PROCEEDINGS
                VOLUME 2
 MICHIGAN
  INDIANA
                               KHNSYLVANIA
                        Buffalo—August 10-11, 1965
Conference
In the matter of Pollution of
Lake Erie and its Tributaries
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION

-------
                                                               266
          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  May we reconvene.  Last evening when




we recessed, the Federal Government had completed its main




presentation.




          At this point, we would like to open the conference




for questioning from the conferees.  Are there any questions or




comments from the conferees to the Federal representatives on




this portion of the report.  Mr. Boardman?




          MR. BOARDMAN:  The first question I have is for Mr.




Cook, I believe.  It is on Table 8, on the soluble phosphate




inputs to Lake Erie.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Mr. Boardman, on your questions, I




think it might be better if you would identify the page.




          MR. BOARDMAN:  Table 8, which is the very last  page




of Volume 1, page 50.  How were these numbers of pounds  of




phosphates arrived at?  For Pennsylvania, for instance,  it says




Erie, 2,600 pounds per day, other sources 2,900.  Where  did




these numbers come from?




          MR,, COOK:   I think Mr. Megregian can better answer




that than I can.




          MR, MEGREGIAN:  Insofar as Pennsylvania is concerned




the information that is presented here is based on population




equivalent of the territory covered by the City of Erie.   For




instance, note the 2600 and reduced by 35 percent for secondary




treatment, which would be the expected normal reduction  if the




plant were operated  according to conventional methods.

-------
                                                               267
          MR. BOARDMAN:  So these are estimated values, not




measured values.




          MR. MEGREGIAN:  They are estimated with respect to




the municipalities only.  However the tributaries and the




Michigan values are measured values.




          MR. BOARDMAN:  But the Pennsylvania values are esti-




mated.




          MR. MEGREGIAN:  That's right.




          MR. BOARDMAN:  Let's go back to Volume 3 for the mo-




ment, on page 106, in the paragraph talking about municipal




wastes, the report states that "Bacterial tests of Mill Creek




and Garrison Run indicate that they are  receiving domestic




wastes."  Are you referring to the stormwater overflows of do-




mestic sewage as the source of these wastes or do you have in-




formation that there are other sources?




          MR. MEGREGIAN:  We are referring to stormwater run-




off and malfunctioning relief systems as well as some indus-




trial waste.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  I think it might facilitate matters




somewhat for both of you if you have someone in the audience




who has worked specifically on this, don't hesitate to call




him up and ask the question.  I think we can get at the answers




more readily that way.




          MR. BOARDMAN:  On page 107, on the industrial wastes,




when talking about the Hammermill Paper  Company's installation

-------
                                                               268
of deep well disposal, the sentence follows which says, "How-




ever, this will not alleviate the problem caused by the dis-




charge of tannins and lignins from spent pulping liquors."




          This statement concerned us a little because, from




our information, the material to be injected into the well is




the spent pulping liquors.  Do you have another source of infor-




mation or are we wrong that these wells should alleviate this




problem?  They may not eliminate all the discharge 100 percent.




But from every indication we have this problem should be al




leviated quite a bit by the installation of these deep wells.




          MR. MEGREGIAN:  This information is entirely from




your sources.




          MR. BOARDMAN:   I sort of find it hard to believe that




the people would tell you that the deep well disposal wouldn't




alleviate the problem of this discharge.  Of course, I may be




interpreting the word "alleviate" wrong.  It may not eliminate




them all, but it certainly will help alleviate.




          I have one other question.  Mr. Stein asked Dr. Wilbar




a similar question yesterday.  It concerns the statements in




the conclusions about the polluted tributaries and the condition




of Pennsylvania's streams.




          When you read the section on page 106 on "Fish and




Aquatic Life," which says "Excellent year-round fishing exists




in many of the area's streams.  Twentymile Creek, Trout Run and




Godfrey's Run are good trout streams," and then we talk about

-------
                                                               269







the polluted tributaries, it makes  me believe,  too,  that  we  are




talking about two different reports.




          The same question arose on  page 107  in discussing  Erie




Harbor.  When I read this paragraph I almost  envisioned a sterile




body of water from the description  of the color,  the bottom




deposits, the bacteria.  Would you  like to comment  on the type  of




aquatic life that is present in Erie  Harbor and the  type  of




bottom life that your biologists found in this  area?




          MR. MEGREGIAN:   With the  permission  of  the conferees,




I will pass the ball.




          MR. CASPER:  I  am Vic Casper, Chief Biologist,  Great




Lakes-Illinois River Basin Project, Lake Erie Field  Station.  As




far as aquatic life in Erie Harbor, we found  a  fairly good variety




of organisms, including something like 9 to 16  different  genera of




bottom dwelling animals.   We had quite a few  species of snails,




etc.  In general, it was  a fairly diverse variety,  although




nothing compared to what  you would  find in the  open  lake, but  it




was a fairly diverse bottom fauna.  It showed  some  effects of  pol-




lution but not the gross  effects that you would find in the




Cleveland Harbor or Buffalo or some of these  other  tributaries.




          MR.  BOARDMAN:  When I read  the paragraph  I didn't  get




that impression.  But I understood  from some  of the  conversations




I had with some of your people in the Lake Erie study that this




was the case at Erie Harbor.  Thank you.




          MR.  COOK:   I would just like to add  there, Mr.  Boardman,

-------
                                                               270
that for Mr. Casper's sake his report was very conclusive and




in order to reduce the size of our report here, we edited out




some things we shouldn't have.




          MR.  BOARDMAN:   In the continuation of that paragraph




it indicates also that the concentration of coliform organisms




and the presence of Salmonella organisms x>?ere found in the




Erie Harbor.




          Here again, do you have any idea what the source of




these organisms might be—whether it be a continuing raw dis-




charge or, again, possibly the combined sewer system and some




malfunctioning relief?




          MR.  MEGREGIAN:  This is, undoubtedly, the same reason




that we mentioned before, both stormwater overflow and mal-




functioning.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  If there is malfunctioning, that




might be a continuing discharge.




          MR.  BOARDMAN:   Well, I don't know if that would be




malfunctioning, and I don't know if there is or not.  We hope




that there isn't.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Well, I would say this, Mr. Boardman:




For purposes of clarification of the record for the people who




read this later, I think that we have possibly three points -




(1) continuing discharge from dry weather sources, (2) stormwater




overflows, and (3) malfunctioning, which may be continuous or




may be intermittent.

-------
                                                               271






          Now, those are the three logical possibilities.  I




don't know.  What is your view concerning where these coliforms




might come from?  We want the answer, but we want to clarify the




question—that in your opinion it is not from dry weather discharges.




          MR. MEGREGIAN:  This is not from dry weather discharges




from a sewage treatment plant.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Then you believe that this is mal-




functioning that might cause a dangerous flow of materials which




causes these coliforms?




          MR. MEGREGIAN:  Yes, definitely.




          MR. BOARDMAN:  Well, this is one of the things that




Erie is looking into, this combined system of their storm




sewer problem.




          Back in Volume 1 in the conclusions which were not




read yesterday, they are still a part of the report, page 1, I




think.  I probably asked the same question in Cleveland, but I




would like to ask it again now, the very first sentence, "Lake




Erie and its tributaries are polluted."  Perhaps I read this




statement a little wrong, but do you mean all of Lake Erie and




its tributaries are polluted?




          MR0 COOK:   No, I think this is qualified.  Where we




mentioned, for instance, in Pennsylvania, there were some trout




streams and in New York there were some trout streams, certainly




not every single stream is polluted.




          MR. BOARDMAN:  The thing that concerned me was the

-------
                                                               272
conclusion was already in the interim conclusions that were




read for the Michigan, Indiana and Ohio portion and I just




wanted to get that point clarified.




          MR. COOK:  I think we could safely say that the major




tributaries are polluted with no qualifications.




          MR. BOARDMAN:  Do you consider Pennsylvania as any of




the major tributaries of Lake Erie?




          MR. COOK:  No, I think historically the tributaries




in Pennsylvania have been considered minor tributaries.




          MR. BOARDMAN:  They are all very small streams.  Some




of these streams are what we would call no more than a good




sized sewer.




          MR. COOK:  That is correct.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Did you say some of these streams




are no more than good sized sewers?  Do you want to correct




the record?




          MR. BOARDMAN:  No, I would like it to stay in the




record.  You were asking Dr. Wilbar about some of the Cascade




Creeks, the Mill Creek, some of the polluted tributaries Dr.




Wilbar described, and these streams, which are tributaries--




and the reason maybe I say "sewers" is because of the fact




that some of these are actually carried in pipes through the




town and they are more like a sewer as far as their appearance




and size than a tributary you might expect, such as one the




size of the Buffalo River.  I don't want anyone to get the

-------
                                                               273
 impression  that we have any real large streams discharging into




 Lake Erie.  Perhaps my choice of words was bad.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  You know, out in Kansas City there is




 an  old  stream out there that's covered up, called Turkey Creek,




 Turkey  Creek Sewer and that runs underground through Kansas




 City.   By the way, that was a very interesting case because




 that stream goes back and forth across the State line several




 times and was covered up many, many years ago and no one knew




 who owned it and where the jurisdiction was, but we finally got




 that worked out.  While that stream was no more than a sewer,




     it sure contributed to the pollution of Kansas City and was




 one of  the main sources.




          Now, exactly what you mean is that this isn't really




 an open situation like the Cuyahoga and the Buffalo River in




 Cleveland or Detroit.  I'll take Detroit out of there, Cleveland




 and Buffalo.  Of course, the Cuyahoga is in Cleveland and, of




 course, Buffalo River is in Buffalo.




          The advantage Mr» Oeming has is that he has the




Detroit River running past Detroit and, of course, while his




 river,  the Detroit River, absorbs a considerable amount of flow,




 they have many more cubic feet of sludge going by.  While it




gets to Lake Erie probably as effectively, maybe even faster,




 the river itself from a visual appearance  doesn't look as bad




as the  rivers you have in Cleveland or in Buffalo.




          MR.  BOARDMAN:   Again, on page 1 of the conclusions.

-------
                                                               274







I hope I'm not repeating too much about what we talked about




yesterday, but in the last paragraph where we talk about inter-




state pollution, do you recall on what specific evidence the




conclusion was based that interstate pollution is occurring?




          MR. MEGREGIAN:  The conclusion which was reached with




respect to interstate pollution was based on the contribution of




phosphates by all of the areas draining into Lake Erie.   This is




the basis upon which we considered Lake Erie is polluted and




this is an interstate pollution.




          MR. BOARDMAN:  It was arrived at though, for instance,




by measuring phosphate levels in the waters in the Pennsylvania




area.  Is this correct?




          MR. MEGREGIAN:  Yes, we have measured phosphate levels




in Pennsylvania.




          MR. BOARDMAN:  Are they above the water quality cri-




teria level that has been set?  You have used, what is it, 300ths




of a miligram per liter as the level of interstate pollution,




the level below which you don't have it, is this correct?




          MR. COOK:  No, let's get that straight.  We haven't set




300ths of a milligram per liter of soluble phosphate as  a level




of pollution.  This is the point at which prior to the growing sea-




son you can expect nuisance conditions of algae.  We are not saying




that this is a standard or a receiving water criterion,  not at all.




          MR, BOARDMAN:  Do you have a standard or receiving




water criterion?

-------
                                                               275
          MR. COOK:  There is none as far as I know.




          MR. BOARDMAN:  If Pennsylvania discharges water con-




tributing to interstate pollution, then you couldn't tell us




what levels of phosphate our people could discharge without




causing interstate pollution, is that correct?




          MR0 COOK:  All we know now is that we have to remove




as much phosphate as we can, that every pound that we do it is




going to do some good.




          MR. BOARDMAN:  If we can explore that point just a




little further.  Somewhere in the report it indicates that




secondary treatment is capable of removing 65 percent if




operated at optimum phosphate removal levels.  I understood




yesterday that someone had talked about the Chicago plant as




one that had had extremely high phosphate removals.  I under-




stand there also that they burn their sludge wet.  Is that




correct?




          MR. MEGREGIAN:  They burn their sludge after they go




through vacuum filtration.




          MR. BOARDMAN:  They don't digest it, though?




          MR. MEGREGIAN:  No, that is they do not digest the




bulk of their sludge at present.  They do have a digestion




process called the Zimmerman Process which is very new.




          MR. BOARDMAN:  I wonder, then—again we talked about




this in Cleveland — that with a more conventional type treatment




plant if we could expect this type of phosphate removal by just

-------
                                                               276







some slight modifications in operation or if we are really




talking about something beyond the operation of a sewage treat-




ment plant?




          MR. MEGREGIAN:  I believe that was partially answered




yesterday.  However, from our own reviews of the phosphate re-




movals that were brought out in the literature as to the methods




by which this can be done, it is quite apparent that with some




slight modification of secondary treatment operations that up




to 65 percent can be removed, which, at the present time, many




plants are operating much lower than that.




          The processes that might have to be altered to do this




are principally the supernatent return from sludge digestion, and




perhaps such things as increased aeration in the activated sludge




tank and greater return of the activated sludge to the aeration




to pick up more phosphate — things like that, which we are pre-




pared to detail if necessary to the conferees later.




          MR. BOARDMAN:  O.K., fine.  I don't want to get into




a detailed discussion here.  On page 2 of the conclusions, there




is a paragraph which is the third one which I like to refer to




as "Pennsylvania1s paragraph" because it talks about Pennsylvania




which indicates that Lake Erie and its tributaries are polluted.




          Now we all know that the definition of pollution is




one that varies.  Dr. Tarzwell gave a pretty good definition of




pollution yesterday, and we know that various degrees of pollu-




tion can occur.

-------
                                                               277






          I would like your opinion as to the category you would




 classify water quality in the Pennsylvania portion of the Lake




 Erie Basin.  How does it compare, say, to Cleveland or to Detroit




 or to the Buffalo areas?  Would you like to comment on that,




 please?




          MR. COOK:   Did you say the streams?




          MR. BOARDMAN:   Water quality in the general area.




          MR. COOK:   Well, I think you are very fortunate.




Pennsylvania streams are pretty clean.  I think they are proba-




bly some of the best in the Basin.  Of course, everybody knows




 and the conference has heard how the waters around Presque Isle




are used by so many tourists.   No, I think Pennsylvania  is lucky.




They have pretty good water.




          MR. BOARDMAN:   Well, do you consider that lucky or do




you consider that we might be doing a fairly decent water pol-




 lution control job?




          MR. COOK:   It  might be a combination of both.




          MR. BOARDMAN:   Thank you.  We think that we have done




a fairly good job.




          One more and one final question.   In that paragraph




that I am talking about, there are a number of things that you




indicate are pollution problems in Pennsylvania.   One is that




Lake Erie is polluted by discharges of municipal  and industrial




wastes.




          Now, we certainly acknowledge that we have some local

-------
                                                               278
problems of industrial waste that, as Dr. Wilbar's presentation




outlined, the industries all have schedules to which very soon




they will have solutions to their problems.




          Now, the other problem is the treated effluent from




secondary sewage treatment plants which we have kicked around




here just a few seconds ago, and I think it's pretty clear that




we don't really have the full answer to remove all of the pol-




lutants even from sewage treatment plant effluents that receive




secondary treatment.  Is that assumption correct?




          MR. MEGREGIAN:  I believe that you are correct in that




assumption.




          MR. BOARDMAN:  Technically, we can distill it, but




from a practical standpoint, without going to very expensive




treatment processes, we still have some problems--well, with




removing the nutrients from a secondary treatment.




          MR. MEGREGIAN:  This is the principal problem at the




present time.  However, there are two intervening problems in




the locality of Erie, Pennsylvania, with stormwater overflow...




          MR. BOARDMAN:  Well, I want to keep going, because




I have just broken down that the problems that you point out




in pollution are (1) these discharges of treated effluents to




which we don't really have the practical solution, and (2) pol-




lution from combined sewer overflows.  Now, what solutions do




we have to these problems?




          MR. MEGREGIAN:  What solutions does Pennsylvania have

-------
                                                               279
to these problems?




          MR.  BOARDMAN:   No, I assume that you fellows can give




us some help on some of  these problems.   We don't know what we




can do about combined sewer overflows, again,  that is practical.




Do you have any practical suggestions for Erie's eliminating




their combined sewer overflow problem?




          MR.  MEGREGIAN:   I believe that was partially covered




in the general recommendations with respect to metropolitan




planning, the separation of sewers with urban renewal and the




building of separate sewers in new areas and the like.




          We do not have a specific treatment  regimen at the




present time to, what should I say, recommend, since this is




under study by our Department.




          MR.  BOARDMAN:   And also, it is a financial problem,




too, isn't it, as I understand it?  With Erie, it x^ould be a




$20,000,000 expenditure  and it would be quite expensive to




separate sewers.




          The third pollution problem you pointed out was the




accidental spills from vessels and industries.  Do you have a




surefire method for preventing accidental spills?  We have been




looking for one.  I am talking about spills from industries and




vessels which is one of  the items that is specified as a pollu-




tion problem in Pennsylvania.




          MR0  MEGREGIAN:   We believe that some prevention within




industry can be engineered with this in mind.   There are, of

-------
                                                               280







course, engineering devices for petroleum storage tanks  whereby




there is a retaining wall, for instance,  to hold back any oil




that might spill from a tank or if a tank should break.




          Things of this kind are certainly possible.  We do




not have any details or specifics.  This  is a plant by plant




subj ect.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:   If he is talking about preventing




accidental spills from industry, well,  Mr.  Boardman, I'll give




you my experience through the country.  Perhaps  this is  also




borne out by Mr. Poole's experience.  I find that the best way




is to have a monitoring device and a good checking device and




report accidental spills and then take  action on it.




          We were plagued in various areas  by accidental spills,




sometimes because they created critical odors and tastes in wa-




ter supplies and sometimes because they were radioactive wastes.




          There was a uranium company owned by a very influential




Senator at one time—partially owned by him and his corporation--




and they had a series of accidental spills.  We had visits from




the engineers and the lawyers of the company, but we proceeded




with the case and it came out in the paper.  Strangely enough,




that was the last accidental spill we had from the uranium in-




dustry.




          I think if you get certain devices--and I know we have




discussed this with Mr. Poole--where you  have an industry




dealing with a real highly toxic waste like cyanides, you deal

-------
                                                               281
with it where you don't have drains going into the sewers.




          I think this is a question of assiduous  policing—of




going through the plant and putting in  remedial systems.  You




can find that you are with an active water pollution control




program and you can really cut down on  accidental  spills.   This




is just the question of a will to do it and a  rigid enforcement




of the law.




          MR. BOARDMAN:  I would like to say,  Mr.  Stein,  that




our people have been in business for sometime, too.  We have




been working quite a spell to prevent accidental spills be-




cause we know we have problems in these areas.  I  wondered  if




people had found any places where we have had  what you might




consider unaccidental-accidental spills that caused this  recom-




mendation to be put in.




          First of all, I might say, too, that I didn't know




that we had many problems of spills from vessels.   They haven't




been reported to us.  But do you know of any particular places




that we have had accidental spill problems? We have had  fish




kills, but these have not been necessarily accidental spills.




These are caused by the industries usually that we have on  the




list of causing violations and working  toward  solving their




problems.




          MR. COOK:  In the history of  the Great Lakes, Mr.




Boardman, there are many cases of spills from  vessels.




          MR, BOARDMAN:  In the Lake Erie area?

-------
                                                               282







          MR. COOK:  I don't know of any specific instances in




the Lake Erie area or Erie area.  However, it was interesting




to me to learn that the President of the Great Lakes Pilot




Association, who works out of Duluth, is much concerned about




this and has gotten his organization concerned.  They are going




through a program of education of ships crews to prevent this




sort of thing.  We have had serious spills in the Chicago area




that cause all kinds of trouble and they certainly could happen




in the Erie area.




          MR. BOARDMAN:  Don't get me wrong.   We are as inter-




ested in making sure that there are no spills as anyone else.




Yet in the paragraph about Pennsylvania you pointed out that we




should take some action to eliminate this pollution problem.




          MR. COOK:  Well, I would hope that  that would be done




in Erie Harbor and all of the rest of the harbors.




          MR. BOARDMAN:  Then the next one is waste from lake




vessels which we certainly acknowledge as a problem.  Here,.




again, we are looking for a solution just like everyone else is.




          The last one was land drainage.  Do you have any




recommendations for the prevention of pollution from land drainage^




          MR. COOK:  What kind of pollution are you referring to




here?




          MR, BOARDMAN:  The pollution you pointed out in the




paragraph about Pennsylvania, it says from land drainage.




          MR. COOK:  I think we are talking about nutrients

-------
                                                               283
here.  When we went into this before we realized that  there are




problems to which we don't have answers.   However,  we  have some




ideas which we would like to get the Soil Conservation Service




and other departments going on a real,  solid action program to




prevent this sort of thing or to reduce it.




          MR.  BOARDMAN:   Then possibly  this  should  be  included




as one of the recommendations when the  conference concludes.




          The reason I asked these questions again  is  that Mr.




Stein read this paragraph to Dr. Wilbar yesterday to tell  us




how bad things were in Pennsylvania. I don't believe  they are




quite as bad as he made it sound.  I think the answers you've




given may indicate that we have some problems here  and we  don't




know exactly what to do about them and  I  don't believe anyone




does yet.




          We are certainly willing to go  along with any programs




that are developed to eliminate them.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:   Mr.  Boardman,  I don't quite under-




stand what you said there.  You said it wasn't as bad  as I




made it sound.  I just read a report—a paragraph from the in-




vestigators' report.




          Now as I understand what you  are saying when you talk




about land drainage, you are talking about  this  problem;  you




are talking about technical solutions to  the problem .    But




you don't say you don't have the problem.




          Now I don't see by just saying  that you don't have

-------
                                                               284
a definitive solution and admitting that you have the problem




that you made the paragraph any less effective or descriptive




of what is going on.




          If you have pollution from land drainage,  then you




question someone and you ask what's to be done about it.   Then




I think we are getting at the problem of land drainage.   Sup-




pose you don't have a definitive answer, you can't come  back,




it seems to me, in a logical way and say you have dealt  with




the problem and things aren't as bad as they seem because we




just dealt with the question of remedial action but  not  con-




ditions as apply from land drainage.




