me and

15             for Mr. Oemlng, who was the Michigan Conferee for

16             the first four days, to discuss these points with

17             our Commission, because whatever Michigan agrees

18             to as a Conferee, it Is extremely important that

19             our statutes and our Commission policy will be

20             able to implement the decision.

21                       MR. STEIN:  Mr. Holmer?


**                       MR. HOLMER:  As an evidence of Wisconsin's

23             desire to move this forward, I will meet with my

24             Board on Friday, but that was set sometime ago.

              But certainly, reporting  to a Board, we will want

 !                             ROBERT J.  SCHNEIDER

 2             to discuss  these natters with them and we will

 3             be glad to  reconvene  at your convenience.

 4                      MR.  STEIN:   Mr.  Poston?

 5                      MR.  POSTON:  Mr,  Chairman,  it appears

 6             that I should  concede here,  because everybody--

 7             and I am very  anxious to be  cooperative and I will

 8             do this—concede that we should wait until others

 9             have had full  opportunity  to review all of these

10             recommendations  and to discuss them with their

11             Boards.  We stand ready and  willing to provide

12             any other information that they may want or

13             definition  of  recommendations we have made.  I

14             think that  there have been a great number of things

15             that have been conceded here as fact and I think

16             there is a  lot of agreement  amongst the Conferees

17             as to what  our problem is  and how to come to

18             these solutions.

19                      MR.  STEIN:   Thank  you.

20                      Mr.  Poston, you  have been associating

21             with Mr. Klasaen and  myself  too long.  You can no

22             longer concede except by using a few thousand

23             well chosen words.

24                      (Laughter.)

25                      In view of  the State commitments and

 1                            ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2            the commitments of the Federal Government, I

 3            would like to suggest a. date certain for getting

 4            back.  I know you are going to have these board

 5            meetings.  I don't want to make this too aoon

 6            because I think we have to make haste slowly

 7            here.  As I pointed out, we had better get a

 8            program that is going to work and that we can agree

 9            on and not start off with a program that isn't

10            really thought through.and we are not in concert

ll            with.  I think the States and the Federal Govern-

12            ment are relatively close together.  This is very

13            complicated and we need to come here to do it.

l4                      1 am going to suggest March 7th in

15            Chicago.

16                      MR. KLASSEN:  What day is that?

17                      MR. STEIN:  That is a Thursday.

18                      MR. KLASSEN:  That will be 0. K. with me,

19                      MR. STEIN:  Is that clear?

20                      Now, we will announce the date and place

21            later.  That March 7th meeting will be an

22            executive seaaion.  That does not mean/. g«ntlemen,

23            that this will be a closed session.  Executive

24            session to us means that only the Conferees will

              talk and discuss and we will try to hammer out

 1                             ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER

 2             Conclusions and Recommendations.  Hie press

 3             s.nd others are Invited to be In.  We probably will

 4             be facing each other at a table and you nay not

 5             have the audience accommodations there, but we

 6             do our business In public.  You are entitled to

 7             know what we do.   You are entitled and everyone is,

 8             to know who Is making which move, because I think

 9             that Is the only way we can get pollution

10             cleaned up.

n                       One more thing.  We have a statement for

12             the record presented by Mrs. Robert G. Erlckson

13             of Racine, Wisconsin, who Just couldn't arrive today,

14             and without objection we would like to put that in

15             the record at the conclusion of the statements

16             of the people from Wisconsin as if read.




20                       MR, HOLMERs  TOtere are three statements,
21             Mr. Chairman, one a personal statement by

22             Mrs. Eriokaon and one on behalf of the John Muir

23             Chapter of the Sierra Club,  and one by Mrs.

24             Tom Helmbrecht, Homemaker.  I would, of course,

              want those Included.