          MR. BOARDMAN:   I believe that the answers  given by




Mr. Megregian have indicated that there is somewhat  of a ques-




tion as to just how extensive these problems are. This  is the




point that I wanted to make--that they aren't very extensive.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Well, the way I understood Dr.




Wilbar, he stated at least twice—and I think the record will




show that--that the wastes from Pennsylvania were contributing




to the putrification of the Lake.  I think we have a meeting




of the minds on that.  I don't think there is a difference.




          MR. BOARDMAN:   That's all the questions I  have for




the moment.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:'  Any further questions?




          MR. HENNIGAN:   Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?




Could you please discuss New York State's relative contribution

-------
                                                               285
 of  inputs to Lake Erie in relation to the total inputs to Lake




 Erie.




          MR. COOK:  Well, if we speak of phosphates, referring




 to  page 50 of the report, we say that about 4800 pounds of phos-




 phates originate in Nexv York contributing to the pollution of




 Lake Erie.  That would be somewhere in the area of about 2 per-




 cent.




          If we went down the list, taking each parameter as it




 goes, we could arrive at a percentage figure that would be very




 small.




          MR. HENNIGAN:  Very small.  I took some of the tables




 and tried to arrange these things in light of the information




 presented, and I'd like to read these results if you don't mind.




          Nitrogen inputs - New York State 0.24%; Chloride in-




 puts - New York State 0.33%; suspended solids inputs - New York




 State 0.9%; soluble phosphate inputs - New York State 2.84%.  Do




 you think that my calculations are reasonably accurate?




          MR. COOK:  They agree with mine.




          MR. HENNIGAN:  Thank you.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Are they both reasonably accurate




 or don't you want to comment on that?  I think we should clear




up the record.  You know, the record gets read.  Yes, here is




 the question.  I know they agree with yours and you believe




that they are reasonably accurate, is that correct?  Both of




you?

-------
                                                               286







          MR. COOK:  Yes.




          MR. HENNIGAN:  Thank you.  Another thing that is in the




report.  People talking about the Niagara frontier automatically




include the Erie-Niagara section because of the fact that it is a




single economic entity.  However, I think that it's a fact that




the Niagara River is not included in the agenda for this con-




ference.  In the report itself I think it's excluded from the




waste inputs when they were calculated.  It would have to be or




they would have never been so small.  However, the Niagara River




is included in some of the narrative sections relative to degree




of treatment and I would like to have that point clarified.




          MR, COOK:  In the beginning, Mr. Hennigan, when we




started developing this report we included all of the Buffalo-




Niagara area.  Then learning that the conference area did not




extend beyond the headwaters of the Niagara River, we somewhat




hastily withdrew all of the information from the report that




we could regarding that section of New York.




          Unfortunately, some things did remain that we weren't




able to pluck out of the report.




          MR. HENNIGAN:  Part of Senator Kennedy's statement




yesterday referred to the degree of treatment and extent of




primary treatment in New York State.




          His statement would have been correct if the Niagara




River was included, but with the exclusion of the Niagara




River, it was not, in terms of the amount of sewage

-------
                                                               287






originating and the percentage of primary treatment being pro-




vided.




          The Buffalo River has been a great subject of discus-




sion, particularly here in Buffalo.  Could you go into the ques-




tion of some of the hydraulics and other factors about the




Buffalo River?




          MR. COOK:  To what extent, Mr. Hennigan?




          MR. HENNIGAN:  I'm no expert on the Buffalo River.




Probably everybody in the room knows more about the Buffalo




River than I do.  But from what I heard here, I get the impres-




sion that you've got a dead stretch of stream which is used and




recirculated by a group of four to five industries.  You have a




situation where you're drawing in water for industrial process




use which is probably of poor quality and you add some more con-




taminants to it; you return it to the Buffalo River, you pull it




back into the plant and you keep going on.  This   type of situa-




tion, it seems to me, is bound to build up considerable concen-




trations of all kinds of contaminants in the river.




Is that it?




          MR. MEGREGIAN:  That's a pretty g.ood description of




what we had in mind during dry weather flow, yes.




          MR. HENNIGANj  Well, it seems to me that the main prob-




lem in the Buffalo River area would be when you had a sudden




rainfall or freshet which would carry out from the Buffalo River




this relatively large concentration of waste.  Is that a

-------
                                                               288







reasonable statement?




          MR. MEGREGIAN:  I believe it is, yes.




          MR, HENNIGAN:  Now the next thing, could somebody dis-




cuss, to some degree, some of the hydrology of the Buffalo River-




Buffalo Harbor area and try to explain what happens to this wa-




ter when it  leaves the Buffalo River.  Where does it  go?   In




other words, what is the particular problem?




          MR. MEGREGIAN:  I think I know what you're trying to




ask.  Our studies have indicated that the Buffalo River discharges




move predominantly along the eastern shore and ultimately  into




the Niagara River with some dispersion into the Lake Erie  waters.




During the times of high flow in the Buffalo River and adverse




weather conditions on the Lake which would tend to move the wa-




ters away from the Niagara, this water does go into the Lake in




a more concentrated mass and thereby not only pollutes Lake Erie,




but I understand also interferes with the water supply of  the




City of Buffalo.




          MR, HENNIGAN:  There is one other item I would like to




take up which seems to be....




          MR, OEMING:  I don't want to interrupt you,  Mr.




Hennigan, but I feel we have caught the significance of the




answers to your question.




          Are you saying that there is a current reversal  at the




lower end of the Lake which reverses the Buffalo River so  it dis-




charges into Lake Erie?

-------
                                                               289






          MR, MEGREGIAN:  I didn't say it reverses it.  I said




the wind and weather conditions move the waters of the Buffalo




River that are flowing on the eastern shore out into the Lake.




The surface waters of the Lake move with the wind, and thereby




they do take this water—the surface water--and can move it out,




and have, in fact, interfered with the Buffalo water supply at




times.




          MR, OEMING:  Does this mean that in the Niagara River




itself,...»




          MR, MEGREGIAN:  No, we didn't say anything about the




Niagara River.  The Buffalo River discharges into Lake Erie




rather  close to the mouth of the Niagara River by the headwaters.




          MR, OEMING:  I see.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Let's see if I understand this cor-




rectly.  During the freshets, described by Mr. Hennigan, when




this comes out you say this occurs?  In other words, most of the




flow from the Buffalo River, in the condition it is, may go down




the Niagara River.  But when it really flushes out and the big




slug of pollution comes out then it goes into Lake Erie.




          MR, MEGREGIAN:  I didn't say that.  The condition




here would require a wind counter to the normal movement of the




surface waters.




          MR. HENNIGAN:  Would this discharge from the Buffalo




Harbor go out the upper harbor entrance or the lower harbor en-




trance?   Is the hydrology or the hydraulics ever that the waste

-------
                                                               290
discharge would go out the upper harbor entrance?




          MR. MEGREGIAN:   Well, I'm not sure about the geography




there.  Are you talking about the harbor entrance, down where




Bethlehem is, is that what you mean, the lower harbor entrance?




          MR. HENNIGAN:  Right.  What I am trying  to find out is




if the major portion of discharge takes place at the end of




Buffalo Harbor, whether or not there is a section  of the Lake




in the upper reaches almost of the Niagara River which have




low depths and a rapid current?  I don't know whether this is




true or not.  This is just a point of information  I am trying




to clarify.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Do you have a man who might be able




to answer this better than you people?




          MR. MEGREGIAN:   I am not sure.  May I ask if Mr.




Hartley can give us any further facts on this?




          MR. ROBERT HARTLEY:  I am Robert Hartley, an oceanog-




rapher with the Public Health Service.  As I understand it, you




want to know if the storm discharge from the Buffalo goes out




into the Lake or goes behind to the Niagara River.




          MR. HENNIGAN:  That's the fundamental question0




          MR. HARTLEY:  I think, in the first place, it depends




on the amount of rainfall, but it can very definitely reach out




into Lake Erie.  I think probably anywhere from three quarters




of the flow at any time would be out the Niagara River, storm




or no storm.

-------
                                                               291
          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Thank you.




          MR. HENNIGAN:  This question of the furnishing of in-




 formation on industrial waste outlets, we asked our Attorney




 General to check into the New York State Penal Law since the




 time of Senator Kennedy's appearance is the first time I ever




 heard it was illegal, under New York State law, to give out in-




 dustrial waste data, so I thought we had better check to make




 sure we weren't arrested and put in jail.  There is nothing old




 or new in the Penal Law with reference to secret information




 concerning industrial waste outlets.  The only restriction would




 be if there is a prosecution underway, you couldn't give out




 evidence to prejudice the case, as far as I know.  Our files,




 as far as I am concerned and as far as I can determine, are




 completely open.




          MR* POSTON:  Does this mean that they are open to the




 Public Health Service?




          MR, HENNIGAN:  I know of no instance where they have




 been closed.




          MR. POSTON:  My people have been unable to obtain




 quantities and quality data on industrial waste.  Mr. Megregian




 and your staff members  here, Mr. Day, would you indicate what




 industrial waste information you have requested from the State




 of New York?




          MR. DAY:   I am Robert Day, Chief of the Planning and




Report Section of the Lake Erie Program Office.

-------
                                                               292
          We have carried on some waste surveys up in the




Buffalo-Niagara area and back in October of 1963, we wrote a




letter to Mr. Bernhardt requesting information from many




companies.  We have a letter regarding Bethlehem Steel and we




have not received an answer to this letter to date.




          MR,, HENNIGAN:  No request was made to me for any in-




dustrial waste information.  If there was, you would have




gotten it.  Secondly, it hasn't been the policy to withhold




this information and there isn't going to be and there is




nothing in New York State law that requires us to withhold




the information.




          MR. POSTON:  Well, I think this is a very excellent




indication.




          MR. HENNIGAN:  We are happy to hear it.  I have no




further comments.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Yes, Mr. Oeming?




          MR, OEMING:  I have a few supplemental questions for




Mr. Megregian and Mr. Cook that have come up here since our con-




ference in Cleveland, but first of all, I wonder if you could




identify what you call other sources of phosphate inputs to




Lake Erie under Pennsylvania and New York.




          These are just generalized and I wonder if you could




identify these any better than this when you say other sources?




          MR. MEGREGIAN:  No, this is the cumulative total of t




population draining into Lake Erie other than the cities.

-------
                                                               293
          MR, OEMING:  This is related totally now to people,




not land runoff or industrial wastes or any other things?




          MR. MEGREGIAN:  No.




          MR. OEMING:  All right.  Now, would you tell me what




is your value that you use to apply to population for phosphate




input on, let's say, a raw basis, if it were raw sewage?




          MR. MEGREGIAN:  I would have to get that from my




records, Mr. Oeming.  I don't have it in my head at the moment,




          MR. OEMING:  Well, you must have had something here,




Mr. Megregian, to reach these poundage figures, mustn't you?




          MR, MEGREGIAN:  Yes, that is correct.  I believe the




value is something like two pounds per capita per year.




          MR. OEMING:  Two pounds per capita, and what is that




as--how do you express that?




          MR. MEGREGIAN:  As phosphate.




          MR. OEMING:  As P04?




          MR. MEGREGIAN:  As POA.




          MR. OEMING:  Now this table, does this represent ac-




tual inputs or does it represent inputs after some treatment is




applied here?  This keeps confusing me because sometimes you




talk about it as after treatment.




          MR. MEGREGIAN:  This represents, according to our




best calculation,  what the soluble phosphate contribution is




today.   That includes treatment as well as no treatment.




          MR. OEMING:  Untreated.

-------
                                                               294
          MR. MEGREGIAN:  That's right.  In other words,  where




there is a known treatment plant such as the Cleveland Easterly




Plant, we have calculated a 35 percent reduction in the per




capita phosphate and have given them the balance here as  inputs.




          MR, OEMING:  That is calculated.  That is not actually




measured.  You don't know, do you, whether Easterly actually




removes 35 percent?




          MR. MEGREGIAN:  No one knows this at the present




time because this measurement has been carried out very seldom




at treatment plants„




          MR. OEMING:  Mr. Megregian, what is the source  of




this two pounds per capita?  How did you get at this?




          MR. MEGREGIAN:  This is a number arrived at through




rather extensive research in our Great Lakes Illinois River




Basin Project office in Chicago.




          MR. OEMING:  A whole series of raw sewage samples




were run and you have something that you feel now is as reliable




as the 0.17 pounds of BOD per capita?  Would you say that it is




in the same category of reliability?




          MR. MEGREGIAN:  Not yet.  There is a problem with




phosphates which I am sure we are all aware of and that is that




you can base a fairly solid figure on the basis of human inputs,




but you cannot, this figure of two pounds may not stand up very




long because the greater bulk of the phosphate inputs today are




from washing compounds and the increases in usage of these

-------
                                                               295
materials may certainly change the per capita figure.




          MR, OEMING;  Well, in view of the recommendations




here and the attempt to get at this whole problem of phosphates




in Lake Erie, wouldn't you feel more confident if you had ac-




tual information on these inputs from these various sources?




          I don't speak only of Pennsylvania and New York, but




I mean from all of these sources.  You did it in the Detroit




area.  I think you're fairly confident there.  You didn't have




to apply some figure, you actually measured it, but you didn't




do very much measuring, did you?




          MR. MEGREGIAN:  That is correct, we did not.




          MR. POSTONi  Could I interject here, all of the




figures for Michigan are the result of actual measurements,




isn't that right?




          MR. MEGREGIAN:  That is correct.




          MR. POSTON:  And some of the measurements on other




streams are actual measurements, isn't that right?




          MR. MEGREGIAN:  All of the values for tributaries in




Ohio are measurements, the average results.




          MR, POSTON:  And laboratory analyses?




          MR. MEGREGIAN:  That is correct.  It is the result




of whatever the tributary contains at its mouth, above the Lake




affected area.




          MR. POOLE:   I thought the answer today was that the




table reflected only people's contribution and that, if I

-------
                                                               296







understood correctly in Cleveland, and if I understand it cor-




rectly now, isn't exactly so.




          Take the Maumee as an example, and that's  a measure-




ment of the phosphates in the Maumee which would include land




runoffs.




          MR, MEGREGIAN:  Let me clarify the record  then for




your benefit, Mr. Poole, measurements were made for  the dis-




charge from Lake Huron, the municipal contributions  and indus-




trial contributions and tributaries in Michigan.




          Measurements were made for the tributaries in Ohio,




Maumee River, Portage, Sandusky, Black, Rocky,  Cuyahoga, Chagrin,




Grand and Ashtabula.  All the other values on that table are




based on population equivalent estimates.




          MR. POOLE:  I do understand correctly then, that when




you measured the stream, your measurements would include land




runoff as well as people's contribution.




          MR, MEGREGIAN:  Of course, yes.




          MR, POSTON:   Your estimates, then, with population




come primarily in the large cities listed under Ohio, Toledo,




Sandusky, Lorain, Lakewood, Cleveland?




          MR, MEGREGIAN:  Those are municipalities that have




direct discharges to the Lake.  That is why they are included




separately there.




          MR. POSTON:   And those are estimates?




          MR. MEGREGIAN:  That is correct.

-------
                                                               297
          CHAIRMAN STEIN:   Are there any further questions?




          MR.  OEMINGi   Yes I have some more.   Mr. Cook,  a ques-




tion was asked you of  what you thought would  be of value for




phosphates that would  help this situation,  and I now ask you




again, can you give any guidance to this conference as to




what value we should be shooting for on phosphates in the Lake?




          MR.  COOK: I think the immediate  concern is reduction,




any reduction.  This is absolutely required.   Beyond that, I




think that if in the next year or two years,  we can reduce the




concentration in all three Basins by .01 milligrams per  liter,




we are going to see a  great improvement in  Lake Erie.




          That would bring it down to .03 in  the Western Basin,




and .02 in the Central and Eastern.




          MR.  OEMING:   Now is this something  we're shooting for?




Would you say that we're shooting for these values in the




Western Basin and the  Eastern Basin?




          MR,  COOK: We didn't say this in  our report, however,




personally I think we  should, yes.  I don't mean to say  that




this is a goal or a level at which we should  be satisfied.




We should try to go below this, reduce the  concentration just




as far as we can.




          MR.  OEMING:   Well, at the Detroit conference,  if you




remember, Mr.  Cook, we went into this.  I don't know whether




you were there.




          MR.  COOK: Yes,  I was.

-------
                                                               298
          MR,  OEMING:   But you answered the question.   I  think




I got the answer that  we are relying upon .015 phosphorus as  a




desirable objective or goal to seek in whatever program the




state adopts,  and this is for the Detroit River now.




          Now, do you  wish to change this in any way?




          MR,  COOK: This isn't changing it, this is  just to




give a little bit of explanation.  The .015 was S.P. ,  Soluble




Phosphorus, S.P.  Soluble Phosphate as P04 is three times that,




that would be .045.  Unfortunately, the figure used there was




not what I would depend on.  I would say .01 S.P.




          This came about as the result of some confusion in  the




literature when Dr. Sawyer proposed .01 for the Madison Lakes in




Wisconsin, he also put out another paper where he had  .015.




          I think, from what I have heard, it may have been a




typographical error.  In fact it went into the paper  as .015.




Most biologists in the United States today will accept the




figure of .01 as S0P.  rather than 0015o




          For instance, we found that in Lake Michigan and we




are finding in Lake Ontario and Lake Erie that .045 S  P04 is




too much.  We are getting problems with this level.  .01  S-P




is the point at which  we have problems, so we've got  to reduce




it below that.




          The thing that we were faced with, we were  perfectly




aware that .015 figure in the Detroit report, very frankly, we




didn't want to perpetuate that error here in Lake Erie, and I

-------
                                                               299
consider that an error, that .015.  We should have said .01.




          MR. OEMING:  You were in the same ballpark when you




were recommending both in the Detroit report and in the Lake




Erie report a coliform index not to exceed 1000 for certain




uses.  Would you say that there is the same degree of certainty




with respect to your phosphate figure as there is with respect




to your coliform figure?




          MR. COOK:  May I go back just a minute, Mr. Oeming,




to the phosphates again.  The value of .01 in the Detroit River




or .015 would never cause problems in a river like the Detroit




River.  A flowing stream just does not develop problems like a




quiet body of water does.  The purpose there in Detroit of .015




in the Detroit River was to guarantee that there would not be a




large  input  or as great an input of phosphates to Lake Erie,




which we are more concerned with as far as phosphates are con-




cerned.




          MR. OEMING:  I understand, but that was for the pro-




tection of the western end of Lake Erie.




          MR. COOK:  Yes, that's correct.




          MR. OEMING:  I think then, that s correct, Mr. Cook,




that this was all related not to the problem in the Detroit




River.




          MR. COOK:  I just want to make that clear.




          MR. OEMING:  But to the western end of Lake Erie, and




my question at that time and it still applies, it still rests

-------
                                                               300







here, is the .015 for the Detroit River sufficient to protect




the western end of Lake Erie or is it not and what is the degree




of reliability of this figure?




          MR. COOK:  I would say .01.




          MR. OEMING:  You would change it now to .01, so now




we have a discrepancy here, because you differ from somebody




else.




          MR. COOK:  Yes, I do, if you want to put it that way.




I certainly do.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  As I understand it, Mr. Cook is




speaking for our entire investigators' group and all our biolo-




gists who specialize in this.  I don't think this is a question




of differing.  When you are dealing with as vital a number as




this and you're coming up with the best possible estimate you




can on present knowledge, if there is some situation, whatever




the explanation for another figure getting in a previous report,




I don't know that we should take the latest figure, but I would




not, as I understand, Mr. Cook, indicate that there is a dif-




ference of opinion among the aquatic biologists or the biologists




who are dealing with this problem.




          They are pretty much agreed, as I understand it, on




the latest figures that Mr. Cook has given rather than the one




that happened before, and perhaps the explanation is as simple




as a typographical error, but whatever it is, I don't want the




impression, as I understand it, that there is a substantial

-------
                                                               301







difference in expert opinion as to what the critical point is.




There is pretty much agreement.




          MR. OEMING:   I am not trying to make a point, Mr.




Chairman, about a difference here.  All I am trying to say is




that somebody is going to have to ask a municipality to do some-




thing on the basis that we have a phosphate problem.




          Now, when we do this, whether it is the State or the




Federal Government, we have to have some degree of reliability




that we're asking for the expenditure of money.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Well, that comes to your next question.




I don't know, and again, I want to try to get this as fast as




possible, but Mr. Oeming, for example, asked how reliable the




figure was.  The way he put the questions was, "Do you think




this is as reliable as our coliform counts?"




          You know, you're asking him for an analogy in a field




which may or may not be his, but go ahead.




          MR. OEMING:   I don't care who answers it, Mr. Stein,




but I think over the years there has been a great deal of in-




formation accumulated to establish 1000 index, relatively certain.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  That's right.




          MR. OEMING:   Now, are we in the same position today




with phosphates?




          MR. COOK:  I think the figure we are using for phos-




phates is more precise than the coliform figure.




          MR. OEMING:   Okay.  Now, it has been cited in both

-------
                                                               302
the Cleveland conference and this conference, the results of




tests made in the Chicago plants, and I assume that these are




the three plants, the Northside,-the Westside and the Calumet




plants, and I am familiar with these plants.   Well, first of




all, you indicated that there was a change or a variety of




removals achieved here from, what, 30 percent to 70 percent?




          MR, MEGREGIAN:  I believe I mentioned that.




          MR. OEMING:  What plant had the high removal of phos-




phate?




          MR. MEGREGIAN:  The largest plant,  it was West-




Southwest.




          MR. OEMING:  And what is there peculiar about the




West--Southwest plant that might relate to the removal of phos-




phate?




          MR. MEGREGIAN:  That's a hard question to answer.




          MR. OEMING:  This is something Mr,  Hennigan touched




on here and I want to bring this out.




          MR0 MEGREGIAN:  The one fundamental difference between




that plant and most conventional activiated sludge plants is




that they do burn their sludge.  In other words, their sludge




disposal is by reduction through ash in most  instances, in most




cases anyway.




          MR. OEMING:  Yes, now this then is  primarily, or is




it not, the basis upon which you are predicating a 60 some per-




cent removal over the basin, that is, on the  West-Southwest

-------
                                                               303
plant at Chicago?  You are not predicating it on the Northside




plant or the Calumet plant?




          MR, MEGREGIAN:  This is correct.




          MR. OEMING:  And this plant is peculiar because it




has a Zimmerman Process, which is the only place in the country




where this process operates at a scale of this magnitude.




          MR. MEGREGIAN:  No, sir, that is not correct.  The




Zimmerman Plant at the West-Southwest has only been in operation




for about two years and it only takes about 10 to 15 percent of




the daily sludge output of that plant.  The normal operation of




that plant is by drying and burning of the sludge itself with-




out the Zimmerman entering into it.




          The Zimmerman is an addition to handle the increased




sludge capacity and I believe some day they may convert entirely




to Zimmerman or they may not.  I don't know what their actual




operations are there.




          MR, OEMING:  Well, I think the point here is you are




dealing with a particular case, and you have indicated a few




moments ago that you do not have the explanation as to why this




removes 69 percent versus other activated sludge plants in the




Chicago area under the same operating supervision, which do not




remove as much phosphate.




          MR.  MEGREGIAN:   We have not studied this, no.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:   I think, again, for the record, and




you have made these comments before, again, you know when you

-------
                                                               304







begin asking an expert an expert question without definitive




studies you get this kind of an answer.  But I do think, Mr.




Megregian, as I understood you before, you indicated you had a




pretty good hunch as to whatever has happened, and that is be-




cause they didn't put this sludge back into the process.  Isn't




that correct?




          MR. MEGREGIAN:  This is fundamentally the basis for




the removals that we have calculated.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  I think that covers the question.




Are there any other questions or comments^




          MR. OEMING:  I'll have some comments later in my




formal presentation.  There are no more now.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Thank you very much.




          MR. POSTON:  I would like to proceed with Colonel Neff,




District Engineer here in Buffalo who would like to make a brief




presentation in addition to the one he made in Cleveland.




          COLONEL' NEFF:  Mr. Chairman, members of the conference,




ladies and gentlemen.  I will not repeat all of the remarks




which I gave in Cleveland.




          I pointed out over there that the Corps is involved




in both regulatory and operational activities, and I will not




comment further on the regulatory activities.  Anyone who is




interested in this can get it from the record or my office can




furnish the data.




          I also believe there has been particular emphasis on

-------
                                                               305
 this  point of dredging and most of my remarks will be addressed




 in that direction.




          The procedures and practices of the Corps of Engineers




 involving the construction and maintenance of navigation struc-




 tures and channels, flood control works, and other public




 projects seek to preserve the rights of many interests involved




 in the use of our water resources.  This includes all aspects




 of navigation,  industrial use, recreation and conservation.




          Recently, there have been a number of charges re-




 garding the dredging practices of the Corps,  The need for




 maintenance of  river channels and harbors seems to be clearly




 established.  Many great industrial centers began and flourished




 simply because  of their proximity to waterborne transport.




          It is recognized that the deposition of dredged ma-




 terial in the Lake affects localized sedimentation rates but




 we have been unable to confirm that these operations have been




 detrimental to  shore installations or beaches.




          Any pollutants from the rivers and harbors, which may




 be  deposited in the Lake by the dredging operations, would




 eventually be carried out by a natural current action.  While




 the dredging and disposal operation may accelerate the movement




 of  solids and to a minor extent, liquid wastes, it does not add




 pollutants to the waters.




          I tried very hard to make the point that we don't




manufacture anything and put it in the water.

-------
                                                               306
          A decision to curtail the use of Lake Erie  for  dis-




posal would require the availability of alternate  areas if  deep




draft navigation is to continue to serve the states  involved.




There exists the possibility of the disposal of dredged ma-




terials behind dikes or bulkheads.  This is being  accomplished




in the Detroit and Toledo areas; however, in both  these areas,




this method of disposal is more economical than hauling the




material long distances for disposal in deep water in the Lake.




          Within a densely populated metropolitan  area as we




have in Buffalo, where land filling areas are scarce, it  is




difficult to find suitable disposal areas.  We were  able  to




find such an area here in Buffalo last year when we  used




Niagara Frontier Port Authority land for a disposal  area  for




deepening the outer harbor.




          In accordance with present practice, local  interests




assumed the additional cost of providing dikes to  retain  the




dredged material-, and I might just depart from the text here




a moment and say that this has been Congressional  policy  and




practice, that any time we deviate from this normal  dredging




procedure, that local interests are expected to pay the ad-




ditional cost, whether this be dikes, whether this be ad-




ditional handling or all the other things involved.




          The shore disposal at Toledo has been accomplished




by direct pump out of the Hopper Dredge MARKHAM, which is




operated by the Buffalo District.  The Hopper Dredge HOFFMAN,

-------
                                                               307
also operated by the Buffalo District is being modified this




fall in order to be able to perform the same operation in the




Rouge River near Detroit.




          It should be noted that any pollutant in liquid form




is not eliminated by this type of disposal since dilution wa-




ter must be drawn off during the disposal operation.




          I believe it appropriate also to comment on questions




that have been raised regarding our dredging practices here in




the Buffalo River.  There have been objections to the practice




of maintenance dredging sediment from the Buffalo River and




placing it in Lake Erie at our dump ground opposite the




Bethlehem Steel Plant.




          Currently, the material is taken from the river by




clamshell, and taken aboard dump scows to the Lake.  This




operation is the most economical we have been able to devise




and still remain within the parameters of the movement of




sediment as performed by nature.  Those materials which lie




in the river beds are moved into the lakes at one time or




another by natural currents.




          There are many alternative methods of disposal of




this material which also, in our opinion, will cost ap-




preciably more.   Ultimately,  it may be necessary to remove




all of the sediment regardless of cost.




          But I  submit that the millions of dollars,  which




might  be expended if the practice is adopted throughout the

-------
                                                               308
Great Lakes of removing all dredged materials from the waters,




can better be spent at this time on correcting causes of pollu-




tion.  The maintenance funds which we utilize have their origin




in the project authorizations issued by Congress.




          In my opinion, it would be necessary to obtain




Congressional approval for any significant changes in main-




tenance procedures and personally, I would hesitate to recom-




mend that public funds be provided for special handling of




foreign substances which shouldn't be there in the first place.




          I would further propose for the committee's considera-




tion the examination of the outflows from Lake Erie to ascertain




what effect the cyclical behavior of the water levels of the




Lake have on pollution.




          During the period from 1951 to 1954 the outflow




average from Lake Erie down the Niagara River was some 218,000




cubic feet per second.  From 1961 to present, the average out-




flow has been 179,000 cubic feet per second, a change of al-




most 20 percent downward.




          The reduction of the natural purging capability of




the Lake may well be a factor in some of the recent manifesta-




tions of pollution.   If there is actually an identifiable re-




lationship between the rate of Lake outflow and pollution, it




might be necessary during periods of low Lake levels to imple-




ment extraordinary pollution enforcement measures.




          The lower  Lake levels are related, in my opinion, to

-------
                                                               309
the reduced rainfall in the basin, which amounts to a total of




some 14 1/2 inches of precipitation over the past 3 1/2 years.




The reduced rainfall naturally diminishes the capability of




small streams to move and dilute foreign substances.




          The point to make, I believe, is that to make an ob-




jective and complete review of this problem, we must examine




natural causes as well as man-made ones.




          In summary, it appears that future disposal of most




dredged material will of necessity continue to be in Lake Erie,




and that control of the spread of pollutants must come through




the elimination of the pollutants at their source.




          If you want to change this, only Congress can do it.




This is where we get our authorization.




          Since most forms of pollution reach navigable waters




via sewers in liquid state and do not cause any obstruction to




navigation, the Corps of Engineers does not have a legal basis




for attempting to eliminate them.  There is legislation pending




in Congress at this time which proposed to eliminate this pro-




vision from the law, and I won't go into details on that here




today.




          From my office in Buffalo, where I observe the




Niagara River and its inexorable flow which averages some 130,




this is an average, 130 billion gallons per day and in 957




days is equivalent to the total volume of water in Lake Erie,

-------
                                                               310
one is impressed by the natural forces which are operating to




assist in keeping the water clean.




          In the interest of economy, it would appear wise to




take advantage of these natural forces and the application of




pertinent statutes and foresight to accomplish the desired end




of reducing pollution.  Thank you.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Thank you, Colonel.  Are there any




comments or questions?




          MR. POSTON:  I would like to comment to the fact that




I, as a conferee, feel that there is a problem.  I think this




problem results from pollution from industrial and municipal




wastes depositing in the stream and dredging this material.




And moving it out into the Lake is  the transfer of a pollution




problem from one area to another so that the practice can con-




tinue.




          I think the conferees, in making their recommendation




relative to dredging, doubt that this is a problem that has




been brought to their attention in the Cleveland area.  I




should speak for myself there.  And that the solution to pol-




lution is not dilution or transportation, it is eliminating




this.  And I think the resolution says that representative of




the United States Corps of Engineers recommends that the rep-




resentatives of the United States Corps of Engineers meet with




the conferees and that jointly they develop into action a




satisfactory program for disposal of dredged materials in Lake

-------
                                                               311







Erie and its tributaries, which will satisfactorily protect




water quality.




          I think some of the things that might come out of




this is who pays the dredging costs.  Could this not be as-




sessed to the polluter and assign some of the cost of removing




this material and depositing it within some confined area,




might this not be assigned to the polluter?




          I think that much can come of this by a discussion




with the Corps.  Who pays presently for deposits that come out




of sewers, organic materials, maybe toxic materials, deposits




on the bottom of the stream, who pays for transportation of




this material into Lake Erie?




          COLONEL NEFF:  As I mentioned in the regulatory sec-




tion of this report, which I also would like entered in the




record, I believe this was done previously.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  That will be done,  (statement  appended)




          COLONEL NEFF:  I pointed out that we had an enforce-




ment case in the Calumet River in Illinois, where three steel




companies were involved in a flue dust case, and after some




nine years of litigation, the case was dismissed but with a




stipulation that the steel companies agreed to pay for the re-




moval of flue dust deposited in the Calumet River and we now




do this with a payment from these companies„




          Where you have a number of industries operating in




the same area, I don't think I have to tell you how'complicated

-------
                                                               312
it gets to try to divide this up and assign responsibility in




this sort of thing.




          As I said in my statement, additional investigations




are now being undertaken in view of this precedent that we had




over on the Calumet River, and I think that there will be ad-




ditional action in this direction.




          MR. POSTON:  I fervently hope that the conferees at




the time of their meeting with you would be able to assure you




of some assistance that they might render in defining sources




of these polluting materials that must be dredged by the Corps




of Engineers.  Thank you, that's all.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Are there any further comments or




questions?  If not, Colonel, thank you very much.




          I would like to say I agree with you thoroughly




about this notion of removing wastes at the source.  I couldn't




agree with you more.  I think this is like the augmented low




flow statute we have.  You just can't expect Uncle Sam to pro-




vide water or drag away your wastes in lieu of treatment at




the source and I, personally, am fully in accord with the




Colonel's views on that.




          Are there any further comments or questions?




          MR, HEINE:  I would like to have a statement of a




Mr. Gene Heuser of Erie put into the record.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Without objection, that will be




done and entered into the record.  (statement appended)

-------
                                                               313







          I think before we go on with the New York presentation,




we will take a ten minute recess.  Thank you.




(WHEREUPON A SHORT RECESS WAS TAKEN.)




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  May we reconvene.   Mr.  Hennigan?




          MR. HENNIGAN:  Mr. Chairman, fellow conferees, ladies




and gentlemen, we have a lot of material that we would like to




present to the conferees and a report which we would like to




brief somewhat.  Copies have been furnished.   I would note that




I will probably depart from the text and the copy at considerable




points.




          My.name is Robert D. Hennigan.  I am Director of the




Bureau of Water Resource Services of the New York State




Department of Health.  The Bureau is responsible for developing




and carrying out the State's water quality management program




as promulgated by State law and policy determinations of the




Governor and Commissioner of Health.




          I was appointed to the position of Director on June 10,




1965.  Prior to that time for a five year period,  I was




Principal Engineer with the New York State Office for Local




Government.  During that period of time, my activity was de-




voted to trying to set up procedures and develop programs which




would make it feasible and possible for our municipalities to




implement water pollution control objectives,  and anybody that




is familiar with local government, particularly in New York




State,  knows  that this isn't a particularly easy task.

-------
                                                               314






          During that particular time, a series of reports  were




prepared, five in number, entitled "A Study of Needs for Sewage




Works in the State of New York."  This is a copy of Report  No.  1.




I think the conferees have received sometime in the past a  com-




plete set of these documents which outline the New York State




problem, programs, and plans for the future.




          Some of this work was, I think, the genesis for the




Pure Waters Program which is now being put into operation.




          Governor Rockefeller and Commissioners Ingraham and




Wilm have already spoken to you and presented the broad State




policy on water resource control and water quality management.




          In essence, it is a call for Federal, State and inter-




state and local cooperative efforts, which will minimize the




inherent liabilities at each level, to the end that water re-




source development and water quality management goals can be




met in an effective and timely manner.




          This conference can be an effective vehicle to




further the cooperation that is so essential to success and




can help mitigate the natural tensions in the Federal system and




produce sterile or negative results.  The choice is our to  make*




          It is easy to fall into the trap that effective water




pollution control is purely a technical problem.  Studies are




carried out delineating the sources of waste, their effect on




receiving waters and the physical, bacteriological, chemical,

-------
                                                               315
biological and hydrological factors involved.   Conclusions are




reached and recommendations are made.   What then?




          At that point, other facets  come into play;  they are




the social, political, legal and economic factors  which are as




fully important as the technical determinations.   This should be




obvious to all who have participated in or are attending this




conference.




          In other words, the essential ingredient,  after compe-




tent technology, is widespread popular support; with it success




is inevitable; without it, failure is  probable.




          We welcome this opportunity to present to  our sister




States on Lake Erie and to the people  of the Niagara Frontier




the facts concerning present conditions, existing  facilities,




ongoing programs and plans for the future.




          State concern over the Great Lakes pollution problem




prompted Governor Harriman in 1955 to  request  an IJC reference




for Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River.  This




request was again made by Governor Rockefeller in  1961.  The




purpose of a reference is to determine conditions, establish




quality objectives and standards and to carry  out  a  remedial




program.  The reference was finally made in 1965.   The State has




had a pollution program, an abatement  program, since 1949.  It




has undergone continuous change due to many factors  and program




implementation reflects such change.




          Basic considerations include factors associated with

-------
                                                               316







program development and requirements for treatment facilities,




municipal and industrial.




          The enactment of the Water Pollution Control Law




(Article 12 of the Public Health Law) in 1949 established the




basic objective of the State, e.g. "to abate existing pollution




and to prevent future pollution" by requiring the use of all




known available methods of treatment.




          Since that time the State has undergone a continuous




period of dynamic growth.  This period has been marked by the




evolvement of a broadening State interest in water quality




management.  This evolving and expanding interest has been




demonstrated by:




          (1) Constitutional and legal changes to make local




government more responsive and flexible to increasing demands,




particularly in the water quality management and water utility




service areas, which have taken place.  Such changes include:




Sewer Rental Law; County charter government; Suburban town law;




intermunicipal cooperation statutes; the provision for intermu-




nicipal survey committees; the formation of county water and




sewer agencies; and a whole new amendment to the Constitution




that was enacted last year.




          (2) Reorganization of State Government in the water




resource field and establishment of the Water Resources Commission.




          (3) Initiation of a comprehensive water resource




planning program.

-------
                                                               317






          (4) Definition of the needs for sewage vorks by the




Office for Local Government study in 1962, and resulting program




recommendations.




          (5) Numerous amendments to the water pollution control




laws so as to maintain pace with the changing conditions, par-




ticularly since 1962.




          (6) Enactment of the Comprehensive Water Supply and




Sewer Works studies programs, under State sponsorship, concerning




organizational and fiscal aspects of sewer and water utility ser-




vice in order that it may be provided in an economical and timely




manner.




          (7) Overwhelming citizen support of the Constitutional




amendment exempting sewage works from the municipal debt limit




approved by a two to one margin in 1963, and incidentally, it was




defeated by a two to one margin in 1955, indicating a little




change in public response to the whole question of water pollu-




tion abatement.




          (8) The establishment of coliform standards for specific




water uses, and the elimination of the referendum when municipali-




ties are under an order of the Commissioner of Health or court to




abate pollution, both enacted into law at the 1965 session of the




Legislature.




          (9) Adoption of the "Pure Waters Program" at the 1965




session providing for massive construction grants, operation and

-------
                                                               318






maintenance aid, automatic water quality monitoring network,




industrial incentives, increased research,  expanded comprehen-




sive study activity, streamlined enforcement procedures  and com-




pletion of construction of State institution facilities.




          Further evidence of expanding State interest has been




the growth of interstate agency programs in water resource con-




trol and water quality management.  This is shown by the estab-




lishment of the Delaware River Basin Commission in 1961,  and  the




study now under way concerning the establishment of a Susquehanna




River Basin Commission.  Both of these Commissions are Federal  and




State Commissions.




          Other interstate activities include the growing pro-




grams of agencies such as the Interstate Commission on Lake




Champlain, the Interstate Sanitation Commission, New England




Water Pollution Control Commission, the Ohio River Valley Water




Sanitation Commission, the Great Lakes Commission, the Inter-




national Joint Commission on the Boundary Waters between Canada




and the United States.




          Contributing to this growing interest has been the




expanding population, increasing demands for water for all uses,




particularly water supply and recreation, the widespread use  of




insecticides, fertilizers and herbicides, and industrial growth,




development and expansion.




          An additional major element is the national interest

-------
                                                               319







which ts shown In the enactment of the Federal Water Pollution




Abatement Program tn 1948 and the subsequent amendments in 1956,




and in 1961 and the changes now before the Congress.




          The State Water Pollution Law provides methods to abate




existing pollution and to prevent new pollution, the first, clas-




sifying waters according to their best social and economic use,




and establishing standards for each such use; the second, by a




plan review and permit system, both augmented by appropriate




rules and regulations.  The purpose being to eliminate and mini-




mize pollution, not to use all the waters of the State for maxi-




mun waste loadings.




          State concern is not limited to evaluation of proposals




and their immediate effect.  Rather it involves future growth and




development, the demands of a dynamic changing situation, the




organizational and economic factors, and the total impact on




overall State water resource development and effective water




quality management.




          State responsibility also includes the added public




health emphasis accorded public water supply, shellfish produc-




tion and bathing waters.




          In order to fully reflect the present State concern,




the basic program of the State Department of Health concerning




waste water treatment facilities is as follows:  Comprehensive




utility studies, both water and sewer, are necessary in all

-------
                                                               320






major urban counties and in all other urban situations wherein




intermunicipal action is indicated in order to provide facilities




in an economic and timely manner.  Such studies will usually be a




prerequisite to receiving State construction grants.




          Engineering studies are to be required in every city




utilizing a combined sewer system in order to evolve a plan to




minimize overflows, establish continuous surveillance and to




provide treatment of such overflows where indicated.




          Multiple treatment facilities and outlets are to be




discouraged.  Wherever feasible, connections are to be made to




existing sewer systems rather than creating new outlets.  The




basic assumption will be in favor of the sewer connections




instead of additional outlets.




          Outlets into lakes, impoundments, and ponds and their




tributaries used principally for water supply and recreation will




be discouraged in favor of trunk sewers to remove waste water




from such watersheds to a treatment plant in the outlet stream




where feasible.




          Effects of waste water discharges into surface waters




shall be evaluated on a perspective condition thirty years in the




future and based on a consecutive 7 day low flow with a return




period of once every 50 years.




          Outlets into intermittent streams with little or no




flow shall be discouraged, when absolutely necessary they will




be preceded by tertiary treatment and chlorination.

-------
                                                               321







          Outlets into surface waters covered by Rules and Regu-




lations enacted by the New York State Commissioner of Health or




the Commissioner of the Department of Water Supply, Gas and




Electricity or the Board of Water Supply of New York City and all




waters classified "AA" shall be discouraged, when absolutely




necessary they will be preceded by tertiary treatment and




chlorination.




          Outlets into any stream or lake where there is a down-




stream or parallel water supply or shellfish use shall be pre-




ceded by continuous effective chlorination in addition to other




treatment required.




          Outlets into waters classified "A" shall be preceded by




secondary treatment and continuous chlorination.




          Outlets into waters classified "B" shall be preceded by




secondary treatment and seasonal chlorination from May 1 to




October 1 each year.




          Outlets into waters classified "C" shall be preceded by




secondary treatment.




          Outlets into waters classified "D" or up shall be pre-




ceded by primary treatment.




          Stated treatment requirements  are minimums.  Individual




evaluation of a specific project may require additional treatment




to meet quality standards.  Downstream water use will control




minimum requirements for treatment facilities.

-------
                                                               322






          Treatment requirements for outlets Into waters clas-




sified "A," "B," "C," "D," "E," or "F" will be raised if necessary




to protect a higher existing .or future use downstream.




          Industrial wastes vary to a great degree.   However,  all




such outlets will be preceded by treatment facilities which will




produce effluents comparable to results from primary, secondary




and tertiary treatment of sewage for outlets into classified




waters such as noted previously.




          This means reduction of waste loadings by  inplant con-




trol, treatment to remove floating and settleable solids, BOD




reduction, disinfection and reduction of all other pollutants  to




a degree consistent with existent and future water use,  coupled




with a continuous surveillance and control program.




          This program statement is augmented by the department




through appropriate and detailed rules, regulations, and bulletins.




Public hearings will be held to protect the public interest and to




aid in evaluation of a comprehensive study of an individual project




when deemed appropriate by the; State Commissioner of Health.




          This program implementation applies to all new outlets,




to all applications for renovations, additions or alterations, to




all applicants for operation and maintenance assistance, to all




applicants for State construction grants, and to all applications




for a new or modified permit to discharge waste water.




          I would like to explain very briefly the New York State

-------
                                                               323







 classification system in order that these requirements make a




 little  sense.



          Basically, the system has seven alphabetical classes.




 It's  "AA" down to "F,"  "AA" is water supply with disinfection




 only.   "A" is water  supply with full treatment.  "B" is bathing




 and recreation.  "C" is fishing.  "D" is industrial and agri-




 cultural use.  "E" is navigation and "F" is waste disposal.




          A publication explaining the system and the quality




 standards is attached to this report.  You will note that in




 addition to the basic classes, classes have been established for




 ground  water, salt water and special classes for unique situa-




 tions such as the Niagara River.