 2                      MR. STEIN:  They will  all appear without
 3            objection as if read.
 4                      (Which said statements are as follows:)
 7                         POLLUTION FEBRUARY 7, 1968
 9            Presented by Mrs. Robert G. Erickson
10                      Closer to home I should like to comment
11            on Green Bay pollution:
12                      Governor Knowles merely called a Conference
13            .on this problem last year.
14                      The outstanding statement of this meeting
15            referred to pollution from the Fox River:
                        "It is as though the untreated waters
17            from a city of a million people poured everyday
18            from the Fox River into Green Bay."  This does
19            not refer so much to biological pollution but to
              chemical pollution and to almost complete lack of
21            oxygen.  It is no wonder that the end of Green Bay
              approaches Lake Erie's problems'.
                        In addition Green Bay is one of the
              most heavily polluted water areas in regard to



 2                       Let ua begin now to attack these

 3             problems; let us stop this out-pouring from the

 4             Pox River; Let us have all our municipalities

 5             clean up their sewage; Let us have all our industries

 6             clean up their waste matter; Let us have industry

 7             consider pollution control one of the expected and

 8             normal costs of doing business; Let us as consumers

 9             be willing to pay this cost; let us stop now the

10             dumping into Green Bay of dredged sediments by the

11             Army Corps of Engineers; Let us don off all other

12             sources of pollutions; Let us stop the use of DDT

13             and related compounds; Let us finally bring back

14             Green Bay to what we can remember as children when

15             in Door County one could see the bottom in 30 feet

16             of sparkling blue water.

17                       Will you help in this quest for clean

18             water?



21                         STATEMENT FOR THE CONFERENCE

22                          ON LAKE MICHIGAN POLLUTION

23                               FEBRUARY 7, 1968

              Presented by Mrs. Robert 0. Brickson, Racine, Wis.


 1                       SIERRA CLUB," JOHN MUIR - CHAPTER

 2                       The John Mulr Chapter of the Sierra Club
 3             representing the State of Wisconsin urges immediate

 *             control of Lake Michigan pollution.

 5                       Next to the oxygen in the air we breathe,
 6             clean fresh water is man's most vital resource.
 7             97 percent of the earth's supply of water is in
 8             the salty oceans still untapped for man's use.
 8             Over 2 percent of the earth's water is locked in
10             ice - permafrost, ice caps, and glaciers.  This
11             leaves less than 1 percent of the earth's supply
12             of water available for man.  This water is in the
13             form of lakes or streams or underground sources.
14                       Our Great Lakes system is the largest
*5             surface supply of fresh water in the world.  The
16             quality of this supply is of the utmost importance
17             to all of us.
                        The chapter deplores the fact that Lake
              Michigan has been used as a waste dumping ground.
              We urge the support of all local, State, and
              National officials, as well as all industries and
              individual citizens to cooperate fully in clearing
              up the Lake in the shortest possible time.
                        The chapter urges that a map of Lake
              Michigan be published, detailing all known sources


 1                            MRS. TOM HELMBRECHT

 2            of pollution ao that citizens and conservation

 3            organizations as well as governmental agencies

 4            can bring these issues before the public.

 5                      Let us stop pollution before it is

 6            too late,



 9                            MRS. TOM HELMBRECHT

10                                 HOMEMAKER

11                            MAYVILLE, WISCONSIN


13                                            Mrs. Tom Helmbrecht

14                                            704 Short Street

15                                            Mayville, Wisconsin

16                                            53050

17                                            22 January 1968


19            Mr. Stewart Lee Udall

              Office of the Secretary

              U.S. Department of the Interior

22            Washington, D.C. 20240


24            Dear Mr. Udall:

                        By invitation of the Wisconsin Department


  1                            MRS. TOM HELMBRECHT

  2            of Natural Resources,  I submit  the  following

  3            statement to the chairman  of the  January,  1968

  4            Conference on Lake Michigan pollution,  being

  s            directly affected as a State and  Federal  taxpayer,

 *            resident of the State  of Wisconsin:

 7                      That the Job must be  done is  not an issue.

 8                      That it will be  expensive is  not an issue.

 9                      Two questions at Issue  appear to be:

10            What methods will be used, and  who  will bear the

11            expense?

12                      Recently, there  has been  a tendency, at

13            least in our state, to shift much of the  responsi-

14            bility for polluted waters to domestic  type sewage

15            by pointing an accusing finger  at municipal sewage

18            treatment plants.  It  should be recognized that

17            when secondary municipal treatment  plants  are

18            polluting, often they  are  being loaded  beyond

19            their capacity by Industrial type wastes.

                        Talcing statistics from  the Wisconsin

21            Blue Book of 1966 and  from recent studies  by the

              State Department of Natural Resources,  the present

              total waste effluent from  four  of Wisconsin's

              leading paper mills Is heavier  in BOD than the

              waste produced by l/6th of the  State's  population.