          This assignment of classifications and the start of an




 abatement program is carried out by a series of actions.  They




 include, first of all, a pollution survey of a drainage basin.




 Copies  of such pollution survey are included in this material.




          Publication of a survey report with recommended classi-




 fications, a public hearing on the proposals, adoption of final




 classifications by the Water Resources Commission, preparation




 and adoption of an abatement program.




          Classifications will be completed for the entire State




by the end of this calendar year;  the abatement program by the




end of calendar year 1966.




          A map of the State is appended showing the status as of




December 1964.

-------
                                                              324






          In the Lake Erie Frontier area there  are  five  such pol-




lution survey reports.  They include the Big  Sister Creek Drainage




Basin, Silver Creek, the Erie-Niagara Basin,  Cattaraugus Creek and




the Lake Erie West End Basin.




          Silver Creek and the Lake Erie West End are  included in




the Western New York section, and the remainder in  the Erie-




Niagara section in Part 3 of the United States  Public  Health




Service report.  All of the waters have been  officially  classified




Abatement plans are under preparation for Cattaraugus  Creek and




Lake Erie West End.




          Of major interest to the people of  the Niagara Frontier




is the ongoing program of activities and the  general status of




waste discharges.  In order to clearly delineate the situation,




exhibits and tabulations have been prepared.  Detail is  presented




on three drainage basins which are similar to the U.S. PHS report.




They include the Western New York area, the Lake Erie  area and the




Niagara River area.




          The Niagara River area was separated  out  since it is not




included in the call for the conference, being  neither Lake Erie




nor a tributary of Lake Erie.  Furthermore, the exhibits and the




tabulations include all the drainage area in  these  respective




basins, that is, both intrastate and interstate situations.




          It is to be fully understood that the call for the con-




ference included only interstate water of Lake  Erie as far as the




State of New York is concerned.

-------
                                                               325







          Both the Niagara River and all  the  intrastate waters




were included for the purpose of clarification  and full under-




standing by the conferees, and the people of  the Niagara Frontier,




not to submit them for inclusion on the conference agenda.




          The major programs  now under way can  be  broken down into




five major areas—local planning and engineering studies, regu-




latory control, fiscal incentives, research and special studies




and staff and administration.




          Commissioner Wilm mentioned the fact  that there is  a




program for regional water resources planning.  A  comprehensive




regional water resources program is under way in the Erie-Niagara




area which represents about 84 percent of the New  York  State




drainage into Lake Erie.  This study has  been under way since




1963 when the Erie-Niagara Regional Water Resources Planning  and




Development Board was appointed.




          Water quality management and pollution control are




basic parts of the study and  planning to  evolve a  framework for




future development.  A copy of the report is  available  and we




will furnish it to you.  The  study represents a local,  State,




Federal venture.




          We will submit for  the record this  plan  of Cooperative




Study so that it will be available to the conferees. Personnel




and staff of the local Regional Board are present  to answer such




questions as the conferees may have.

-------
                                                               325A
          In addition to the overall water resources planning




program, which is an attempt to delineate the water needs of an




area and come up with solutions, we have the comprehensive sewage




study program which takes us down a step to the utility needs of




an area.  This program was enacted by the 1962 Legislature and




became effective on April 4, 1962 „




          Funds were provided in the following manner—in fiscal




1962, $1,000,000; in 1963, $1,500,000;  in 1964, $1,500,000;  in




1965, $5,000,000.




          Since the start of this program, 53 contracts for




studies in major urban areas have been executed with grants




totaling approximately $4,000,000.




          The objectives of the comprehensive sewage studies




are:  (1) the determination of the logical and economic




service area for sewage disposal projects irrespective of

-------
                                                               326
municipal boundaries; (2) the development of an economical




project for the collection, treatment and disposal of sewage;




(3) the development of basic plans so that any system may be




enlarged to include contiguous urban areas as they develop; (4)




preparation of reliable estimates of first costs and total




annual costs for the construction, operation and maintenance of




recommended facilities.




          Details of the program for the Erie-Niagara area are




attached.




          Under the regulatory effort, one of the major concerns




is, of course, water quality surveillance.  At the present time,




there are nine sites in the Erie-Niagara drainage basin in which




some type of surveillance is being carried out.




          Of the nine stations four are being operated by the




International Joint Commission, one by the Public Health Service




and Erie County Lab, two others by the Erie County Laboratory




and one exclusively by the Department of Health.  Notes are




available from the data from these stations and it is available




here and will be distributed.




          The Niagara River's classification being speeial is




shown contrary to quality standards at two water quality net-




work surveillance stations.   Phenol has been the only known




pollutant exceeding the standard limit of five parts per billion.




In reviewing this material we caution you that the number of




samples  taken or their frequency is not nearly enough to really

-------
                                                               327
establish what the conditions are in the river.   They are just




an indication of how conditions were at this particular time




when the samples were collected.




          In addition, we also have a plan review and permit




system which is very similar to the usual control measures.   In




other words, before people make an outlet into the waters of the




State, they must submit plans, they must be approved and they




must receive a permit from the State and there isn't any more




need for much more detail on that.




          However, in the Erie-Niagara Basin from January 1964




to January 1965 the value of plan approvals in this area was




$16,720,600.  This did not include $1,600,000 for the city of




Batavia.  It does include, however, $1,642,500 for waste treat-




ment works for Union Carbide and Metals.




          A major cost expenditure in this area as you can




imagine is for sewers.  It represents 74 percent of this total.




          Of interest in this whole question of pollution




abatement enforcement, the State pollution abatement program is




under no misgivings about some of the problems which this par-




ticular area has presented.  Part of the Pure Waters Program,




which was enacted this year, was a change in this whole ques-




tion of enforcement procedures.




          Specifically, the following changes were made:  it




provides that an application for reclassification of waters




would not be of itself sufficient to delay enforcement

-------
                                                               328
proceedings.




          It gives the Health Department the power initially to




establish a reasonable timetable of necessary pollution abate-




ment action to be taken by judged polluters with provision for




appeal to the Water Resources Commission and to the courts.




          It eliminates the automatic one year delay before




Health Department abatement orders become absolute.  It elimi-




nates the possibility of two separate appeals from Health




Department decisions by reporting a choice between an im-




mediate appeal to the courts and an appeal to the Water




Resources Commission.




          It reduces the time within which an appeal .from a




Health Department order may be taken to the Water Resources




Commission from four months to 60 days.




          Now, a statement that was made by Congressman




McCarthy in which he said, "The new State law still enables




the municipality or industry to stall for an additional five




years before ceasing its pollution of our waters" is an in-




correct statement.  That was repealed when this new law was




put into effect, the law of 1965, Chapter 180, repealed this




provision.




          Any administrative action by the Commissioner of




Health or the Water Resources Commission is subject to judicial




review under Article 78 preceding; as        is any administra-




tive action by any State agency.  This will never be removed

-------
                                                               329
from State law, nor should it be.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:   On the last statement,  did you say




that it will never be removed from State law?




          MR, HENNIGAN:   Sure, because it won't.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:   I wish I were confident about




speaking that way about the Congress,  Maybe Mr. Poole can




speak that way about Indiana's legislature, I  don't know.




          MR. HENNIGAN:   In addition to the change in law, the




Attorney General has increased his staff so that he now has




three full time attorneys working on this program  and the State




Health Department will have three full time attorneys working




on the enforcement provisions of the New York  State Water




Pollution Control Program.




          In addition to this, you are all familiar with  the




activities of the Conservation Department under Conservation




Law, Section 180, in reference to fish kills and  the assignment




of penalties.




          A further part of this program is the operation and




maintenance grant program.  Under this program, a  municipality




in the State which properly operates treatment facilities is




eligible for a grant equal to one-third of the direct operation




and maintenance cost.




          This grant program acknowledges that any single




treatment facility is not just a benefit to the community that




it serves but also is beneficial to downstream users, hence

-------
                                                               330
the State acknowledges the help of any single municipality to




properly treat its wastes by making financial grants available.




          The anticipated grants, $8,000,000, has been approp-




riated for the program this year and range from several hundred




dollars for the smallest installation to several million dol-




lars for a large city such as New York.




          The purposes of this program are to increase the ex-




tent of the quality of the surveillance  of the State Health




Department over the operation of sewage  treatment plants in




the State, to provide financial assistance to those munici-




palities which are properly operating sewage treatment works,




to make an available administrative tool with which the State




Health Department can provide effective  leadership and assist-




ance to municipalities so that operational performances of




sewage treatment plants is improved, and to give greater in-




centive to construct or expand sewage treatment facilities so




as to provide adequate public sewage treatment in all areas.




          Some of the requirements include planned operation




under the supervision of a treatment plant operator qualifying




as meeting State requirements, proper plant operation including




performance that require laboratory tests, maintenance of




operation and maintenance records, evaluation of effects on




the plant discharge in receiving waters  and assurance, and this




is a very important factor, that the waste from the area tribu-




taries  of the plant actually reach the plants for treatment.




          You know, there are many situations, particularly in

-------
                                                               331
combined sewer systems where the biggest problem is getting the




sewage into the treatment plant.  Areas of the sewage treatment




works are constructed and operated in substantial compliance




with plans approved by the regulatory agency.   Establishment and




enforcement of a local sewer use ordinance.  Evidence that  the




plant discharge is not violating stream classifications  as  set




up by the State Water Resources Commission.




          An estimate of the amount of money involved in this




program in the Erie-Niagara area, tributary to Lake Erie,  is




based on estimates submitted to the Department, $408,000,  to




the Niagara River, $1,284,000.  That isn't to  say that every-




body is going to get this amount of money, but this is what




has been submitted for our review.




          In addition to that, we have a State construction




grant program which, of course, is fully dependent upon  ap-




proval by the people in November, although,  as I noted before,




there seems to be a great shift of public opinion.  Like




Victor Hugo once said, "There's no stopping an idea whose  time




has come," and I think we happen to be in a situation now




where the time for effective water pollution abatement has




come.  I think this is true because the people in New York




State and across the country are concerned and are willing to




get behind and support such a real effort.




          The State construction grant program will facilitate




a tremendous acceleration of construction improvement.  We

-------
                                                               332







know that the municipalities rely upon the support of grant




monies for construction purposes and this can be documented in




New York State.




          A review of our records of treatment plant construction




in New York State since the year 1890 shows that 58 percent of




all construction took place in a 17-year period.  This period




includes the OTA program and the present Public Law 660 program.




          We are all concerned with the fact that construction




of necessary facilities in New York State has been delayed




somewhat because of the fact that Federal grant funds are not




adequate.  The State construction grant program we feel will




remedy that situation.




          Although in its initial phases, the State will carry




the giant share of financial burden, the Federal Government is




involved in each approved project.  This has been accomplished




by a section of the State law which mandates that a local mu-




nicipality apply to and make reasonable efforts to secure fi-




nancial assistance.




          We appreciate the active assistance that representa-




tives of the United States Public Health Service of New York




and Washington have given our staff in preparing the adminis-




tration of this program.  It is clear to us that the Public




Health Service is prepared to join with us in the implementa-




tion of this program.




          The proposed State construction grant includes

-------
                                                               333
several safeguards which ensure that construction will comply




with both State and Federal needs.   I have already mentioned




the prior approval requirement by the Public Health Service.




          This guarantees that all proposed works will be in




alignment with Federal requirements.  State needs will be met




by further requirements, that the permit has been issued by the




State Department of Health for the proposed waste discharge,




that the proposed treatment facilities in accord with applicable




comprehensive studies and reports made of regional and inter-




municipal needs made under the comprehensive sewer studies pro-




gram, that the proposed treatment facilities conforms with ap-




plicable rules and regulations of the State Health Department,




that the proposed facility is necessary to the accomplishment




of the State water pollution control program.




          Legislation has also been enacted which provides in-




direct financial assistance to industry for the construction




of waste treatment facilities.  This is accomplished and this




is repetitious, but I believe it is worth repeating, by per-




mitting a rapid depreciation of industrial waste treatment in-




stallations for corporate tax relief and exemption for real




property taxes and treatment works.




          In order to take advantage of these programs, indus-




try must secure a certification that the waste treatment




facility has been constructed and is operated in a manner ap-




proved by the State Department of Health.  In other words, the

-------
                                                               334
State Commissioner of Health actually must approve each applica-




tion.




          Terms of treatment plant construction, under Public




Law 660 and also for accelerated public works in this general




area, the total project cost approximates $29 million and the




grants made under both these programs approximate $8 million.




          I am going to skip over a lot of this material.  In




addition to the material that I have spoken into the record,




there is other material in here in reference to inputs into




Lake Erie which has already been discussed.  There is a table




on municipal sewage treatment plants in the Erie-Niagara River




area which shows their location, the plant name, the year built,




tributary population, the designed flow and the treatment pro-




vided.




          There is a table in here on the status of municipal




industrial sewage treatment facilities on all of these drainage




basins that we mentioned.  There is a table on industrial waste




status and what the story is in the basins.




          In addition, you might have noticed that out in the




foyer here, there are three maps which show each individual




discharge into the waters in these three drainage basins and




attached to each one of those maps is a list and a number by




which you can locate each individual discharge and what it is




for your information.




          In addition to this material, there is a list of the

-------
                                                               335
comprehensive sewer study program and its status.   There is  a




list of all the discharges in the Western Basin which will be




included in an abatement program as soon as it's worked up,




and in the blue folder there is other material relating




generally to the New York State program.




          Now, if I may, I would like to address some comments




relative to the recommendations which have been made concerning




this conference, rather, which have come out of this conference




or similar conferences.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Before you finish this,  do you want




this whole thing, Mr. Hennigan, to appear in the record?




          MR. HENNIGAN:   Yes.  Oh, in addition to  all the other




material, there is a set of the new State laws which were en-




acted at this session of the legislature.




          I have before me recommendations made in Parts 1,  2




and 3 abbreviated.  They were made in the Public Health Service




report, also the conclusions and recommendations resulting from




the Federal conference on the pollution of the Detroit River and




the Michigan waters of Lake Erie, and also recommendations and




conclusions which came out of the Cleveland meeting and dated




August 6, 1965.




          It seems to me that one thing is common  to all these




recommendations and conclusions, first of all, what I would  con-




sider the legal foundation to establish, the Federal interest




in this matter, and I have no particular quarrel with any of

-------
                                                               336
these determinations.  Others relate to treatment requirements




combining sewers, etc.  Now, as far as the State of New York is




concerned, it seems to me that most of these recommendations




are well thought out and can be supported.




          However, they represent, in many instances, a minimum




effort and also there is a danger of speaking in generalities




when we have some awful specific situations to deal with, and




my comments relative to expanding or changing some of these




recommendations would include such things as the combined sewer




situation, we think we can have an arm in getting this under




some control by use of the operation and maintenance program.




That is why we put in the operation and maintenance program a




specific requirement that all the sewage reach the sewage treat-




ment works.




          Now, in addition to that, as you know, combined sewers




present a very tough problem and New York State is one of the




older States and we have combined sewers in any number of large,




urban areas, extending from the City of New York to Buffalo.




Many of these cities are huge and a surveillance program pre-




sents a very difficult situation.




          It has also been my experience that a surveillance




program doesn't last very long because when somebody wants to




cut down the budget, that's usually one of the items that goes




out the window.




          I think we've also found in these combined sewer

-------
                                                               337
systems that it's axiomatic that you're going to have overflows




from these overflow structures, so it seems to me that one or




two things are needed, and I think if we could make a real in-




terstate-Federal effort in this area, first of all, I think




some automatic method of surveillance must be developed for the




combined sewer systems which will furnish some kind of record




to sewage treatment plant operators so that you'll know every




time the overflow trips and for how long it discharges.  Also,




the maintenance of the combined sewer system is a real tough




problem, and it is something that is continuous.




          In addition to that, we are always searching for a




means to face up to this, but we are far from having solutions.




The City of New York is now undertaking a special pilot study




in terms of treating some overflows from combined sewers, and




you must remember that it takes very little rainfall to exceed




the capacity of most of these combined sewer systems.  You




don't have to have a torrential downpour.  In fact, it takes




one-tenth of an inch of runoff or less to start discharging




most of the combined sewers in the City of New York.




          I think that as a group that is very seriously in-




terested in this and which is a Lake Erie problem, that as part




of our final recommendations, we should set up some type of




committee or somebody should be given the task of going into




this combined sewer problem so that we can present some kind




of a united front and see in which direction we can proceed on

-------
                                                               338







a practical basis, both in surveillance, which I think we have




the technology to do now, and secondly, to incorporate better




design into these overflow structures so that we can have a




practical approach to minimizing the problem.




          At one point in the proceedings, recommendations were




made relative to regional planning, particularly in urban areas




that are served by multiple governmental jurisdictions, but in




essence  are a single areawide community, particularly as far




as the design of water and sewage works are concerned.




          I would hate to see such a recommendation deleted from




the final recommendations and I think that we should, as a group,




work strongly toward this end of getting the systems combined




together into a workable unit.  This will eliminate multiple




overflows and multiple discharges from small, poorly operated




plants.




          It will enable municipalities to operate these sys-




tems on a professional basis and to develop staff and to really




carry out an effective sewer utility and sewage treatment plant




program.




          This question of phosphate removal has been kicked




around and one thing that bothers me is that although we seem




to have some information on it, we seem to be a long ways from




critical, engineering design standards that the States can put




into their requirements and actually build out phosphates from




Lake Erie.

-------
                                                               339
          I think that probably this is a task that the Public




Health Service should take on for the States involved and de-




velop some type of standards.     We would be all too willing




to cooperate in this endeavor  to come up with some kind of




standards that we can really work with and which can be a




practical application of the need for the removal of the phos-




phates .




          The next thing is this question which I mentioned be-




fore of this idea of a master sewer program for these urban




areas, which I consider essential, and I think should be in-




cluded in the final recommendations.




          I would also note this whole question of land drainage




and subdivision control, because it has been our experience in




this State that if you allow multiple subdivision development




with private water supply and private sewage disposal, you are




creating a problem that becomes a monster.




          The installation of storm sewer systems without sani-




tary systems means that the storm sewer becomes a sanitary




sewer, and I have seen few instances where this hasn't happened.




          So, coupled with this whole urban area problem of ef-




fective sewage collection and treatment must go some kind of




drainage planning, must go some type of adequate subdivision




control at the State level, and as part of this picture, is the




whole question of water supply planning.




          Since sewage is used water, we extend water into an

-------
                                                               340







area, but we don't make little provision for removing it.




          Of course, one of the major issues which we made be-




fore and which has been emphasized by Governor Rockefeller and




also by Commissioner Ingraham is this whole question of finan-




cial assistance to municipalities to build needed treatment




works.  And, as I said before, our experience in the State of




New York has been that the need for Federal assistance has been




paramount, and we can almost document our so-called progress in




pollution abatement with the availability of funds for construc-




tion of needed works.




          We have two cities in the State which are particularly




recalcitrant.  Last year they built sewage treatment works.  Now,




we could go out and brag that this was a great accomplishment of




the State water pollution control program, but it would be kind




of a phony.  They absolutely refused to do anything until 50 per-




cent Accelerated Public Works funds became available and then




they built the works.




          The other point is this whole question of secondary




treatment.  It seems to me that we have some kind of a conflict




within the recommendations, .since the original document said




that the municipal sewer outlets should have secondary treat-




ment, it was very specific on  biological treatment.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:   Didn't that say secondary biological




treatment?




          MR.  HENNIGAN:   That's right, and then the Michigan

-------
                                                               341







conference, and I think this is important because actually I




don't think that this is any secret, one of the major sources of




pollutants, inputs into the Lake, is the Detroit River, and this




says that all municipalities and industries be required to provide




a degree of treatment sufficient to protect all legitimate uses




where the effluent contains significant bacterial loadings dele-




teriously effecting legitimate water uses, disinfection of the




effluent shall be required.




          This is a much more general recommendation than is con-




tained in the Cleveland recommendation which stated in effect




that municipal wastes be given secondary treatment or treatment




of such a nature as to effectuate the maximum reduction of BOD




and phosphates as well as other deleterious substances.




          I don't know whether they actually mean the same thing.




Then one of the other items in terms of disinfection, very




specific standards are contained in the Cleveland recommendations




as against the very general standards in the Michigan one.




          I think that these are problems that have to be worked




out, because I think it is important for this effort to be suc-




cessful, that all of the States involved work from the same point




of reference, from the same foundation in pursuing the same pur-




poses and same objectives.




          I would also point out that in the coliform standards,




we have a problem immediately, since the State Legislature passed

-------
                                                              342







a bill setting collform standards at the last session and we have




a difference in standards since the standard adopted here is




1,000 organisms per ml, 100 organisms per ml for bathing waters,




and the new State law that has just passed is 2400 organisms per




100 ml.  That's all the comments I have.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Thank you, Mr. Hennigan.   We appreciate




your statement.  I think it is a pretty complete statement about




the procedures under which New York is operating and what you are




going to have to do in the future.  But, as always,  I seem to




have this problem of following a procedural statement.   I always




tell my people when they talk about procedures,  "It's only of




interest to another technician; I would like to  find out what




we're doing about pollution."  And in order to help  us  keep our




eye on that bouncing ball and also see that the  pea  doesn't dis-




appear under the walnut too fast, I wonder if we may get a run-




down as to how you classified the rivers here.  For  example, I




noted that in parts of your report you talked about  Niagara River




being classified as "A" - special - and indicated that  the only




known pollutant was phenol.   Now I would like to know these




classifications.




          I heard a group the other day mention  the  "white stuff"




coming out of two sewers there, discoloring the  water.   Our tech-




nical people indicated the material coming over  the  Falls was




pulp and paper waste.   Maid of the Mist operators were  complaining

-------
                                                               343







about that scum and foam on top that smells so bad,  and said  the




tourists were also complaining.  The beautiful green algal




material coming over the Falls was looked upon with  horror  by the




biologists.  Now, do all these things really mean the Niagara




River is "A" classification?  Or, for example, I see another




river that kind of peeked out - the Buffalo River is "E" classi-




fication.  "E", as I understand it, deals with navigation.




          Now I don't know, but maybe you can explain to us the




reason these rivers are alphabetically classified according to a




purpose.  I guess that "A" deals with primary treatment. I don't




know how that applies to municipalities.   Or, perhaps, you  can




tell us why the Buffalo was classified "E" for navigation.  Is




that because it has so much oil in it that the boats can slip




right through?




          Then so we can correct the record we have  these ques-




tions that you pointed out at first about the references of




Governor Rockefeller in '61 and in '63, IJC references on pollu-




tion of Lake Erie.  We didn't have any references to the Federal




Government of the enforcement or other provisions of the Act  for




Federal assistance, but this went to IJC  and then the reference




was finally made in '63, and you say you believe the present




Lake Erie study is being

-------
                                                               344
carried out because of  this  reference.




          MR.  HENNIGAN:   I didn't  state  that.   I  crossed  it  out.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  No,  you read  that.




          MR,  HENNIGANs   No, I  didn't.   You can look at my copy.




It's penciled out.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Didn't  you say you  believed the




present Lake Erie....




          MR.  HENNIGAN:   No, I  didn't.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Oh,  all right, because I  think every-




one knows why we're in  the present Lake  Erie study.   This is well




documented in the halls of Congress.   One of the  most famous




cases was H.R. 1, the Chicago diversion  case,  and one of  the




most famous bills was H.R.  1.  It  got to be so famous, it re-




ceived the number one.




          As a settlement of differences between States,  we




did enter into the study, but I think that is  well known.




          There are just a couple  of  more points  I would  like




to clear up.  I would like  to comment, and this relates to




something you referred  to before.   I  am  referring to that law




we talked about and I want  to make that  abundantly clear  for




the record.




          Chapter 727,  Laws  of 1964,  this says property of any




value, these are laws of New York, consisting  of a sample cul-




ture, micro-organism,  specimen, record,  recording, document,




drawing or any other article, materials, device or substance

-------
                                                               345







which constitutes, represents, evidences, reflects or records a




secret, scientific or technical process, invention or formula or




any phase or part thereof, of process, invention or formula is




secret, when it is not and is not intended to be available to




anyone other than the owner thereof or selected persons having




access thereto for limited purposes with his consent, and when it




accords or may accord the owner an advantage over competitors or




other persons who do not have knowledge of the benefit thereof.




          And then it says that this act shall take effect July 1,




1964 and a violation is supposed to be grand larceny in the




second degree.




          You would say that that statute would not inhibit the




State in any way from making material available in its files to




Federal investigators and other interested parties on the volume




and strength of wastes, discharge of industrial discharges through




what falls into public waters.  Is that correct?




          MR. HENNIGAN:  Yes.




          MR. BOSTON:  Are you familiar with a meeting held in




Albany at the Ten Eyck Hotel on August 14, 1964, a meeting of the




Advisory Committee of Waste Water Problems for the New York State




Department of Health.  Attending from New York were Meredith




Thompson, Mr. Dappert, who I understand was your successor, and




others?  Excuse me, your predecessor.  He'll be happy with me for




making him a youth again.




          The meeting was chaired by Mr. Thomas, President of the

-------
                                                               346







Associated Industries of New York.   One of the questions on the




agenda was a Public Health Service questionnaire on industrial




wastes and whether this information should be made available to




us.  Are you aware of the meeting and the result of that?




          MR. HENNIGAN:  No.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:   All right.  Now, there is one other




point I would like to clarify before we get back.




          As I understand this, Governor Rockefeller, in a




speech, spoke in terms of a $1.7 billion program.  Is that right?




          MR. HENNIGAN:  Yes.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:   And he also—and this presumably is




for municipal works.




          MR. HENNIGAN:  That's correct.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:   Now he also talked in terms of an indus-




trial problem and talked about $67  million for industrial waste




treatment.  Generally speaking, we  have,  at least in the country




as I've looked at this problem, and the reports I've gotten, have




always been that the industrial and the municipal problems were




about of equal magnitude.




          Is this disparity the case in New York, that you really




have a $1.7 billion municipal problem and only a $67 million




industrial problem?




          MR. HENNIGAN:  I have never subscribed to nor seen any




evidence that said that industrial  or municipal problems were




about equal.   Somebody dreamt that  up someplace or other.

-------
                                                               347







          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  In other words, you subscribe to




these figures?




          MR. HENNIGAN:  Let me talk.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  I'm trying to, and you demonstrated




your ability to do so for a half hour.




          MR. HENNIGAN:  Now, the figures presented,  the $1.7




billion, were developed as the result of a county by  county sur-




vey.  They represent the cost through 1970 of needed  sewage




treatment works and interceptor sewers.




          In the State of New York, we have over 30,000  indus-




tries.  Probably 80 percent of these industries are tributary  to




municipal systems.  They will automatically be included  in bene-




fit.  Now, in certain areas of the State, you have industrial




concentrations where the industries are so large and  there are so




many of these industries that to expect them to go into  a munici




pal sewer system would be preposterous.   The Niagara  Frontier  is




one of these areas.




          In addition to that, we have certain industries in this




State which are of such character and nature that they auto-




matically would overwhelm any population which lives  near them




and I would include in this the canning industry, the paper




industry and the dairy industry.




          It is these types of industries to which these




figures are applied.  For instance, you can imagine the  indus-




trial complex that goes into the New York City sewers and goes

-------
                                                               348
into other sewer systems in the State of New York.




          The $67 million is purely an estimate and it's a ques-




tion of professional judgment.   Take it for what it's  worth.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:   Well, I think the conferees will.   I




think all these conferees have  similar experiences  in  their




State.  As far as I know, I haven't heard of an estimate like




this with this kind of disparity.




          Perhaps the conferees may want to consider another




issue which you raised that kind of confused me and that is




that at one point in your paper you indicate that the  program,




and I have heard this many times in the Congress, that the




program, in moving ahead in New York State in municipal waste




treatment, was delayed because  of the lack of ability  of




Federal grant funds.




          The reports I've always gotten in New York is that




your program has been delayed up here because you spent the




last fifteen years classifying  your streams and not cleaning




up wastes.




          Now maybe the conferees want to consider  whether the




lack of grant funds or the approach on classifying  for fifteen




years and not cleaning up has been the cause of delays here.




I have no feeling on that now.




          MR. HENNIGAN:   Mr.  Stein, it would be as  unreasonable




for me to say that New York State had tackled and completed




its pollution abatement program as it would be to give the

-------
                                                               349
impression that they have done nothing.




          People here in the Niagara Frontier know that some




work has been done, millions of dollars have been spent.   There




is a tremendous backlog left and in fact, the remaining work to




be done is substantially larger than what has been done,  so




what are you talking about?




          CHAIRMAN STEIN;  Well, I'm talking about the condi-




tions of your waters.  I saw one of your rivers.  I visited




Niagara Falls„  You asked me what I am talking about and you




included it in your report and mentioned it in your report and




opened this up,




          I can say that when I saw that stuff spewing out from




the American side, I wasn't proud as an American, if you want




to know what I was talking about.




          MR, HENNIGAN:  Who is?




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  I think in most cases I am.  I have




never had that feeling when I went to some other places.




          MR, HENNIGAN:  We're not proud of pollution, no and we




haven't disputed the fact, the substantial fact, in your re-




ports.  We're not contending that fact.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Considering the rivers that we have




had in this area of the report, can you  let us have the clas-




sification of what New York has classified as "A," "B," "C,"




"D," "E," or "F".  Was that available?




          MR, HENNIGAN:  It is shown in  the maps out  in the

-------
                                                               350
foyer by the color code.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:   But you didn't put that in your re-




port?




          MR. HENNIGAN:  No.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:   All right, because I think that would




be very helpful.  As a matter of fact, one of the trends that I




would like to see is whether you classified all the rivers, the




way especially the Buffalo River has been, the "E" classifica-




tion.  However, we attempted to go a little higher in some cases.




          MR. HENNIGAN:  Lake Erie has been classified for most




of its New York section "A," and in the New York system, the




downstream classification controls it, and Lake Erie is down-




stream from all the streams going into the Lake from this area.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:   Are there any other comments or ques-




tions?




          MR, POSTON:  I'd like to ask if New York will abide by




the findings of the conferees at the end of this session?




          MR. HENNIGAN:  Certainly.




          MR. POSTON:  It will?




          MR. HENNIGANi  Yes.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:   Are there any other comments or




questions?




          MR. OEMING:  I would like to ask Mr. Hennigan, did I




understand that your classification of Lake Erie would apply to




any tributary?

-------
                                                               351







          MR. HENNIGAN:   Yes.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Before we go, I'd like to raise these




questions with the conferees.   You Indicated that the conference




recommendations and previous conferences In Detroit and possibly




In Cleveland were minimal programs, and you were looking for




higher sights, and how the joint Federal-State program should




have some higher sights.




          Then again, you raised this question of developing




standards—for Federal-State Joint Commission group—to develop




standards for phosphate removal.  I know this question of Federal




standards Is a touchy one.  I'm glad to hear New York associates




itself with this proposal, but maybe the conferees want to think




about that.




          Then you made another point, that we eliminated an




operation dealing with multi-municipal organizations.  I thought




this was the one point where we agreed.  I thought we pointed out




to you, Mr. Hennlgan, that I personally thought this was an




excellent notion.  However, Ohio and we, and I strongly suspect




Indiana and Michigan also, are prohibited by law from requiring




this under regulatory authority.




          We will encourage this, as I pointed out.  As a matter




of fact, the legislation which Is going through the Congress now




would provide a bonus of an extra 10 percent In the amount of a




grant to a maximum of 33 percent of project costs, if their plans

-------
                                                               352







are Included in a regional planning operation.   We are all for




that.




          The question here is the function of  where a group like




this stands and whether it is proper for a regulatory group to




require that.




          It is one thing to offer a bonus and  offer an induce-




ment,  it's something else to require it.   Except for New York,




which has a different law on State planning and organization,  I




think the other States involved,  and the Federal Government, are




very doubtful about their powers  in that as a regulatory measure.




          Are there any further questions or comments?   If not,




I think we should stand recessed  for lunch until a quarter to




two.




(CONFERENCE RECESSED UNTIL 1:45 P.M.)

-------
                                                               353
          CHAIRMAN STEIN:   May we reconvene at  this  time?




          MR.  HENNIGAN:   We are going to call on various people




who would like to make presentations relative to the work  of  the




conference, and the first will be Mr. Jerome Wilkenfeld, repre-




sentative of Associated Industries.




          MR.  WILKENFELD:   I am Jerome Wilkenfeld and while I




am Technical Superintendent of Hooker Chemical  Corporation at




Niagara Falls, I am, at this conference representing




Associated Industries of New York State, according to the  invi-




tation extended to Associated Industries on July 30  by Dr.




Hollis S. Ingraham, New York State Commissioner of Health.




          For your information, Associated Industries is a mem-




bership corporation which in effect is the manufacturers'  as-




sociation of New York State.  Our members, large and small, are




located in every part of the State and the manufacturing mem-




bers of our association employ the majority of New York State's




work force.




          It happens also that I am a member of the Water  Re-




sources Committee of Associated Industries, and a member of the




New York State Health Department Advisory Committee on Water




and Waste-Water Problems.




          It may be of interest to this conference to know that




the President of Associated Industries, Mr. Joseph R. Shaw,  is




a past chairman and present member of the Ohio River Valley




Water Sanitation Commission, being one of New York State's

-------
                                                               354
representatives on that Commission.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:   Would you tell Mr.  Shaw that I was




looking forward to seeing him up here and I regretted that




he couldn't cornel




          MR.  WILKENFELD:   Well, Joe was awfully sorry he




couldn't be here in person and my next sentence tells you why.




Joe has a Board of Directors meeting of the Association today




in Cooperstown.




          The Associated Industries  Board of Directors on March 3,




1965, adopted a policy statement strongly favoring the massive




attack on water pollution, since adopted by the New York State




Legislature upon the recommendation  of Governor Nelson A.




Rockefeller.  This generally has bipartisan support as reflected




in the practically unanimous passage by the legislature.




          We are strongly advocating approval  by the electorate




of the billion dollar bond program,  which is the essential part




of this historic approach by New York State in the handling of




a problem which, unless approached in this way, can take five




generations or more to be accomplished,




          I do not propose to make a lengthy statement and will




be gald to answer questions from the conferees.  The points




which I wish to make are these;




          1.  New York State industry is determined to help




achieve the goal of pure water which  the community demands.  I




quote from the policy statement of March 3rd to which I

-------
                                                               355







referred a moment ago:




          "Associated Industries endorses whole-heartedly




Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller's historic and meaningful plan




for a massive attack on the water pollution problem as a program




to bring to fruition many of the basic goals promoted by




Associated Industries and its members affecting clean water.




          "The Governor1s program in our judgment is a bold and




imaginative extension of the activity which we supported in the




years immediately following World War II when Associated Indus-




tries worked closely with the Joint Legislative Committee on




Interstate Cooperation in the formulation of the Water Pollu-




tion Control Law of 1949.  This law was unanimously adopted by




the Legislature with public support from Associated Industries.




In 1949 we gave our full backing to regulatory legislation in




the water pollution control field, an unusual step for industry,"




          This closes the quote and remember, this sort of




backing by industry in '49 was very rare in the United States.




          2.  In New York State the record is clear that there




is a real desire from the viewpoint of industry to achieve a




solution in the public interest and to achieve it as rapidly as




possible.  This solution must be consistent with the over-




whelming public stake in the economy of New York and the job-




providing strength of our industry which is in stiffest com-




petition not only with industry in other States but also with




industry abroad.  We think that the approach in New York State

-------
                                                               356







has been a thorough and fair approach and has resulted in a




strong foundation upon which we can build any enforcement action




required.




          We have repeatedly informed our members that from our




point of view, the time is here when we can expect strong in-




tensification of enforcement.  In other words,  our make-ready




period is ended and industries which have not brought their own




pollution problems to the stage where correction is attainable




should expect prompt and vigorous State legal enforcement action.




          3.  However, do not belittle the results of voluntary




or negotiated compliance which has been the hallmark of New




York State's approach to this historic and massive problem.  We




are proud of the results of the program to date as evidenced by




the many millions of dollars industry has spent for water pollu-




tion control since 1949.  Those of us who have worked so




closely, in partnership with the State Government, recognize




the problems and have come up with solutions.




          4.  I hope the conferees will note that we are in no




sense minimizing the pollution problem that exists with respect




to Lake Erie and with respect to all the water resources of our




State.  But a point that we can make in all honesty is that un-




like some other States we have made considerable progress, as




all fair-minded observers will agree.




          We are proud of our New York State program which we




believe is one of the most forward looking programs in the

-------
                                                               357
country.  We point out again that we are now in the active con-




trol program phase, having essentially completed the herculean




job of survey and classification.




          Our control program includes abatement plans for over




70 perc'ent of the State's area, and as Mr. Hennigan said




earlier, and as other State officials will tell you, they ex-




pect this to be completed by the end of the year.




          More than has been generally understood,  progress has




been made in New York State in connection with direct abatement




of pollution.




          I invite your particular attention to the text of the




statement presented by the Honorable Charles R. Ross, member of




the International Joint Commission of the United States and




Canada, given to the Subcommittee on Air and Water  Pollution of




the United States Senate Committee on Public Works  in Buffalo




on June 17-




          Speaking of progress toward the accomplishment of wa-




ter quality objectives, he said, and I quote, "The  Provincial




and State Pollution Control enforcement agencies with the sup-




port of the Commission, have accomplished much towards the at-




taining of these objectives.  A comprehensive study of the




Detroit River, carried out by the Public Health Service in




1963, showed that the quantity of phenol, cyanide,  oil and sus-




pended solids from industrial sources has been reduced more than




50 percent since 1949.

-------
                                                               358
          "Data collected In the Niagara Frontier area indicate




that an equivalent reduction has been accomplished here.




          "All municipalities provide treatment of their  wastes




being discharged into the International waters.  This treatment




generally consists of primary sedimentation and disinfection




which is the minimum that has been considered necessary up to




the present time."




          To continue the quotation,  "An even more important in-




dicator of accomplishments is the improved suitability of the




water for certain uses.   Not too long ago, taste and odor from




phenol occurred with some degree of frequency in a number of




Niagara Frontier municipal water supplies.  In recent years,




there have been no instances of taste and odor in these sup-




plies which have been definitely traced to the presence of




phenol.  The Niagara River generally provides an excellent




quality of water for municipal supplies.  It is also very satis-




factory for most industrial users."




          To continue the quote, "Experience in recent years




indicates that there has been no discharges of acutely lethal




quantities of cyanide or other toxic  chemical substances  which




have caused fish mortality in the area.  The death of large




quantities of fish which seems to occur regularly here are




generally conceded to be a natural phenomenon by those biolo-




gists who have investigated the kills."




          Mr. Ross continues, "The facts indicate that there

-------
                                                               359
has been some forward progress in pollution control in this area




by both municipalities and industries.  However, we are aware




that problems in the International waters have not been com-




pletely solved.




          "There is evidence that oil and grease continue to be




present in these waters to the extent that there are harmful




effects on certain uses.  Boat owners complain that at times




their boats are coated with oil.  A number of people are con-




vinced that these oils are killing ducks.




          "This is occurring in spite of the fact that there




has been a marked reduction of industrial waste oil discharges




to the streams of this locality.  Available information indi-




cates that the major industries discharging waste oil have re-




duced the quantity of their oil losses to the degree that was




estimated to be necessary in 1949 to essentially eliminate the




harmful effects in the river."




          This ends the quotation from Mr. Ross'  statement




which covers the Niagara River, but is germane since it de-




scribes the water leaving Lake Erie.




          5.  We remind the conferees that the biggest need is




for cash if we are to get action on water pollution abatement




in this generation and not let it go for the next generation or




even the one after that.




          A program of immediate action is essential and realis-




tic.  This is what Governor Rockefeller has recommended with a

-------
                                                               360
$1.7 billion program based on Federal-State-local  sharing of the




costs for the municipal sewage program alone.   The voters in




November will be asked to approve the State's  money share and




this will pre-finance the Federal share,  if  necessary.




          6.  We point out that Governor  Rockefeller has  gone




out of his way on several occasions  to put industry's share of




pollution into its proper perspective. We do  not  deny that




there is pollution from industries on Lake Erie as elsewhere.




We recommend tax incentives by the Federal Government,  at least




along the lines of the tax incentive adopted by the State of New




York, in connection with the corporate franchise tax fast write-




off.  Incentives have also been provided  in  this State in con-




nection with real estate taxation.




          It may be of interest to the conferees to know  that




during the last decade, five of the  industrial concerns in the




Buffalo area have spent, by a most conservative estimate, more




than $10 million on water pollution  control  facilities, none of




which are revenue producing.




          It is generally accepted by industry that the rate of




expenditure for such facilities will be much higher in the fu-




ture.  In addition, five plants on the Buffalo River have com-




mitted themselves to an expenditure  of more  than $8 million for




the specific purpose of implementing the  "Buffalo River Pollu-




tion Abatement Project - Water System."




          This pollution abatement project was recommended and

-------
                                                               361







approved by the City of Buffalo, the Water Pollution Control




Board of the State of New York, the New York State Department




of Health, the United States Public Health Service, the Inter-




national Joint Commission, the County of Erie Health Department,




and the Buffalo Sewer Authority.  This project is not in lieu




of any required treatment.




          7.  Eventually the New York State program will go




beyond Federal projections that we have heard of in connection




with water pollution abatement.




          8.  In regard to the question of effluent quality




data, much has been made of industries' purported reticence to




provide information.  This is patently misstated.




          Companies in the past have provided and will continue




to provide data and samples to control agencies to help deter-




mine the quality of public waters, to develop new and improved




technology, and to develop any needed control programs.  This




has included the U.S. Public Health Service which receives this




data through appropriate State agencies.




          Aside from the statement, discussing this with indus-




trial people from the area, I know of several cases or several




people have mentioned, that they have provided this sort of




data in the past.




          Getting back to the statement, it should be recognized,




however, that all agencies using such data have a responsibility




to the lay community, as well as to the supplier, to use it in a

-------
                                                               362







meaningful way so that its significance remains in perspective.




What  industry objects to is the presentation of technical data




in a  form which can only be interpreted as being done in the




interest of sensationalism.  Our interest in pollution is not




only  in the pounds emitted but also the effect on the receiving




body  of water.




          In summary, we believe that the Federal-State partner-




ship  can be effective as exemplified by current joint programs




of research and technical assistance.




          And, we further believe that the primary responsibility




should continue to rest with State government and State enforce-




ment  agencies, as outlined in Public Law 660.




          Finally, we believe there is room in this picture, as




envisioned by the Governor's Federal-State-local program, for




Federal support, particularly in the field of financial as-




sistance, large enough to complete the program on schedule.




Thank you.  (APPLAUSE)




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Do you have any questions or comments




on Mr. Welkenfeld's statement?




          MR.  POSTONi  I have a question of Mr. Wilkenfeld.




Mr. Wilkenfeld, you represent Hooker Chemical Company?




          MR.  WILKENFELD:  Yes.




          MR,  POSTONi  You also are a representative of




Associated Industries of New York State, Inc., and I wonder if




it is both the policy of Hooker Chemical Company and the

-------
                                                               363
Associated Industries of New York to give information on indus-




trial wastes, both as to quantity and quality, that are dis-




charged to public waters.




          MR. WILKENFELD;  I'll answer your question first and




then go back.  I think the answer is yes.  We have, in the past,




and we will in the future.




          As I stated at the beginning, I am here today repre-




senting Associated Industries, rather than the company which




employs me.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Do you mean the Association or the




Company when you say, "we have in the past and we will in the




future."




          MR. WILKENFELD:  I haven't discussed this recently




with my Company, but I feel sure that they would.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  But are you speaking for your




Association, all the members of your organization?




          MR. WILKENFELD:  No Association can speak for each of




its individual members.  The Association can only recommend to




its membership what they should do.  However, the Association




is on record in this statement as favoring this and recom-




mending it and stating that this should be done.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN: "In the past and in the future;1 you




said, because that's what I just heard.




          MR. WILKENFELD:  Yes.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Again, I'm glad to hear this because

-------
                                                               364







I talked to Mr. Hennigan before about  that meeting held on




October 14, 1964 at the Ten Eyck Hotel,  of which we have a sum-




mary, at which Mr. Thomas,  Director of Governmental Affairs for




Associated Industries presided.  Evidently we couldn't  get this




information.