 1                            MRS. TOM HELMBRECHT

 2            There were 188 paper mills, of various sizes, In

 3            the State ten years ago.  The past ten years are

 4            known to have been record years for Industrial

 5            growth here.

 6                      Now consider the waste from food and

 7            milk processing plants which Is prohibitively

 8            high In BOD, according to State testing.  Studies

 9            have shown that the Purity Cheese Company alone

10            produces a waste equivalent in strength to five

11            times the population of Mayvllie, the city In

12            which It Is located.  There were 2,067 food and

13            milk processing plants In the State of Wisconsin

14            ten years ago.

15                      These are statistics from the two types

16            considered to be Wisconsin's leading Industries.

17            Ten years ago, there were 19 types of classified

18            Industries in Wisconsin, totalling 7,793 establlsh-

19            ments.  Some, of course, produce no more than

20            domestic type waste, but such Industries as those

21            mentioned above, as well as the tanneries, chem-

22            leal and power industries, must be considered

23            highly responsible for the polluted condition of

              our waters.

                        It would therefore seem unfair to point

 1                             MRS.  TOM HELMBRECHT

 2             the finger at the residential polluter for

 3             financial purposes.   He should, of course, bear

 4             his share of the expense.  Perhaps, since the

 5             industries employ him and add to the State and

 6             National economy, he  might even be asked to share

 7             some portion of industry's financial responsibility.

 8             But if Industry is to be subsidized, let the fact

 9             be so stated.  Note also that industry would be

10             hard put to function  without the working man, the

11             group which pays most in taxes proportionate to

12             the amount of his earnings.  It would seem unfair

13             should he be led to believe that he is personally

I*             responsible for the greater share of existing

15             pollution.

16                       I am not an expert in dynamics of pollu-

17             tion.  Neither am I chemist, biologist .nor trained

18             engineer.  She "how"  of pollution abatement should

19             be delegated to the experts.

20                       I am an expert taxpayer by reason of

21             experience.   In this  capacity, I ask that the

22             States involved with  the problems of pollution In

23             Lake Michigan consider, as part of their strategy,

24             exerting tighter controls over Industries which

25             utilize municipal sewage treatment plants for


 1                             MRS. TQM HELMBRECHT

 2             heavy industrial waste.

 3                       I request that Industries contributing

 4             such waste to a municipal plant exercise controls

              necessary to prevent waste beyong reasonable

 6             standards from entering municipal systems.  I

 7             suggest further that capital expenditure and

 8             support of maintenance should be provided by

 9             industries contributing a heavy waste load, in

10             proportion to the part of any municipal system

H             which is designed to treat their waste.

12                       Respectfully, I submit this statement,

13             and wish you success.


15                                                 Very truly yours,

16                                        (Signed) Jan Helmbrecht

17                                                 Homemaker

                        MR. STEIN:  I think we have come a long
20             way.  I ask you all to keep the spotlight on us.

21             I will ask the States and the Cities to do their

              homework so we can come back with meaningful

23             Recommendations and Conclusions and hope to get

24             an action program which yet will save Lake Michigan,

                        With that,  we stand recessed until

























                    MURRAY STEIN

March 7th in Chicago at a place to be announced,

probably 9:30 in the morning.

          (Whereupon, at 2:30 p.m., the

Conference was adjourned until March 7th,  1968.

          (The following material was submitted

after the close of the Conference:)


562-2230                   WESTCHESTER, ILL.  60153

                           March 1, 1968
Mr. Clarence W. Klaaaen
Illinois Conferee
Pour-State Lake Michigan Conference
Chicago/ Illinois
Dear Sir:
          My name is Walter  S. Baltls.   I am a
former Trustee of the Metropolitan Sanitary

District  of Greater Chicagolandj Chairman  of
           its Engineering, Drainage and Stream Pollution