          I read from the report of the  minutes  of the  meeting,




"It was considered whether  New York could provide data  on indus-




trial waste and, secondly,  should this information be dissemi-




nated to the Public Health  Service. It  is recognized that the




Public Health Service could not accept the information  that was




considered confidential.  It was the intent," and this  was the




group, "to give them only information  on a summary basis and only




that which concerns the drainage area."




          Mr. Anderson, who is our regional representative in New




York, stated that he appreciated the chance to meet with the




group and discuss their mutual interests.  But in answer to the




question, the PHS was forced to say "no, we just couldn't take




these summaries in an area  basin"--that  a summary of information




would not be satisfactory.




          Mr. Kehr, and he  is in charge  of our Great Lakes Study,




said"as far as the Great Lakes Study was concerned, the United




States Public Health Service was obligated to develop a compre-




hensive program."  This would require  them to discover  the




sources of waste, develop beneficial uses and accomplishment of




the water quality objectives.

-------
                                                               365






          They also said they must work In close touch with local




and State agencies and the technical committee.   Mr.  Thomas, who




was Director of Governmental Affairs for your organization, pre-




sided.  In order to do this, they had to develop this information.




          Now, the Advisory Committee, in its original work, has




reservations in giving raw data to organizations which cannot




treat it as confidential, and I would like to assure  you, Mr.




Wilkenfeld, that we cannot treat it as confidential.   When we get




this information, it's available to the public,  and for this




reason it was felt that the State should provide this information




on an area basis.




          And then I understand that Mr. Kinney--is Mr. Kinney




the man who was on this?  He has been a consultant for several of




the steel companies.  I guess he was there, too.




          MR. WILKENFELD:  I didn't attend this  meeting.  Do you




mean Jack Kinney?




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  He raised several interesting ques-




tions.  It appeared that the information was not yet  reviewed and




Dr. Thompson, I assume that this refers to Dr. Thompson of New




York State, indicated that he was against printing a  list of




waste discharges by name.




          I assume from what I have heard from Mr. Hennigan and




you, whatever the situation was in the past, this will not apply




in the future.

-------
                                                               366







          MR. WILKENFELD:   I think, though,  a little clarifica-




tion might be in order on that point.   The entire situation,  as I




understand it and understood it at the time  of the meeting,  is




subject to misinterpretation, in that  the Industrial Advisory




Group and the State Health Department  there  at that time were




strongly favoring that any control program within the State be




handled through the State people, in order to make use of their




knowledge of the State and the information that they had avail-




able, their contacts, and to avoid duplications of contacts and




duplications of supplying data.




          And also, if we are to strengthen  the State organiza-




tion, and this I gather is the intent  of  the Federal legislation




in Public Law 660, we should try to do as much of this with the




State organization.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:   I don't think  there is really any  sig-




nificant difference between the Federal people and the State  on




this.  As a matter of fact we have had a  similar problem in




getting industrial information from another  State agency and  the




industry, that is the pulp and paper industry.  They indicated




that they enunciated the policy exactly as you did — that they




wanted to deal with the State agency.   But they gave the State




agency this information with no restrictions and the understanding




was that they would supply it to the Federal Government.

-------
                                                               367
          As a matter of fact, they were shocked and appalled




by a notion that a State agency would not make this information




available to us and they certainly had no objection.  I  think




that if there is no misunderstanding on this,  we should  look




forward and go forward on this instead of perhaps looking back




to the past.  I couldn't agree with you more that this should




be done through the State and I am sure that the whole Federal




staff agrees with that policy and concept.




          MR. WILKENFELD:  Very fine.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Are there any other questions?




Thank you very much, sir, and give my regards  to Joe Shaw.




          MR, WILKENFELD:  I sure will, thank  you.




          MR. HENNIGAN:  The next speaker will be Raymond




Cochran who is Executive Secretary of the New  York State Con-




ference of Mayors and other municipal officials.




          MR. COCHRAN:  Mr. Chairman, conferees and ladies  and




gentlemen, my name is Raymond J. Cochran.  I am Executive




Director of the New York State Conference of Mayors which is




the trade association for the villages and cities of New York




State.




          I am very pleased to have an opportunity to be here




and talk with you about some of the problems as we see them and




some of the recommendations that we have.  I do not have a pre-




pared written statement and I am not sure it is not a good




thing I don't  have, because during the day and a half here, I

-------
                                                               368
have made no less than six changes In the form and content of




what I wanted to say and I think if you had tried to follow me




through all of those changes, it would have been pretty bad.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:   By the way, Mr.  Cochran, before you




go on, is this an independent operation or  are you connected




with the United States Conference of Mayors, your organization?




          MR, COCHRANt  We are an affiliate of the National




League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors deals only




with direct member cities.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:   Thank you.




          MR. COCHRAN:  When we are talking about water supply,




I am sure there is no need for me to emphasize that we believe




we are dealing with the lifeblood of the communities of this




State, but unfortunately,  it is not very good blood at the




present time.




          There is no question about the magnitude of the prob-




lem of pollution in Lake Erie and in the other surface water




systems of our State.  There is no question that much, much




more needs to be done than has been done in the past to remedy




this situation.




          At this point, on behalf of the cities and villages,




I would like to acknowledge with grateful appreciation the as-




sistance that so far has been received from the Federal Govern-




ment in the construction of pollution abatement facilities.




          We regret that the amount of assistance that it was

-------
                                                               369







possible for the Federal Government to extend to us was far too




small to meet our situation.  And I may say that there is a




further aspect at the present time which is that those problems




that have not yet been solved are the ones that are by far the




hardest physically., engineering-wise, and financially.  Those




problems which were easiest of solution are the ones that have




been settled.




          And now without indulging in the sometimes interesting




but usually rather futile mental exercise of trying to go back




and take credit or place blame for what lies in history, I would




like to present a very simple outline, perhaps oversimplified,




but still something that we can get our teeth in, of the situa-




tion as we see it on behalf of the local governments.




          In addition to the question of the knowledge that we




should have and can be developed only through research and which




applies to all of the phases of this analysis as I see it, there




are three factors.




          One is standards.  We need to have standards of quality




and standards of enforcement.  Those standards should be at




least reasonably uniform because to have a very great variation




from those standards from one State to the other tends to de-




feat the efforts of those States that have the higher standards.




          The second thing that we need is motivation to meet




those standards effectively.  Now, motivation is of two kinds.




One kind is taking the bullwhip down from the wall and cracking

-------
                                                               370







It over the heads and the backs of the people who are concerned.




The second kind of motivation is that which leads rather than




drives and we have had a considerable example of that, I think,




in the day and a half so far in all of the effort that has gone




into publicizing and dramatizing the situation that we face.




This has been done in the past and it has been producing re-




sults.  That's why the people in the State of New York, and I




am sure this is true in other States, have come to an awareness




of the problem and a willingness to do some of the things that




are necessary to remedy the situation.




          But those two kinds of motivation are part of the




picture and the psychologists tell me, and who am I to dispute




a psychologist, that that motivation  which leads and induces




frequently produces a better result than that motivation which




comes from the threat of applied force.




          The third factor in the situation is practical as-




sistance in meeting these standards.  We have already had a




partial effort in this direction and I think we are producing




a much greater effort.




          We have had for several years  State assistance in the




planning of the construction of sewage disposal works,including




and indeed  heavily emphasizing  those which serve more than




just one community.  I am sure that we all agree that we cannot




have effective sewage disposal unless the facilities are properly




planned with respect to the problem they are intended to meet.

-------
                                                               371







          We have now a program of State assistance to the com-




munities for the construction of sewage disposal facilities.




We have a program of State assistance to the community for the




maintenance and operation of sewage disposal facilities.   We




have a program of State assistance to industry primarily  in the




form of tax relief of two kinds to assist them in the efforts




that they have to make in order to meet this problem.




          Unless we continue as we have, and go ahead with this




kind of practical assistance which indeed may be referred to  as




part of the motivation, we are not going to succeed.




          But the communities of this State, just as  the  indus-




tries referred to by the previous speaker, have indicated that




they are interested in doing something and they can when  the




goal is reasonably within their grasp.




          There is an organization which was called the Temporary




State Commission on Water Resources Planning, and in  1961 it  is-




sued a report which showed that as of 1957, the cities and vil-




lages having treatment plants for their sewage outnumbered by




about three to one those that were dumping raw sewage. The same




report shows that in 1957  there was a total of 151 villages  and




cities that needed either new or improved treatment plants.  In




I960, the number was 124, while the number had been reduced by




27.




          This doesn't sound too big perhaps, but I point out




to you that if we could have continued at the same rate,  this

-------
                                                               372







year, 1965, five years later,  we would have seen every one of




those communities with the problem licked.   Unfortunately, we




were not able to continue at that rate of  progress.   This is a




result that was brought forward in the report  of the Commission.




          The reason for it is exactly what I  mentioned earlier.




The easier problems have now been disposed of.   The  harder ones




still remain and it takes more time,  effort and money to dispose




of that.




          Are the communities  willing to try and do  something




about this?  Do you think that local  public officials,  and I was




one at one time, really want to have  themselves, their families,




their neighbors and all of their constituents  using  polluted




water if it's not necessary?




          But what does the record show?  In 1964 fiscal year for




the Federal Government, there were more than twenty  municipal




projects which were submitted for Federal  assistance for which




there was no Federal money available.  The money had been used up




by previous projects during that year.  So here were twenty or




more municipalities that could receive aid that were ready and




willing to move in this area.   We were informed earlier in the




1965 fiscal year that at that time there were  twenty-seven munici




palities which had already filed applications  and that the appli-




cations that they had filed would require  $8.5 million in Federal




funds.




          This is not the total cost  of the project.  This is

-------
                                                               373







the amount of the Federal contribution under the Federal law,




leaving a shortage of $3.2 million in Federal contribution at




that point.




          How many more applications were submitted during that




year?  How many were turned back and not submitted or not ac-




cepted because Federal funds were not extensive enough,  I do




not know.  But I do believe, from what I know of the people we




deal with in local government and from the record that we have




here, that the pressure upon them from all sources, from their




constituents and from the State, is sufficient to push them into




having the kind of disposal program and facilities that  they




require if it's reasonably possible for them to have it.




          Just one other point that I might mention to you, two




points in connection with this.  New York City had an $18 million




project and the Federal assistance that it was able to obtain




under the law, which is now in the process of being amended, was




$250,000, so that they were able to receive one-quarter  of one-




eighteenth of the cost of that project.  This is not very ef-




fective aid.  Fortunately., they were able to carry out the




project in spite of that,,




          We have heard that there is $150 million being made




available in Federal funds for sewage disposal and water pollu-




tion abatement during the coming year, and that more of  this




money than previously is going to be available to New York




State, and that this is going to be of significant help to us.

-------
                                                               374
          Unfortunately,  I am in the position of feeling that




what they can do with the amount of that $150 million that can




be allocated to New York  State is not going to be very signifi-




cant .




          Let's assume that the rumors that we have heard are




correct and that New York State might get  $10 million of that.




How far is that going to  go?   Let's make a further assumption.




Let's assume that inasmuch as New York State has approximately




10 percent of the population of the country, it would receive




approximately 10 percent  of this money that is available.  That




would be $15 million, and how far will that go?




          The estimate that the State made after rather a long




and exhaustive survey was that the Federal share on a 30 per-




cent basis would be about $500 million and that the State's




share, on the same basis, would be the same.  On that basis,




ladies and gentlemen, if  the entire $150 million a year that




the Federal Government is talking about were applied to New




York State and to no one  else, in three years there would be




$450 million that would be applied to these projects.




          Now I'm not saying this in criticism of the Federal




program or the Federal Government.  I am saying it only because




I feel that we need to recognize what the  practical facts are




that our local governments, and our industries, for that matter,




face.





          The greatest problem that we have to lick in this

-------
                                                               375







situation as far as New York State is concerned is money, m, o,




n, e, y, money.  Now, what recommendations do we have?




          First, we believe that the effort to develop standards




should be continued and that research certainly should be con-




tinued, not only aimed towards the development of those stand-




ards, but also towards the means of meeting those standards ef-




fectively.




          We believe that motivation should be worked on and




that in addition to adequate enforcement measures, there should




be appropriate measures taken through public relations campaigns




or anything else that may be developed to encourage the officials




and the people who ultimately control those officials , the con-




stituents at the local level, to support this program and to see




that these standards are met.




          Further, we urge with every bit of vehemence that we




have that you, and that your friends and neighbors and that my




friends and neighbors and all of our relatives and all of the




rest of the people in our community support the bond issue that




is on the ticket this fall, this November, so that we can go




ahead with this program and accomplish the things that need to




be done.




          In addition, we believe that the Federal Government




can help in this if they find it within their grasp, by pro-




viding some of the additional money required for the municipal




activity and by following up the recommendation that was made




yesterday for the tax write-off.

-------
                                                               376







          Now if I understand correctly,  the tax write-off has




been proposed and has been introduced.  The bill has not been




passed and I do not know where it is.   But I think t know enough




about human nature, and the people who  are in industry are human




beings just the same as the people who  are in local governments.




I think I know enough about human nature  to know that if a




potential tax write-off were to come into being, it would have




its effect when it is actually in being,  rather than a gleam in




the sponsor's eye.




          This, again, is not intended  to criticize anyone, but




it is what I look upon as an analysis of  what the situation is.




This think can help and I think that everyone of us has a re-




sponsibility in communicating with our  representatives in the




Senate and in the Congress to urge that this action be taken.  I




expect that the members of the Commission during this hearing may




also make a recommendation in that respect to the people to whom




they are responsible in the Federal Government.




          These, gentlemen and ladies,  are the recommendations




that we have, based upon the analysis we  have made of this situa-




tion.  Thank you.  (APPLAUSE)




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Are there any  comments or questions?




Well, thank you very much for a Very illuminating statement.  I




should point out that I have been informed that we must recess




tonight at five promptly because there  is a dinner to start here




at 5:15.  Thank

-------
                                                               377
you.  Mr. Hennigan?




          MR. HENNIGAN:  The next speaker will be the Honorable




Chester Kowal, Mayor of the City of Buffalo.




          MAYOR KOWAL:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the honor




and courtesy extended to me on this occasion.   Distinguished




members of the Commission and ladies and gentlemen assembled




here on this occasion. First, as Mayor of the  City of Buffalo, I




would like to extend on the behalf of the people of Buffalo a




very warm welcome to the very distinguished group who have met




here, now for the second day, the distinguished representatives




of government, industry, and the experts and  other persons to




attack a very growing problem.




          I couldn't help but be impressed with the many things




that were stated by Mr. Cochran.  The City of  Buffalo happens  to




be a member of that same organization that he  just represented,




and in the interest of saving time, I have prepared a statement




because otherwise, I think I would have gone  on until this




evening.




          I am certainly no expert on the present day blight




known as pollution, which is dangerously tainting the waters we




drink and, I might add another problem we soon will be tackling,




air pollution.  I am, however, gravely aware  of the threat pol-




lution poses to our Nation today, tomorrow and in the tomorrows




that follow.  I fully agree that immediate remedial steps must




be taken toward the eventual elimination of this menace.

-------
                                                               378
          From testimony given at last week's hearing in




Cleveland, I gather that various States bordering on the Great




Lakes, including New York State, appear to be quibbling over




whether pollution drifts eastward or westward - or in both di-




rections.  In my opinion, such quibbling seems relatively unim-




portant and could result in lengthy and costly litigation which




would solve little or nothing.  I think it is generally agreed




that pollution exists in our inland lakes and tributaries which




flow into them.  As I see it, the big question is not "Who




caused it?" as it is too late for that, but rather "How do we




correct it, and where does the money come from with which to




accomplish this?"




          On this score, I would like to point out that scien-




tists of the United States Public Health Service have conducted




extensive studies of Lake Erie for the past two years.  These




studies indicate that Lake Erie's currents intermittently flow




westward as well as eastward.




          So where does that leave us here in Buffalo?  As




guilty of pollution, probably, as communities to the west.  But




pointing our fingers at our westward neighbors and saying,




"It's all your fault," certainly isn't going to solve anything.




          Pollution, as I have said on many occasions, is like




the racial problem.  It should have had the attention of the




various levels of our government long before this, and particu-




larly those levels of our government which have the authority




of enforcement.

-------
                                                               379
          Scientific study of Lake Erie, for instance,  has dis-




closed some grim facts about the rapid deterioration of the




Lake in the past fifteen years.  Scientists have estimated that




upwards of 35 million pounds of contaminants are pouring daily




into a 240 mile long Lake Erie.




          This tremendous disposal of waste occurs mainly in




the industrial municipal areas of Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland,




Erie, Lackawanna and Buffalo, just to mention a few.




          This dumping of contaminants into our lake waters,




scientists warn, has for many years steadily and treacherously




polluted drinking, industrial and recreational waters.   Today,




after years of subtle and rapid growth, the menace of pollution




poses a real threat to the very health and well-being of our




citizens.




          Again, I want to emphasize that I am no authority on




pollution, but merely a taxpayer, as well as a city official,




gravely concerned over a condition which has taken many years




to spawn,  and breed, and grow and mushroom, and explode into




the menace it is today.




          However, as a former comptroller of this City for ten




years, and now its Mayor, I feel it qualifies me to talk with




authority concerning public finance.  And in my studied opinion,




it is finances, money and only money, the same that has been




re-emphasized by the previous speaker, that will solve the prob-




lem of pollution.

-------
                                                               380







          The big question is,  "Where  is  that  money coming




from?"  Certainly, the vast amount  of  money necessary to  inau-




gurate a successful anti-pollution  program cannot  come from one




pocketbook.  The Federal Government obviously  isn't keen  on




footing the entire bill.  Communities  cannot do  it alone, nor




can industry.




          The proposal made by  Governor Rockefeller,  that New




York State provide $1.7 billion to  handle the  pollution problem




by itself, seems to me to be rather unjust to  the  taxpayers of




this State.




          The Governor proposes that this additional  tax burden




be levied on residents of New York  State, despite  the vast  evi-




dence of interstate cooperation in  combating pollution.




          New York State is a member of eight  interstate agencies




dealing with pollution problems.  The  seven other  States want to




take full advantage of Federal  help, since water problems are




interstate and thus invite Federal  interest and  funds.  But the




Governor of New York State feels  the job  of eliminating pollu-




tion can be done by this State  alone without outside help at a




cost of well over a billion dollars to the taxpayers.




          Now I must state at this  point  that  although I  admire




the forthright stand taken by Governor Rockefeller in asking




$1.7 billion, I do question the wisdom of placing  such a heavy




financial burden upon the taxpayers of one state,  especially




when other states are involved  as well as our  neighbors to  the

-------
                                                               381







north, Canada.  Obviously, this problem is not provincial,  but




instead, one of international dimensions.




          May I point out that when I was  serving this  City




during my first term as Comptroller, that  was in the early  fif-




ties, I participated in the initial meeting with representatives




of industry probing the problem of eliminating industrial waste




which, for many decades had been emptying  into the Buffalo  River.




          With the urging of the United States Public Health




Service, the State Department of Health, the International  Joint




Commission, and the Water Pollution Control Board, a raw water




cooling project was conceived to furnish a supply of fresh  lake




water to industries along the Buffalo River, which water, when




used, would be discharged into the Buffalo River, thus  creating




a flow in the river and preventing concentration of industrial




waste.




          That was the beginning of the City of Buffalo's con-




tribution to deal with pollution, and particularly from the in-




dustrial standpoint.  This plan will result in the discharge of




120,000,000 gallons of fresh water into the Buffalo River daily -




as much water as is used otherwise throughout the whole of  the




City of Buffalo.




          Then,as now, the challenge was to find the necessary




finances to build the project without imposing undue heavy  fi-




nancial burdens on the city or industry.




          As the then Comptroller of the City of Buffalo, I

-------
                                                               382
introduced the same procedure which had been applied so success-




fully to the construction of our off-street parking facilities,




otherwise known as the "Kowal Plan."  You will forgive me for




mentioning it because that is the way it is identified.  Under




this plan, the city's credit and ability to obtain low cost fi-




nancing was used to construct the project, an $8 million under-




taking, the investment to be recovered by the guarantee of pur-




chase by industry of water over the terms of the bonds, at a




price sufficient to amortize our entire cost.




          I just want to call your attention to what this same




kind of financing is doing insofar as it concerns the operation




of our off-street parking facility.  The off-street parking




facilities don't cost the taxpayers of the City of Buffalo one




single cent.  As a matter of fact, after we had set aside the




necessary reserve for replacement, operation and maintenance




and all other costs, over and above that, we get more money




than we would have received from a tax source from properties




that existed there before, more than we would have been re-




ceiving at the present rate of tax levy.




          Now whether this project, sometimes known as the




"Buffalo River Pollution Abatement Project," will prove ade-




quate to meet the standards proposed here is problematical,




but I believe it affords an example of cooperation between




government and industry and the application of a financial




principle which is worthy of further exploration in our attack

-------
                                                               383







on the big problem of pollution control, abatement and elimina-




tion, and that is the only reason why I have mentioned it,




gentlemen and ladies.




          I feel that the threat of pollution can best be solved




by a contribution of funds from all levels, namely, the Federal




Government; the Canadian Government; all of the eight States  in-




volved; all of the communities and counties involved, and cer-




tainly by all of the industries involved.




          This war against pollution is no one-man, no one-com-




munity, no one-county, state or industry job.  It must be a job




manned and financed from all levels in all of the States involved,




and including the know-how and funds of the Federal and Canadian




governments.




          In closing, may I respectfully suggest that a com-




mittee be promptly organized to delve into these important




matters:




          1.  To determine how much money will be needed to




successfully eradicate pollution?




          2.  How should that money be pro-rated at the Federal




level, the State level, the county level, the municipal level,




the industrial and agricultural level?




          3.  How soon can that money be appropriated and when




can an anti-pollution program commence on a much broader basis




than they have proceeded up to the present time.




          The answers to the above questions should be answered

-------
                                                               384
in report form in the shortest  time  possible.




          I also respectfully suggest  that  if  an anti-pollution




finance committee be formed,  that  it be  composed of capable,




qualified men and women,  schooled  in the cold, hard facts  of




finance, as well as being acutely  aware  of  the threat  that pol-




lution poses to their respective communities and the Nation as  a




whole.  Such a committee  should be non-political,  and,  so  as not




to be unwieldy, confined  to  one member from each State,  each




county and each city.  The committee should have Federal Govern-




ment and industrial representation,  and  if  at  all  possible,  in-




ternational representation which would represent,  as I  stated




before, our neighbor to the  north, Canada.