 1                     WALTER  S.  BALTIS
 2        Committee until December 2,  1964.
 3                 Since 1964,  I  have charged  in formal
 4        meetings of  the Sanitary District,  that they
 5        are  deliberately  and  willfully  emptying extremely
 6        high and dangerous  levels of pollution into the
 7        Chicago River.
 g                 The extreme pollution is  at the  outfall
 9        of the Racine Avenue  Pumping Station,  which is a
10        combined storm and  sanitary  pumping station with
11        a capacity of 12,000  C.P.S., handling the  total
12        storm and sewage  load of a 30-square-mile  area
13        in Chicago,  having  a  population of  70Q,000, in-
14        eluding industry.
15                 The total sewage load, by a policy set
16        in 1957, provided tjhat at least 1 pump be  in
17        operation continuously to pump  raw  sewage  as it
18        developed to the  Stickney giant for treatment.
19        This policy  was strictly adhered to until  1964.
20        Since that time,  up £0 20 billion gallons  of raw
21        sewage yearly deliberately and  willfully were
22        dumped into  the Chicago  River by shutting  off
23        the  pumps at Racine Avenue Pumping  Station, there-
24        by stopping  the flow  of  sewage  to the  treatment
25        plant.  In other  words,  the  plant could have very

 1                     WALTER S.  BALTIS
 2        easily  handled  the  treatment of the 20 "billion
 3        gallons of  sewage  that was  deliberately and
 4        willfully stored in the  sewers  and interceptors
 5        then  dumped into the Chicago River during the
 6        slightest rainfall.
 7                  The 20 billion .gallons of sewage yearly
 g        is  equivalent to the total  daily sewage load of
 9        a city  of 228,000 population, including industry.
10        This  means  that over 20,000 tons yearly of un-
11        digested sewage that should have been processed
12        causes  extreme  pollution and creates an additional
13        health  hazard by depleting  the  reservoir capacity
14        of  the  Chicago  River, and adding to the extreme
15        pollution of Lake Michigan  whenever the flow of
16        the Chicago River must be reversed, due to heavy
17        rainfall in the Metropolitan Chicago area.  Further
18        the U.  S. Corps of Engineers has to do the extra
19        dredging of the sludge for  dumping into Lake
20        Michigan to provide a passable  navigation channel.
21        Further, any reversal of the Chicago River and its
22        branches to Lake Michigan must  be eliminated at
23        once, as the potential health hazard and well-
24        being of the people of the  Metropolitan Chicago
25        area are in this instant in complete Jeopardy


























                    WALTER S. BALTIS

      whenever the  flow of the Chicago River must be

      reversed and  thereby causing extreme pollution

      of  Lake  Michigan.

                            (Signed)  Walter S. Baltis

                            Walter S. Baltis
                            10529 W. Cermak Road
                            Westchester, Illinois 60153







NATIONAL OFFICES                      1326 WAUKEGAN ROAD

GLENVIEW,  ILLINOIS 60025             PHONE 312-724-3880
Washington  Office        Room 509,  719-13th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005                Phone 202-347-5880
                   February 5,  1968
Honorary  President
Dr. Ira N. Gabrielson
National President
J. Justin Rogers
_;ast Honorary Presidents
A. D. Sutherland
Dr. M. M. Hargraves
Arthur Godfrey
Seth Gordon
John Charles Daly
Laurance S. Rockefeller

























                   WILLIAM A. RIASKI
National Vice-Presidents
Thomas E. Dustin
Claude B. Harris
Allan L. Kelly
Jake N. Lieke
Grover C. Little, Jr.
National Secretary
James A. Thomas
National Treasurer
DelLorice Olson
Executive Board
George L. Carey

Vice Chairman
Oscal A. Becker

Gus E. Condo
G. A. "Jerry" Ellis
Vernon D. Hagelin
Reynolds T. Harnsberger
DelLorice Olson
J. Justin Rogers
Lyle C. Rogers
James A. Thomas
Hollis Weber
Charles I. Wiles, Jr.
Richard S. Yater
National Staff
Executive Director
William A. Riaski

Conservation Director
Joseph W. Penfold

Wilderness Consultant
Sigurd P. Olson

Information Director
Royal B. McClelland
Past National Presidents
Dr. Preston Bradley
Paul Clement
Dr. William B. Holton
Judge John W. Tobin
William H. H. Wertz
L. H. Dunten
William H. Pringle
George P. Jackson
Alden J. Erskine
L.C. "Jack" Binford
Burt G. Brickner
Reynolds T. Harnsberger
General Counsel
Howard S. White
IWLA Endowment
Honorary President
Dr. Preston Bradley
President .
A. J.- Erskine
0. A. Alderman
Burton H. Atwood
0. A. Alderman
Burton H. Atwood
Alden J. Erskine
Wendell P. Haley
Claude B. Harris
Jack Horn
Richard P. Kuck
Hollis Weber
Dr. J. F. Wolff, Jr.


 !                      WILLIAM A. RIASKI

 2        Mr. Murray Stein, Chief Enforcement Officer
         Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
 3        633 Indiana Avenue, N.W.
         Washington, D. C.  202*1-2


 5        Dear Mr. Stein:

                   Enclosed you will find copies  of the

         League's statement which I was scheduled to

         deliver on Friday, February 2, at the Four State

         Conference on Lake Michigan Pollution in Chicago.

                   Shortly before the time I was  to give

         the statement, Mr. Clarence W. Klassen,  Chief

         Sanitary Engineer, Illinois Sanitary Water Board,

         broke into a conversation I was conducting with

         a representative of U. S. Senator Gaylord Nelson

15                 n
         to say:   Rlaski, I will not allow you to make

         that statement here today.  It is not pertinent

17                          M
         to this conference .

                   I felt the statement was "very pertinent"

         to the subject of the conference and this was re-

         inforced a few moments later by remarks  made by

         William Clark, Attorney General, State of Illinois,

         in which he lamented that after forty years of

         frenetic effort on the part of the Illinois Sani-

         tary Water Board, there was not a single  stream


   	:	.	:	    3252
 1                      WILLIAM A.  RIASKI
 2        in  the State which could  be labeled "safe for
 3        swimming or water skiing."
 4                  Had the shining deeds of accomplishment
 5        of  the four State pollution abatement  agencies
 6        represented been of consequence worthy of con-
 7        sideration, I am positive any words of contra-
 g        diction on the part of the League would most
 9        certainly have been greatly overshadowed in the
10        minds  of those present at the conference.  Un-
11        fortunately for the four  agencies, they were not
12        allowed to have this comparison made;  hence they
13        were denied the plaudits  which they most certainly
14        feel they deserve!I I
15                  As I have therefore been denied my
16        right  of free speech,  I therefore request the
17        attached statement and this letter be  entered
18        into the printed record so interested  persons
19        and organizations which have a real and active
20        interest in clean water for America will at least
21        have an opportunity to read it.
22                  Mr.  Stein,  for  the past forty-five years
23        there  has  been entirely too much "lip  service11
24        devoted to prattle  about  "clean water" while
25        during the same period there has been  far too

 1                     WILLIAM A. RIASKI

 2        little  real effort  devoted  to  this  cause by

 3        many  of the State agencies  whose  duties at

 4        least implied their responsibility  for action

 5        in  this field.

 6                  I would appreciate receiving, as soon

 7        as  possible, the list of those folks  and the

 g        organisations they  represented who  registered

 9        as  being in attendance,

10                  With  best wishes, I  am

                               Conservationally youra,

13                             (Signed) William A.  Riaski

                               William  A.  Riaski
is                             Executive Director

16        WARjcha

17        ends.

is        CCt   Joe G. Moore,  Jr., Commissioner,  FWPCA
               Charles M. Rogers, Chief  Info. Officer,  FWPCA
19             Clarence W. Klaaaen, Chief Sanitary Engineer,
                 Illinois Sanitary Water Board
20             Blucher A, Poole, Technical  Secy*, Indiana
                 Stream Pollution Control Board
21             Loring F«  Oeming, Exec. Secy*, Michigan Water
                 Resources Commission
22            Freeman Holmer, Director, Wisconsin Department
                 of  Resource  Development
23            Joseph W.  Penfold, Conservation Director,  IHLA

24             encl,


                                 STATEMENT OF
                       THE IZAAK WALTON  LEAGUE OF  AMERICA
                                    AT THE
                            FOUR STATE CONFERENCE  ON
                           POLLUTION OF  LAKE  MICHIGAN

                              Bal Tabarin Room
                                 Sherman House
                              Chicago,  Illinois
                                February 2,1968

Mr.  Chairman:   I am William A,  Riaski,  Executive  Director of The  Izaak Walton
League  of  America,  the National Headquarters of which  is located  in Glenview,
Illinois.    The League is a 46  year old nation-wide organization  of citizens
dedicated  to the wise  and proper use of America's natural resources.