          I believe we can lick pollution.  All that is  needed




are the necessary funds,  shared alike  by those counties, cities




and industries involved and  substantially augmented by  the




States and the Federal Government.




          This is a rather brief statement, but it is my hope




that it has touched all the  bases, because  one could go  on and




dwell upon how little the Federal  Government or how little the




local government have given,  but I doubt whether that would get




us anywhere here at all unless  we  get  down  to  doing it  on  an




overall basis with everyone  cooperating.




          It is my hope that  my proposal will  help to  contribute




something toward working  out  a  solution  to  the approach of




fighting pollution.  Thank you  very  much, gentlemen.  If there

-------
                                                              385



are any questions, I would be delighted to answer them.


          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Thank you, Mayor Kowal.   Are  there any


comments or questions?  Mayor, I listened to your remarks about


the quibbles.  I don't think the New York representatives have


taken this attitude and I don't think we have.   I'm not  too sure

                                                              /
what the dictionary definition of "quibble" is.


          MAYOR KOWAL:  I wasn't talking about  anyone.   I am not


here to point a finger at anyone.  I am glad to  hear that New York


is not one of them.  However, it seems to me that quibbling is


going to settle little or nothing, and I felt that  we have


reached a position now where nothing else is going  to help ex-


cept to get down to doing the job at the least  possible  cost to


all concerned.


          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  I certainly agree with you, Mayor.


You know, it takes two to quibble and I don't think we have any


quibbling here.


          MAYOR KOWAL:  Yes.  Anything else, sir?


          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Are there any further comments or


questions?  Thank you very much.


          MAYOR KOWAL:  Thank you very much for the courtesy


extended me.  (APPLAUSE)


          MR. HENNIGAN:  The next speaker will  be Mr. Robert P.


Schermerhorn representing the Empire State Chamber of Commerce.


          MR. SCHERMERHORN:  Mr. Chairman, gentlemen. My name

-------
                                                               386







is Robert P. Schermerhorn.   I am a member of  the Board of Di-




rectors of the Empire State Chamber of Commerce, which organi-




zation I represent at this  meeting.  I reside at 21  Cleveland




Avenue, Buffalo.  The Empire State Chamber is a federation of




180 local chambers of commerce and statewide  trade associations




in New York State, with an  underlying membership-of  about




80,000 business firms.




          I want to make it clear at the outset, that  the




Empire State Chamber wholeheartedly supports  the pure  waters




program that has been initiated by New York State and  will




recommend to its members that they vote "YES" on the referendum




question at the next election with regard to  authorization of a




billion dollar bond issue by the State.




          At the time Governor Rockefeller initiated this pro-




posal, the Chamber made careful inquiry among member corpora-




tions which are large users of water for industrial  purposes




and who would be directly affected by the program.  We received




no letters in opposition.  Consequently, the  Chamber supported




the bills to carry out this program when they were pending in




the Legislature.  The proposed billion dollar bond issue was




carefully reviewed at the June meeting of our Board  of Directors,




and the Board unanimously voted to endorse this referendum pro-




posal .




          I emphasize our support of this program because of  the




charges frequently made that business and industry are not in-




terested in programs for water purification.   I can  assure you

-------
                                                               387






that no segment of our economy has a greater Interest in a




bountiful supply of pure water than does business in New York




State,  Our lakes and streams are essential for an adequate sup-




ply of pure water for industrial uses, for water supply for ag-




riculture and for domestic purposes, and for recreation.  New




York business has a vital interest in all of these uses of our




State's water resources.




          Two bills passed by our Legislature last spring give




special tax treatment to facilities constructed for disposal of




industrial wastes.  These should encourage industry to take




steps to do its part in this program.




          As we understand matters, there is general agreement




on the need for an adequate program to eliminate pollution of




our water resources.  The basic question would appear to be the




extent to which responsibility lies with the state and its local




governments or with the Federal Government.  As of now, New York




has gone ahead with legislation to establish a broad program to




ensure pure water.  In setting up this program, it has recognized




Federal interest and gone beyond the ordinary concept of a state-




local program.  It proposes a three-way program, with cost ap-




portioned 40% to local governments, 30% to be borne by the State




government and 30% from Federal funds.  Since the Federal Govern-




ment now has a ceiling of $600,000 on grants to any individual




municipality, the present law will not permit Federal payment




of 30% of the cost.  New York, therefore, is taking a calculated




risk.  Of the billion dollar bond issue, $500 million would be

-------
                                                               388







used to finance the State's  share,  and  the  other half  to  pre-




finance a hoped-for Federal  share  on  a  30%  basis.




          Frankly,  we feel  that  the Federal Government is short-




changing New York and other  industrial  States,   The $600,000




ceiling on grants to municipalities means that  the  Federal




Government contributes only  a trifling  sum  toward the  cost of




sewage treatment facilities  in populous areas where the need for




such facilities is  greatest.  For  example,  in  the Buffalo area




alone adequate facilities for sewage  treatment  and  disposal will




cost $33 million.  On an equitable basis, the Federal  Government




should contribute $9.9 million,  but this year  the entire  State




has been allotted only $5,270,000,,




          Since there seems  to be  general agreement that  a water




pollution problem exists, and since New York State  already has




completed the initial steps  to cope with it on  a statewide




basis, the question remaining is the  relationship of the  Federal




Government to this  program.   In  our judgment,  this  should be a




partnership arrangement with the State  having  the deciding voice.




The Federal Government should certainly have its say,  but inas-




much as it is our State Government which sets  the pattern for




both state and local policy, we  believe that the State should




have the determining voice.   It  should  be kept  in mind that




legislation creating and controlling  our local  governments is




a state responsibility.




          While the Federal  Government  has, of  course, a  direct

-------
                                                               389







Interest in international and interstate waters, the area in




which the sources of most of our streams are located is under




the direct control of the State and its municipalities.  Our




State already has set adequate standards, but there is  no reason




why it should not cooperate with the Federal Government regarding




international and interstate waters.  However, since the area to




be controlled is so largely intrastate, we believe the  State




still should have the dominant voice in determining the program.




It is acquainted at first hand with local needs, is more flexible,




and more directly responsive to the special problems of local




areas.  Thank you.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Thank you very much.   Are there any




questions or comments on this?  Mr. Schermerhorn, while you are




up there, I fully sympathize with your New York approach.  But I




will say this:  it seems to me that part of the approach that you




are submitting is to ask the Federal Government to raise its




sights and then to ask the Congress to appropriate more money for




pollution control.  Perhaps, you have your own way of doing




business or your own approach here in New York,  but I have ap-




peared before the Congress many, many times.  I will leave this




to your judgment; I wonder if you think that this is the kind of




proposal that will sway the Congress--that in our judgment this




should be a partnership arrangement, that is, partnership between




the State and Federal Government, with the State having the




deciding voice, the State should have the determining voice.

-------
                                                               390







          If you're going before the Congress to ask for a lot of




money and you want to talk about a partnership arrangement and in




the next phrase you say,  "with the State having the deciding




voice," think about a Congressman from another State—the mid-




west or the far west.  How is he going to take it?




          The next point  is,  consider what the Congress will




think when you say, frankly,  "We think that the Federal Government




is shortchanging New York and other industrial States  because




they have not provided this money."




          Now, you are going  to have a program if your bond issue




passed, and I hope it does this fall.  You haven't  had it up to




now.   The Federal Government  has had a financial assistance pro-




gram since 1956.  I don't recall anyone in the Federal Government




saying that because your  State did not have a matching program as




many other States have, that  New York was shortchanging the




people of this country.




          Do you think that you can ask the Congress to meet you




halfway if you plan to go ahead with this program?   Is the ap-




proach, then, to go to the Congress and say that the Federal




Government, in Light of the record, is shortchanging the people




of industrial States?  And that we have to have a partnership




arrangement with the States having the deciding voice?  This may




be the way to sway the Congress, I don't know.




          MR.  SCHERMERHORN:   While I'm not an expert on

-------
                                                               391
pollution, I do know something about partnerships and in the




proposal, if the State provides 70% of the capital and the




Federal 30%, it would seem only right to me that the 70% should




have the dominant voice.  (APPLAUSE)




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  However, I look at your arithmetic




and I don't read it that way.  You say 30 percent State, 30 per-




cent Federal and 40 percent local.




          MR. SCHERMERHORN:  I was talking about the State and




30 and 40 are 70, isn't that true?




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  If you can speak for all the mayors




and assume Mayor Wagner will endorse you and think there is a




complete identity and correlation between the State and munici-




palities, you may very well be correct.




          MR. SCHERMERHORN:  May very well be correct provided




the proposal which was the basis for the statement is carried.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Yes.  Are there any further comments




or questions.  Thank you very much.  Mr0 Hennigan?




          MR. HENNIGAN:  The next speaker will probably be one




of the strongest advocates in the State of New York for clean




water.  Everyone around here surely must know him, Stan




Spisiak, Chairman of the Water Resources Committee.  (APPLAUSE)




          MR. SPISIAK:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  First off, I




am Stanley P. Spisiak, as many of you know, Chairman of the




Water Resources Committee of the New York State Conservation




Council, a group of private individuals in excess of 500,000




to a million people.  We even include in that group some of our

-------
                                                               392







fine ladies who are associated with some of the organizations and




who are interested in conservation.




          Before I get started, I would like to clarify one thing




in the event that any of my Canadian friends aren't here.   It is




not the intention, I am sure, of this group or anyone else to




annex several hundred square miles  of Canada as this map would




indicate.  The map is also in error, and I would not feel  cor-




rect in talking about what I'm going to talk about without




noting the grave omission of the most polluted stretch of  water




that exists on the earth today which was not included because




either the acid that exists in that river ate the paint off the




map or the men were ashamed to list the Buffalo River, which




flows just outside of Buffalo.




          Now with that introductory remark, I would like  to




start on my statement.




          By now, you have heard so much about the deterioration




of our waters and the present and potential danger to our  health,




both physical and financial, that anything I might say would




only be repetitious, as facts always seems to have that tendency.




          I do, however, believe that if for no other reason,




except for the seniority I have acquired in the past quarter of




a century, you will grant me the opportunity to make a few ob-




servations based on my personal experiences as a pollution




"Watch Dog" and "Crusader" for clean waters.  I might add  that




seniority is something that you gain sometimes when you are no

-------
                                                               393







longer physically able to do the things that you'd like to  do.




This is what seniority seems to be with me.   I'm either too old




or everything I want to do is illegal or indecent, including,




perhaps, what I've got to say here.




          Now, you have heard many people talk here today.   Many




of these people who have talked have had both the opportunity and




the authority to have done something to halt the progress of pol-




lution.  The fact that whatever was done or  was not done by them




was ineffectual is very, very apparent.  Someplace, these people




have failed.  If I seem critical, I intend to be that  way.   I




offer no apologies, for I would serve no purpose if I  would act




as the conscience of the people and refrain  from making comment




on this score.




          I do not intend, however, that I be misunderstood.




For instance, the Chairman of the New York State section, who is




sitting here today, is a valued and trusted  friend who has




proven himself time and time again, and I wouldn't want him to




take any credit for what has happened previously by the Pollution




Control Board and, subsequently, the group which has been trans-




ferred to what Mr. Hennigan heads now.  I exempt Mr. Hennigan




exclusively from any remarks I may make as to the effectiveness




or the ineffectiveness of the program of the State of  New York.




I say that at the outset.  I don't pull any other punches  in




regard to what I have to say.




          Federal pollution laws enacted in 1948 were  designed

-------
                                                               394







to overcome many of the still  existing  problems.  However,  like




most legislation of this type,  it  has been  so watered  down  by




amendments and weakened by lack of enforcement,  that at  best  it




has served only as a token of  law.




          One of its chief provisions was to encourage the  States




to establish pollution control  programs and agencies of  their




own, with the threat that if the States did not,  the Federal




Government would institute its  own controls.




          Under the threat of  this law, the State of New York




brought into being the biggest  fraud since  P. T.  Barnum  brought




out the Cardiff Giant--mainly,  the so-called "Water Pollution




Control Act" and the Board created by it.




          During the fifteen years of its existence it had  become




a shield and a protection for  the  major polluters--the very




groups it was supposed to eliminate.




          At the time it was created, we were told--and  this  was




told to us within a matter of  100  yards of  this very building at




the State Office Building, and  well I remember the day--we  were




told that no new pollution would be permitted, and all existing




pollution sources at that time  would be given a  reasonable




length of time to correct their deficiencies.




          I ask you what is a  "reasonable length  of time?"  All




of the people in this room don't have the same concept of what




time is, but in this particular instance, you would assume  that




certainly ten years would be within reason.  We have had fifteen




years.

-------
                                                               395







          The law also provided for protection against violators,




with the power of prosecution in the hands of the State Health




Department and the Attorney General.  Although hundreds of vio-




lations are occurring daily throughout the 62 counties of this




State, there have been only 80 cases or 5 1/3 cases per year




which have even been prosecuted in those 15 years.




          I ask you to consider those figures and consider them




seriously in the light of the fact that it has been proven time




and time again that to spare the rod is to spoil the child and




oh, how you can tell that, if you go up that slippery, oily




river.  As Mr. Stein indicated, those boats seem to slide.  I




didn't realize why we slid so well while we traveled that course,




and that course is being taken by many people these days.




          While it may be true that laws in and of themselves,




even when vigorously enforced, do not correct as serious a prob-




lem as the one in which we find ourselves.  It would, indeed,  be




an "inspiration for correction" if some of the violators who at




this moment are violating our laws, such as the Federal Rivers




and Harbors Act. for one, in accordance with the provisions of




that Act, were placed behind prison bars.




          If this sounds drastic, it is only necessary to look at




the condition of this private sewer not listed on here but called




the "Buffalo River," for it is and will continue to be loaded




with oil and petroleum waste in addition to a multitude of com-




plex chemicals.

-------
                                                               396



          For the moment,  let  us  just  consider  the  oil  waste,  for

this is covered by the Rivers  and Harbors Act which very clearly

spells out that all the provisions of  the law are adequate.

There is no deficiency in  that law,  I  found  nothing wrong with

the law.

          If the Governor  or Health Commissioner, who have al-

ready spoken, are serious  about abating  our  pollution within this

State, let them start the  action—to put in  jail  (as the law pro-

vides) the general plant managers of say Socony Vacuum  Oil

Company, or the equal official of the  Republic  Steel Corporation,

whichever is proven the more guilty or anyone found guilty.

Because all of the thousands of gallons  of oil  waste that are  in

the Buffalo River, in direct violation of both  State and Federal

laws, can be traced to their doorsteps.

          It's lying right there  and if  you  want  to be  there,  you

can be there and catch it  coming  out.  Now I had a  discussion
                                                        \
here earlier with Colonel  Neff, and I  found  no  argument with him

on this score.  He says the law is not clear enough.  Even if  I

see it coming out of their plant, I have no  authority to assume

that it is coming from anywhere except from  the sewer line.  Now,

it will only be necessary  to determine where the  guilt  lies,,

          Unlike the Niagara River,  there is no convenient

flushing action provided by river currents.  That evidence re-

mains for all of you to see, and  I urge  you  to  take that trip  if

you can stomach it.

-------
                                                               397







          We must start somewhere to reverse this "express train




of disaster/1 on which we are all riding.  For too many years the




Federal Government has permitted the States to handle their pol-




lution problems in "good faith."  The State of New York has




proven to be a "State of no faith."




          Ignored for too many years by our own governors, be-




trayed by our Health Department, which has the needed tools of




enforcement, but because of an unholy alliance with industry, it




has not made any serious attempt of enforcing these laws and by




so doing, has encouraged a total disregard of abatement projects




which might have been undertaken.  Although I am fully aware of




the moneys that are being spent by the industries in the Niagara




Frontier, I shed no tears for this, for I don't think any ex-




penditure of money is going to solve our problem, contrary to




what many people will say.




          We need money to implement the programs, but we need




more than that--men, and I use that word "men" in its old-




fashioned sense, men who will face up to their responsibilities




and who will do what is needed, not because the law says so, but




because their own conscience dictates the need and necessity of




taking steps heretofore considered unnecessary.  These are the




things we're going to have to do.




          I might add that I am not unaware of the claims of the




Health Commissioner that the Buffalo River has been improved to




the extent that there is a 60 percent reduction of pollutants.

-------
                                                               398
I would like to know what he used as  a yardstick--60  percent  of




what?




          We have never known what the condition is.   If  he has




some secret weapon or some secret way of  knowing what there was




so that he can say we removed 60  percent  of  what there was, I




would like to know.  Under the new provisions,  as outlined  by




Mr. Hennigan, maybe I will be able to get some  of the informa-




tion that up to now has been denied me even  by  Executive  Order




within the State Health Department and the Conservation Depart-




ment, copies of which I have with me  available  for anybody  to




see.




          Since most of the waters of New York  State  eventually




flow into adjoining States, such  as Pennsylvania or even  worse,




into international waters, such as the Great Lakes, we cannot




expect the Federal Government to  remain disinterested in  the




problems we are creating.




          Our good neighbors in Canada have  a right to protest




the daily violations of the International Treaty of 1909.  I




have presented a number of these  protests in writing, from  our




good Canadian neighbors, to Senator Muskie's Committee, and it




is my hope that they will not ignore  these protests.




          And those of you who have traveled the Maid of  the




Mist and have traveled it to the  Canadian shore and seen  the




brown foam, the badge of indecency, the badge of betrayal and




distrust which we, the American people, are  giving daily  to our

-------
Canadian neighbors, an unwarranted award.  I assure you, I know




what I am talking about.  If you haven't taken that trip, take




that trip.  Go up to the Seagram Tower and pay 10 cents to look




through the giant telescope that they have and turn it on to a




beautiful, beautiful sewer outlet discharging raw sewage through




an outlet in excess of 8 to 10 feet in diameter, and watch the




Maid of the Mist go by within a matter of a few feet of this raw




sewage discharge and you'll know what was talked about here




earlier.




          In addition to these letters, it was also my privilege




to turn over nearly 100 other letters and photos showing the




pollution of our bathing beaches along the shores of Lake Erie.




          There are people here today who took some of those




pictures.  I wouldn't even dare tell you the full explanation of




what these pictures were and how dramatically they showed what




our children have to walk through in order to reach the outer




reaches of the water in order to be able to swim.




          Many of these letters that I gave to the committee




told of mothers carrying on their shoulders their children so




that they could reach what x\?as relatively clean water and carry




them through this human waste which extended many feet out from




shore, combined with industrial pollutants to the extent that it




is impossible to find what the intermingled material fully is.




          These are the things that perturb me, and if I sound




a little bit perturbed, I assure you that I am more perturbed

-------
                                                               400
than I am capable of showing.




          The general theme of these letters was almost a




prayerful plea for help.   These people don't know where to turn.




None of us do, for we have tried every avenue available to us,




and this request, I wish  to repeat to you,  the gentlemen of this




panel, at this time please—if it is within your power to start




Federal action which may  assist us in reclaiming at least a part




of what we have already lost,  I beg you,  I  beg you in the name  of




decency, to do something  about this.




          Perhaps we'll have to get down  on our knees and bend




our knees and adjust our  elbows and beg God to help us, for cer-




tainly man has so far proven that he is not interested in helping




us unless there is an awful lot of money  involved.




          While I must agree,  and I do agree with some things




that the State of New York is  doing, with the Governor's pro-




posed bond issue and these Federal funds  that are needed to com-




plete adequate domestic sewers, I believe that we even need more




the benefits of Federal pollution control as proposed in the




Pollution Control Law (S. 3),  drafted by  Senator Edmund Muskie




and now waiting for passage by the House  of Representatives, for




only Federal control will solve our national and international




problems.




          I am very happy that the ladies who were so effective




in getting letters written are here today and that they will un-




dertake a program of urging, by all means available to us, that

-------
                                                               401







the members of the United States House of Representatives pass




the pollution bill as drafted by the Senate, particularly Senator




Muskie's version, and not the watered-down, worthless bill that




the House is considering of its own merit,,




          I urge you now to disregard the concern expressed by




Governor Rockefeller that Federal enforcement would be a duplica-




tion of State enforcement.  The Governor may not know it, but




New York State doesn't have enforcement--you can't duplicate




something that doesn't exist.  Two of nothing is still nothing,




so how can you duplicate something that doesn't exist.




          And I am ready at any time to prove my charges, in any




place and at any time, with or without the assistance of anyone,




and as for the invasion of States Rights, which it is claimed




might happen with Federal controls, I urge you to consider some-




thing more important, and that is People's Rights.  We have some




rights.  We urge and ask you now to assist us in securing the




type of legislation we need, but more importantly, to implement




the actions required to enforce the laws that we have.  We have




adequate laws, but it appears to me, in most instances, the laws




were drafted to serve a purpose, that the Water Pollution Control




Act was drafted for one purpose only, to fool the public.  It has




achieved its goal.  It has done so well that most of the people




of the State of New York have sat in complacency with a total




faith in a non-existent form of administration.




          Now, if I have sounded a little bit too vehement in

-------
                                                               402






this, I ask you and urge you to consider the fact that I have de-




voted a lot of time to this, and I have indicated earlier today




to an associate of mine that I don't particularly concern myself




with what comes from this group and what comes forth here today.




          I have never heard a finer case presented in the field




of pollution, where many speakers gave no consideration as to




whether they were pleasing the audience and many of the panelists




even questioned some of their own associates in a conscientious




manner.  This, I think, is what we have needed for a long time.




          I have been here 25 years and finally I am graduating




and I'd be very happy to surrender my job to somebody else if we




can find one to do it.  Thank you.  (APPLAUSE)




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Thank you, Mr. Spisiak.  Are there any




questions or comments?  You won't mind just a slight correction,




then.  S. 3 has been promoted.  I think its S.  4.




          MR. SPISIAK:  I'd rather go uphill than down.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  And you know that bill has passed both




the Senate and the House and it's now in conference.