It may  be  of some interest to you to know that the League,  at  the behest of
President  Hoover, in 1927 conducted the first nation-wide survey  of water
pollution  in the United States* Mr. Hoover  at the time  was Secretary of
Commerce and the Honorary President of  the League. The  League was then but
five years old but  throughout its life  it has had an active and intense in-
terest  in  water pollution abatement.

In 1927, there was  no  Federal agency specifically charged with abating water
pollution.  The Illinois Sanitary Water Board came into  existence shortly
thereafter due to the  activities of the Illinois  State Division of the League.
Various other  State Divisions of the League  were  likewise active  in this con-
nection and similar pollution abatement agencies  resulted in many states.  All
suoposedly were created to abate water  pollution  but with a few exceptions, the
records of these State agencies were most notable for  their mediocrity between
1927 and 1962,  The period between  1962 and  1968  has yet to reveal ouch more
in the  way of  actual accomplishment though it has been noted some have finally
indicated  considerable interest in  the  job they were supposed  to  have been
doing for, lo, these many years.

At the  time this statement was  being composed ten days ago, the proposed water
quality standards submitted by  Illinois and  Michigan to  the Federal Water Pol-
lution  Control Administration had not been approved by it.  I  am  rather positive
this was not due to the fact the proposals submitted by  these  States were un-
realistically  high!11   Each of  these States  borders on Lake Michigan and, in
addition,  some watershed in each drain  into  the Lake.

On March 3,  1965,  I attended an Illinois-Indiana  Interstate Water Pollution
Conference at  McCormick Place in Chicago.  It, too, dealt with Lake Michigan.
Unfortunately, McCormick Place  has  since been destroyed  by  a disastrous fire.
I have  often wished as hot a fire could have been built  under  the State Water
Pollution  agencies  represented  here today*   Had this been the  case, I'm certain
it would have  gotten them off their "fannies" and into action, and might have
resulted in enough  solid progress in abating water pollution,  so  there would
have been  little need  for this  particular conference.

The  Federal  Water Pollution Control Administration is  a  rather new organization
though  amongst its  ranks it does number quite a group  of folks who have had
considerable previous  experience in the field of  water pollution  abatement.


                                    - 2 -

 I  shall reserve my  judgment as to the merits of the organization for a few more
 years for  I most certainly realize the lethargy which it has encountered at
 the State  level*

 I  do want  to mention one particularly bright spot in the water pollution abate-
 ment picture.  It happens to be a local development but, insofar as actual ac-
 complishment is concerned, I have yet to hear of anything in this country which
 will begin to match it.

 Mr. Vinton U, Bacon, the General Superintendent of the Metropolitan Sanitary
 District of Greater Chicago, has motivated his organization into not only insti-
 tuting a wide variety of pilot projects aimed to reduce pollution but some have
 demonstrated real worth.  His plans envisage applying these results on a broad
 scale and  some are  in the construction stage already.

 In addition, he has instituted court action against major polluters not only in
 Illinois but in Indiana as well.

 The water  quality standards established under Mr. Bacon's direction in Cook
 County far exceed those established by the Illinois Sanitary Water Board.
 Furthermore, he has taken forceful steps to implement the Sanitary District's

 The Izaak  Walton League of America does not intend to let Mr. Bacon's excellent
 work go unrecognized.  The League is presenting to him its highest award for
 his resolute action in not only clearly and loudly warning of the great dangers
 inherent in water pollution but, far more importantly, doing something con-
 structive  to abate  water pollution.

 During this conference this room has been filled with folks who, because of
 their professional  training, skills and experience, are well prepared to take
 effective  action to reduce water pollution.

 For the forty-six years of the League's existence, this has often been true at
 other meetings in regard to water pollution.

 In the past, the ingredient which has been sadly lacking was the necessary
 motivation to put these trained people in a position where their abilities and
 skills could be effectively applied in a manner which would produce the needed

 Everywhere the citizens of the United States are now demanding action in
 abating water pollution.  The Izaak Walton League of America has been most
 gratified  to note the steadily increasing number of individuals and organiza-
 tions which have cooperated with it in working for Clean Water.  I am certain
 this has proven to  be both time consuming and costly for them just as it has
 for the League.  The only reward most of them will receive will be their own
 self satisfaction if they are successful in their mission.

 However, each and everyone of them certainly deserves the League's commenda-
 tion for their high minded and spirited interest in not only their own families
but in everyone in  the United States regardless of race, creed or political
belief.    Clean Water is a universal benefit and it is likewise extremely ia-
portant to the continued success and growth of this Nation.


                                     -  3  -
Frankly,  the  League is well pleased with  the  recommendations made  to  this
conference by the Federal Water Pollution Control  Administration.  No doubt
I  could make  some specific suggestions  as to  how some  of  its recommendations
might  perhaps be  strengthened  and how some others  could be  added to its  list.

Uncounted billions of words have been written and  spoken  about  Clean  Water
in the past 46 years.   The needed ingredient is "action" and not  more words
regardless of how sincere they might be.    Therefore,  I shall not  try to add
to your recommendations further details for,  in  essence,  the League will
measure not just  the intent of the words  of which  the  recommendations are
constructed,  but  rather the goals which are achieved.

The Izaak Walton  League of America is of  the  opinion it is  high time  firm and
positive  steps are taken to produce Clean Water  for America.

Many times you have told us you know how  to do it!!!   Alright,  let's  get the
job done  and  not  waste more time talking  about the best way to  do  it.

The Izaak Walton  League of America is honored to have  been  able to present its
views  and it  calls upon each and every  one of you  to take immediate steps to
produce Clean Water for America*
                                       William A. Riaski
                                       Executive Director
                                       The Izaak Walton League of America
                                       1326 Waukegan Road
                                       Glenvlew, Illinois 60025

 1                        C. W.  KLASSEN


 3                      STATE OP ILLINOIS

 4                   SANITARY WATER  BOARD

 5                        SPRINGFIELD

              THE  BOARD
 8  Chairman, Director  of Public Health

 9  William T. Lodge              Technical Secretary
    Director of Conservation     Clarence W.  Klassen
10                                Chief  Sanitary Engineer
    Robert M. Schneider          Department of Public Health
11  Director of Agriculture
                                  Address  Letters to:
12  Francis S. Lorenz             State  Sanitary Water Board
    Director of Public  Works     Springfield,  Illinois
13  & Buildings                            62706

14  A. L. Sargent, Municipalities

15  C. S. Boruff,  Industries

16                      February 9,  1968

    LAKE MICHIGAN  - Four State  Conference
18                  January 31*  19^8 -  Chicago

    Mr. William A. Riaski
20  Executive Director
    The Izaak Walton League of  America
21  National Office
    1326 Waukegan  Road
22  Glenview, Illinois  60025

         Dear Mr.  Riaski:

25                 I received a copy of your  February 5

 i                        3-;.;:w;; KLASSEN   .
 2        letter to Mr.  Stein relative to the League's
 3        statement which you prepared for the Four State
 4        Conference on  Lake Michigan pollution meeting
 5        in Chicago, when I returned to Springfield on
 6        February 8th following the conference.
 7                  I want to be on record concerning this
 g        letter and your statement.  Three of the prepared
 9        statements were not pertinent to the subject
10        before this conference,  namely Lake Michigan,
U        and therefore  I did indicate to you that because
i:        of this fact I could not sponsor this statement
13        on Illinois time.   I personally feel it is
14        extremely unfortunate that such a fine organi-
15        zation as the  Izaak Walton League of America
16        did not prepare a  productive statement which
17        could  be a positive instrument to accelerate
18        the cleanup of Lake Michigan.  To substantiate
19        this feeling,  I would like to suggest that the
20        League prepare such a statement and I will submit
21        it to  the Chairman and request that it be included
22        in the record.  I  feel that the Izaak Walton
23        League should  be on record in the conference.  I
24        am referring to the National Izaak Walton League,
25        inasmuch as for all of the four States,  including

 1                        C.: Wv KLASSEN
 2       Illinois, the particular State division  did
 3       present excellent statements.
 4                 May I also suggest that if you desire
 5       to include any criticism of the Sanitary Water
 6       Board please feel perfectly free to do so.   I
 7       want to emphasize this point because of  the
 8       information apparently that you had given Senator
 9       Nelson that your statement was excluded  by me
10       because it was critical of the Illinois  Board.
11       This is positively not the case.
12                 I am hopeful however that all  of the
13       statements critical or otherwise will be based
14       on correct facts.  In this connection, I would
15       like to call your attention to two items in  your
16       original prepared statement that are not in  this
17       category.
18                 The first of these examples is the
19       second sentence  in the third paragraph on page  1,
20       "The Illinois Sanitary Water Board came  into
21       existence shortly thereafter due to the  activities
22       of the Illinois  State Division of  the League."
23       This is not a correct statement.   The original
24       Sanitary Water Board law enacted in 1929 was
25       prepared by my predecessor, the  late Harry P.

 1                        -Cv W>* KLASSEN •
 2        Fergeson with the assistance of the late Anna W.
 3        Ickes, who was then a member of the Legislature
 4        and who introduced and sponsored this legislation.
 5        I was Mr. Fergeson's assistant at that time and
 6        I am intimately acquainted with all of the details
 7        of this legislation.  The present Sanitary Water
 8        Board law under which we operate was enacted in
 9        1951 and this was the result of a legislative
10        commission and was not the result of any activity
11        of the Izaak Walton League.  At the signing of
12        this piece of legislation, Governor Stevenson
13        invited any persons interested in this legislation
14        to be present.  This was and still is a policy
15        of the Governor.  The then chairman of the State
16        Division of the League was invited, was present,
17        was in the picture taken during the signing and
18        this has often been interpreted by the League as
19        proof of activity in sponsoring this legislation.
20        I was present at the signing.  Then like now the
21        Governor in signing used many different pens and
22        passed these out as souvenirs to all of those
23        present.  I believe I am correct that the then
24        chairman of the League had this framed as further
25        proof that this was the pen that signed the Sanitariy


 1                        Cv:.W.-: KLASSEN

 2        Water  Board law and was  In possession of the

 3        League.   I  also had one  of these pens*

 4                 Another incorrect statement Is the

 5        fifth  paragraph on page  two which reads, "The

 6        water  quality standards  established under Mr.

 7        Bacon's  direction in Cook County far exceed

 8        those  established by the Illinois Sanitary

 9        Water  Board.   Furthermore, he has taken forceful

10        steps  to implement the Sanitary ^District's stan-

il        dards."

12                 i am assuming  that you are implying

13        standards in Cook County established by the

1*        Metropolitan Sanitary District.   This is not

15        correct. The Metropolitan Sanitary District

l6        has  not  established any  water quality standards

I7        even though they were required by a recent Act

18        of the Legislature to do so.  The Sanitary District

19        trustees have by official resolution taken action

20        to enforce  the water quality standards established

21        by the Sanitary Water Board.  This action was taken

22        several  months ago and since that time the Illinois

          Sanitary Water Board standards applying to Chicago

24        Metropolitan Sanitary District have been approved

25        by Secretary Udall.  I am sure you are aware

 l                        C. W.  KLASSEN

 2        that all of Cook County is not under the Juris-

 3        diction of the Metropolitan Sanitary District.

 4        In that portion of Cook County namely, in the

 5        Chicago Heights-Lansing area that is not under

 6        the Jurisdiction of the Chicago Sanitary District,

 7        all municipal sewage is receiving complete treat-

 g        ment and disinfection and a number of the plants

 9        already have tertiary treatment.  The industries

10        that are not already complying with the new cri-

11        teria are under order by the Sanitary Water Board

12        "to accomplish this by December 1968.  Therefore,

13        your statement that the water quality standards

14        established in Cook County far exceed those es-

15        tablished by the Illinois Sanitary Water Board is

1$        not a correct statement for reasons given above.

17                  I again want to urge you to prepare a

18        statement on behalf of the National Izaak Walton

19        League that pertains to the cleanup of Lake

20        Michigan so that this  can be included into the

21        record of this conference.  A copy of this letter

22        is also being sent to  Senator Nelson because of

23        his statement made on the Senate floor, February

24        5th,  which indicated that a statement by the

25        Izaak Walton League had not been permitted to

be included in the record because <-»*' its
criticism of the State
Control agency.

cc - Murray Stein
Senator Nelson
Joe Chantigney
Joe G. Moore, Jr.
Charles M. Rogers
Blucher A. Poole,
Stream Pollution
Water Pollution

(Signed) C. W. Klassen
C. W. Klassen
Technical Secretary

, Commissioner, FWPCA
, Chief Info. Officer,
Tech. Secy., Indiana
Control Board
Lor ing F. Oeming, Exec. Secy., Michigan
Water Resources Commission
Freeman Holmer, Director, Wisconsin
Department of Resource Development
Joseph W. Penfold
SWB Chicago
, Conservation Director