          I don't want to speak for the Corps or for any people




from the Corps here, but I think you made a reference to that oil




pollution and the Corps and I think the record should reflect	




          MR. SPISIAK:  Oh, I'm sure Colonel Neff is quite aware




of that.  At the time, I was quoted as the one stating he should




be thrown in jail.  I have since found reason to state that we

-------
                                                               403







need him right where he is, because I think he'll do a job  for us.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:   He's very good, but let me explain	




          MR. SPISIAK:  This is from his quote, incidentally, but




it's all right.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:   Very good, but let me explain the




state of the Federal law.   The Corps of Engineers, as Colonel




Neff has pointed out, does not have jurisdiction over liquid




wastes coming out of sewers.  Also, the Corps' authority under




the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 has been exercised primarily




with respect to pollutants which interfere with navigation.




There is another law, sir, dealing with oil pollution, which is




called the Oil Pollution Act of 1924.  That is a fine Act except




it has one restriction which limits the jurisdiction of the  law




to tidal waters or where the ebb and flow of the tide is. This




exempts the Great Lakes and its tributaries, and therefore  it is




not within the purview of the Act.




          The Corps of Engineers is also charged with enforcing




that Act.  So I think that other than interferences with naviga-




tion or the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, I don't know




that there is any other Federal responsibility for abating  this,




and I think if you're looking for someone, Mr. Spisiak, whose re-




sponsibility it is to abate oil pollution, it is really we  and




not the Colonel.  He's a very good fellow, but he can only do




what he's authorized to do by law.




          MR. SPISIAK:  I'd like to give you just one instance:




there was a remark made here by a representative of industry

-------
                                                               404







that there have been no known cases  of  cyanide  kills  of  fish or




any other such related incidents.  I would like to cite  that on




July 26, 1953 a cyanide pollution  fish  kill occurred  upstream of




three water intakes supplying one-half  million  people.   The




spill of cyanide was a deliberate  spill by one  of  the industries.




I have the documented photostatic  copies of the entire case, in-




cluding the instructions from the  State Health  Department  to the




State Conservation Department.  Although I was  instrumental in




securing the information for them  and forcing them to find it,




in capital letters it states, "No  information about this is to




be given to Stanley Spisiak" in capital letters all the  way




through.  I rate high with them.




          Now, I am very happy to  offer their own  evidence, this




is not my evidence, this is their  own evidence  which  they did not




realize I received on a death bed  of the head of the  Enforcement




Division, locally stationed here in  Buffalo,  who has  since died,




and I had to keep this information.    I don't




want to see my friends die, but I  have  a lot of other information




which I would be happy to make available.  I have  this case right




here if you would care to have it.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:   Thank you, Mr, Spisiak. You  know, I




have dealt with dissemination of information for a long  time and




if there is any way to assure that you  don't get any  information,




I guess the best way to do it is to  print in capital  letters "Not




to be seen by Stanley Spisiak."

-------
                                                               405






          MR. SPISIAK:  Thank you.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Thank you.  Mr. Hennigan?




          MR* HENNIGAN:  The next speaker is Senator John Doerr,




State Senator John Doerr.




          SENATOR DOERR:  Chairman Stein, gentlemen on the panel,




my name is John Doerr., I am a member of the New York State Senate




and I reside in Buffalo.




          Last February when hearings were being held in




Washington on House Resolution 4264--the water pollution control




bill--I submitted a statement to the House Committee on Public




Works in favor of the bill.  I went beyond endorsement of the




bill to pledge my efforts in behalf of state programs to imple-




ment the federal procedures.




          Published statements of Governor Rockefeller at that




time, however, caused great concern among many members of the




New York State Legislature, that the Governor was not disposed




to take part in a federal anti-water pollution program.  Events




of recent days have served to confirm our fears of last winter.




          The abrupt departure of New York State's key represen-




tative from the conference in Cleveland last week; the Governor's




insistence that New York State will "go-it-alone" on water pollu-




tion control measures; the Governor's insistence during the




Legislative session on the adoption of staggering budget approp-




riations to finance an independent state anti-pollution program--




all of these make it clear that the official posture of New York

-------
                                                               406
State's administration is  one of  stubborn resistance to inter-




state cooperation under federal  co-operation against one of the




most imminent and critical domestic problems facing our nation




today.




          I might add parenthetically that in addition to these




matters, we have the Governor's  own statement of yesterday when




he appeared before the panel. This statement that I have here




was prepared prior to the  Governor's remarks and I have not




changed it.




          In my submission to the Congressional hearing last




February I commented:




          "The problems of water pollution in the eastern end of




Lake Erie are, in some measure,  the result of the lack of—or




ineffective--pollution control by certain communities and indus-




tries in Western New York,,  However, correction of these short-




comings would not really solve the total problem of pollution we




face.  The treasury of the State of New York could be drained to




provide the most modern water treatment facilities and pollution




control systems within the boundaries of the state.  And yet,




our beaches on Lake Erie would still be closed; our industries




would still be starved for clean, cool water and fully 25 per




cent of the waters of Lake Erie  would still be incapable of sus-




taining marine life.




          "The real problem results from the aggregate of com-




munity and industrial effluents  spewed into the entire upper

-------
                                                               407







Great Lakes system.  But Buffalo and the Niagara Frontier do not




suffer alone.  Fully one-third of this nation is dependent in




greater or lesser degree on the preservation of the Great Lakes




as the world's greatest supply of fresh water and as the most




economical route to the nation's heartland for bulk commerce.




          "It is clear, therefore, that the fundamental problem




of pollution in Lake Erie and Lake Ontario cannot be solved by a




competition between Albany and Washington which would be costly




and fruitless.




          "I do not suggest, however, that the states do not have




a proper responsibility in a comprehensive program of water pol-




lution control.  Clearly it is the duty of the individual states




to complement the federal efforts.  It is surely their responsi-




bility to work in harmony with federal programs and to carry out




the planning and intent of measures initiated by federal authori-




ties on a broad, inter-state basis.




          "This means then, that not only must the individual




states be prepared to work hand-in-hand with federal authorities




on measures within their respective borders, it also means that




lines of communication among the states must be established so




that the efforts of each state may be co-ordinated into the total




program."




          Gentlemen, as I see it, the conference in Cleveland




had, among its purposes, the establishment of such lines of com-




munication.  By his departure—without notice—from the con-




ference a full day before its completion, New York's Director of

-------
                                                               408







the Bureau of Water Resource Services, Robert D.  Hennigan,  broke




the communication lines.




          We can only infer that since New York State has only a




relatively short shoreline on the lower end of Lake Erie,




Governor Rockefeller is taking the position that  the major  re-




sponsibility for the cleanliness of the lake lies with the  states




beyond our western border.  Such an attitude is feudal in concept.




          For one thing,  it fails to recognize the direct re-




sponsibility of Western New York communities and  industries for




polluted waters washed back upon the shorelines of Pennsylvania,




Ohio and Ontario following the natural phenomena  known as the




seiche.  A seiche is the  piling up of Lake Erie waters at the




eastern end of the lake by strong northwest winds.




          When the winds  subside these high waters swirl back to




the west, carrying with them for hundreds of miles the effluents




generated all along the Lake Erie Shore from Buffalo to Dunkirk.




          But perhaps more significant is the fundamentally self-




ish and shortsighted attitude implicit in Governor Rockefeller's




point of view.




          New York State  is not an island or a walled city-state,,




We cannot insist that our neighboring states to the west comply




with federal pollution control standards for our  benefit without




being willing, ourselves, to do the same.




          We cannot expect our neighboring states to the west--




and to the east—to respect the double standard of state-federal

-------
                                                               409







relationship inherent in Governor Rockefeller's position.   They




surely will not bend their sovereignty to conform to federal pro-




grams when New York State recognizes no such obligation.




          There might be some merit in the Governor's attitude




if our own state's record of enforcement of existing state pol-




lution control measures had been exemplary.  The sad truth is




that our skirts—and our waters—are not clean.  The recent re-




port of the U.S. Public Health Service specifically identifying




chronic major sources of pollution in Western New York made pub-




lic our shame.  And, as recently as last Sunday, an article in




the Buffalo Courier-Express reported:




          "The Courier-Express study uncovered nobody, at  any




governmental level, who could recall any prosecution of any in-




dustry for water pollution.  A state health official was  asked




if anyone ever had been prosecuted under the 1949 State Water




Pollution Control Act.  'I think they have,' he said.  'But not




around here1."




          Gentlemen, I am as aware as anyone of the dangers of




"big government."  The record shows that in Albany I opposed




this "big government" principle.




          But I think it is a well-established principle  that




services must be performed by that level of government able to




perform them most efficiently and at the least cost.  With this




principle uppermost in mind, it becomes a matter of simple logic




that a program of pollution control in waters which flow past

-------
                                                               410







the boundaries of one or many states must be initiated and regu-




lated on the federal level.   No lower level of government can




meet the test of performing  such a service either efficiently or




at the lowest cost.




          Further, it is my  belief that an anti-pollution program




on the federal level will not be subject to the pressures which




can stifle effective control on the local or state level.




          May I emphasize then, Gentlemen, that the position




taken by Governor Rockefeller and his administration on this is-




sue does not represent a consensus of the State of New York.  As




a member of the New York State Legislature, I join with Congress-




man McCarthy and Senator Kennedy in assuring you that the vast




majority of informed and concerned residents of New York State




do not share the Governor's  interest in seceding from the United




States in this campaign for  clean and healthy water.




          Thank you for this opportunity to present my views




briefly to you, and I am very hopeful that much good will be ac-




complished by the efforts that you people are expending in this




area.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you very much, Senator Doerr,




for a very concise and thorough expression of your views.




          Are there any comments or questions?  If not, thank you




very much sir, and we will be recessed for ten minutes.




(WHEREUPON A SHORT RECESS WAS TAKEN)




          CHAIRMAN STEIN: May we reconvene.

-------
                                                               411







          MR. HENNIGAN:  The next speaker will be Dr. William




Mosher, Commissioner of the Erie County Department of Health.




          DR. MOSHER:  Mr. Chairman, members of the conference




and ladies and gentlemen, I hope I won't have to follow Colonel




Neff as Mr. Spisiak suggested.




          The Erie County Department of Health appreciates this




opportunity to express our views on water pollution as it re-




lates to Lake Erie and the Niagara River.  There is no denying




the fact that a serious pollution problem exists in the western




end of Lake Erie*




          However, what is open to debate is how much pollution




exists, what has been done and what is being done to prevent  and




reduce pollution, and who should have the authority and enforce-




ment responsibility.  I think that I am the first person that is




going to take the part of saying that the local government should




have more enforcement responsibility than it has at the present




time.




          In the recent public hearings of the water pollution




problem in Erie County, much has been said about the nature and




extent of the pollution of the Niagara River and the western  end




of Lake Erie,,  However, there has been little said about the  ef-




forts to control pollution except by the State Health Department




and by industry.




          In my presentation, I will not take the time to lisi.




industrial and pollution sources which have been presented by the

-------
                                                               412







Public Health Service,  the New York State Department  of Health




and others, nor will I  cite the control activities  of local  indus-




try in cooperation with the State Department  of Health and the




Erie County Department  of Health.




          I should like to discuss briefly some of  the accom-




plishments of Erie County in water pollution  control, particu-




larly as it relates to  domestic pollution, and also some  of  the




special problems we face in Erie County.   It  is also  my intention




to define the role of the local health department in  control ac-




tivities as I see it.




          This Department has always considered water pollution




as having the highest priority in its environmental health pro-




gram.  In 1948, when the Department was organized,  the popula-




tion of Erie County was 700,000.  Today,  the  County has a popula-




tion of 1,100,000, so there was added 400,000 which is a  major




city in the short period of about 12 or 14 years.




          This rapid expansion has had a  tremendous impact on




existing sewage disposal systems, including the many  private




systems which have been developed in rural and  suburban areas




since 1945,,  Meanwhile, industrial expansion  and new  technologi-




cal advances have created more serious waste  disposal problems.




          Early efforts of municipalities to  build  new disposal




plants were blocked by a limitation of funds  and inability to




secure public loans.  However, during the past  decade, vigorous




steps were taken by the County and several municipalities to




meet the sewerage demands of our expanding populations.

-------
                                                               413
          A County Sewer Agency was established to encourage de-




velopment of new facilities.  More recently, the availability of




State and Federal financial assistance has encouraged communi-




ties to develop new plants and expand existing services.




          Private sewage disposal systems have been rigidly con-




trolled in Erie County and I would like to digress from my text




at this point, because in 1959 our Department enacted a policy




for the real estate development in this County.  I have had five




or six meetings since that period of time with town officials,




builders, real estate developers complaining about the




stringency of our regulations.




          We can note that this is to a good extent responsible




for the development of sewers and sewer plants in Erie County




since this policy was adopted in 1959, and so I am very dis-




turbed about the statements that I have heard here today and




during the past few months that there has been little enforce-




ment at the local level, because there has been some enforcement«,




          I would like to say that there are few Counties in the




United States which have progressed as fast as Erie County in




the development of needed sewage facilities.




          For example, seven communities have constructed and




placed into operation new, modern sewage treatment facilities.




In addition, three of the larger towns in Erie County, con-




sisting of about 20 percent of the County population, have com-




pleted or are in the process of completing extensive remodeling

-------
                                                               414







of existing facilities to more adequately handle the increased




population.




          The Buffalo Sewer Authority,  at our request and at




great expense, improved their chlorination techniques as to ade-




quately disinfect their sewage, and since they have done that,




which was about six months ago, our counts in the river have im-




proved.




          It is increasingly disturbing to me that the people of




Erie County have been given the impression that little has been




done.  I should like to invite the members of the conference and




the members of the audience to come to  our Department to show you




the records of work and the amount of time our Department devotes




to sewage and water pollution.  I should also like to invite the




Chairman and members of the conference  to not only visit the wa-




terfront of the City of Buffalo and Niagara River, but to visit




some of our new facilities, and I will  personally conduct a tour




around the County to show what has been accomplished.




          We estimate that within the last five years, with




Federal and State support, more than $35 million has been com-




mitted or has been expended on such facilities, not only in-




cluding plants and trunk lines, but sewers to homes, etc.  Now




this is a sizable amount of money which people of Erie County




have largely paid to have this done, and I think if you are a




taxpayer in the sewer district in the town of Amherst or the




town of Cheektowaga or any number of other towns, you must be

-------
                                                               415







aware that you are paying to prevent pollution in your particular




town by the increased tax burden that you are now paying.




          This emphasizes that financial assistance by the State




and Federal Government is the basic need for our communities  if




we are to meet sanitary pollution problems and, therefore, we




are in support of the $1.7 billion legislation for water pollu-




tion control.




          Sewage treatment under normal weather conditions is




not the major problem in most of Erie County because of the re-




cent expansion of treatment facilities.  However, Erie County




has a serious problem of storm relief overflows in some munici-




palities, particularly the City of Buffalo.  We agree with the




Public Health Service that stormwater and sanitary sewer systems




should be separated, as does the State Health Department,  and




this is being enforced in new construction in the State.




          In order to correct the combined sewer system in the




City of Buffalo, it would involve a multi-million dollar under-




taking, perhaps a half billion dollars.  The Public Health




Service has pointed out that the correction of this problem in




the Nation would amount to $20 to $30 billion, which is a  con-




siderable amount of money.




          This is a problem we have inherited and a problem for




which we hope to find a reasonable solution.  Similarly, the




problem of chlorinating and treating the storm relief sanitary




overflows is a matter requiring further study before demanding

-------
                                                               416
actual construction.




          Most of the sewage in the developed areas of Erie




County already passes through the sewege treatment plants except




during rainy periods.




          We will continue to have polluted streams even after a




sewage treatment plant is built to serve every municipality  un-




less these plants are properly designed, constructed, operated




and supervised; unless most of the storm and ground water is re-




moved from sanitary sewers; unless sewer construction and testing




is properly supervised; unless we raaite conditions favorable to




recruit and retain competent personnel to operate and supervise




stream pollution abatement structures.




          Efficiency of plants depends to a large measure on




operation.  Well designed but poorly operated plants pollute




streams.  We need both good design and excellent operation, and




I think these new grants.  We have already processed seven of




these operation and maintenance grants in our Department, which




will certainly help in this regard.




          Another serious problem is the excessive infiltration




and overloading of new sewpge treatment plants by storm and




ground water due to faulty installation of sewer lines.  This




can be prevented by closer supervision of sewer line installation




by municipalities.




          The illegal tying in of roof and footing drains to




sewer lines also contributes to the overloading of plants and

-------
                                                               417






should not be permitted by any municipality.  More intensive sur-




veillance by towns and cities is needed to stop this practice,,




          In my opinion, the local health department must con-




tinue to play the major role in the control of water pollution




in this State, particularly in the metropolitan .counties„  At




the present time, our Department has four sanitary engineers who




devote most of their time to water pollution, a review of sewage




plants, etc. and review of all problems connected with sewage.




          In addition, we have thirteen environmental health




technicians who devote all of their time to private sewage dis-




posal systems.  So you can see that much of the work that is




being done in this County, at least, has to be done by the local




Health Department, unless there is a change in the way things




are going to be done in the future.




          At present, our Department reviews plans for sewerage




systems, supervises the operation of the treatment plants, in-




vestigates quality of water at beaches, conducts stream surveys,




and provides training for operators of treatment plants.




          In addition, the Department recommends approval or dis-




approval of the various State and Federal grants for planning,




construction and operation of sewers and plants.  In addition to




these regular activities, our sanitary engineers assist the




State Health Department and the Public Health Service in various




study programs.  And I would like to add to what Mr. Hennigan




said this morning„  He didn't mention the County Health

-------
                                                               418







Department  when he talked about  the State  surveillance  network,




but our Department collects the samples  for this  network once  a




month and we assign a man to it once a month.




          We are also collecting  samples for the  Public  Health




Service at weekly intervals.




          In the recent study of  Lake Erie  by  the Public Health




Service  and the Lake Study Group  we did cooperate  in a small




way.  Local information and data  is always  available to  both the




State and Federal engineers to facilitate investigation  and




studies.




          We think this should be a three way  street and it




should also come back to us as soon as possible.




          It is important to have even closer  teamwork between




the Federal, State and local agencies, in order to develop a more




effective control program.  We look forward to closer cooperation




between all the involved agencies, namely the  United States




Public Health Service, New York State Department  of  Health,  the




International Joint Commission, the Corps of Army Engineers, and




the local Department of Health.




          At my request, the State Health Department called  two




meetings with representatives of  these agencies present, in  order




that we could have closer relationships  and these two meetings




were held in the last ten months.




          The Erie County Department of  Health has been  handi-




capped in its water pollution control activities   because of

-------
                                                               419







vacancies in its engineering staff, which has limited its ac-




tivities in detailed stream surveillance programs and in its




program to control industrial wastes.




          Local government is finding it increasingly difficult




to compete for sanitary engineers with State and Federal Govern-




ments, which offer higher salaries and more benefits.  Sanitary




engineers are simply not available in today's market  because of




the rapid expansion of programs on all levels.




          Since much of the day to day activities in pollution




control is the responsibility of local health departments, local




government should have a larger share of the available engineering




talent.  The opposite is occurring with greater recruitment by




the State and Federal Government who devote much of their time




to stream studies and research.




          One possible solution is the assignment of engineers to




local health departments by the State Health Department, and my




other recommendation  is that the Public Health Service and the




State Health Department stimulate engineering schools to train




their sanitary engineers, because we have the same shortage in




this field as we have in medicine and other allied public health




professions.




          The local health department is also handicapped  be-




cause the enforcement of Article 12 (Public Health Law) Water




Pollution Control, is the legal responsibility of the State




Health Department, which has been said repeatedly in this con-




ference.

-------
                                                               420







          In the field of industrial  pollution  the local health




agency, in order to be effective,  must  have the legal  authority




to enforce these regulations.   Therefore  the County Commissioner




of Health should be the representative  of the State Health Com-




missioner in this regard, and  this legislation, again, I  believe




was introduced into the Senate and Assembly this year.




          This will require legislation again next  year if this




responsibility is to be delegated  to  the  County Commissioner of




Health.  I would like to say that  responsibility without  au-




thority is not enough, and when there is  trouble in Erie  County.




they call the County Health Commissioner  first, then the  press




and other people who are concerned about  the pollution problem.




          We would agree with  the  Report  of the United States




Department of Health, Education, and  Welfare in regard to recom-




mendations that secondary treatment plants be so designed and




operated as to minimize the removal of  soluble phosphates.  This




will require a continuation of their  outstanding research pro-




gram, so that sound and reasonable procedures may be developed




for such removal.




          However, this Department is not convinced that  secondary




treatment of oxidizing type for the City  of Buffalo is definitely




indicated by the conditions of the Niagara River,  This tre-




mendous river provides a high  dilution  factor for waste and,




thus, supposedly  maintains adequate  dissolved oxygen contents.




Perhaps chemical precipitation would  be indicated.   Of course,

-------
                                                               421







there is horizontal stratification.  Therefore, further studies




of dissolved oxygen and stratifications are needed before such a




decision can be made.




          In conclusion, it seems to me that all of us residing




in the vicinity of the Great Lakes are deeply concerned about




the condition of our water supply  today and in the future.




          There was never a greater public concern about our wa-




ter resources, and we can expect public support and cooperation




in water pollution control activities.  The dollars are being




made available to build new facilities for sewage treatment  and




to assist communities in maintenance and operation of sewage dis-




posal plants.




          Again, the recent $1,700,000,000 legislation for water




pollution control in New York State, approved by the Legislature




and now referred for referendum, is a tremendous step toward




meeting our needs for new facilities in this State and we, of




course, support the referendum.




          Government at all levels has shown its deep concern.




Here in Erie County, the County Executive and the Board of Super-




visors have vigorously supported measures for correction and pre-




vention of pollution of our natural water resources.




          Progress is being made and much more is underway or




planned for the future.  However, progress will be hindered  if




confidence is not maintained in all of the agencies responsible




for control.  The problem is of such magnitude that no agency can

-------
                                                               422







hope by itself to undertake effective enforcement programs with-




out the active participation and cooperation of the other




agencies.




          Finally, industry has made tremendous contributions in




Western New York to pollution control.   In this area,  much more




remains to be done as in the area of sewage pollution.




          Our farmers and agricultural  agencies must also work




with us in the reduction of fertilizer  wastes which reach Lake




Erie and also contribute to algae growth in this Lake.




          The team has been alerted to  the problem and now we




must solve it together.  Thank you.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:   Thank you.  Are there any comments or




questions?




          MR. POSTON:  I would like to  comment, on page seven




where he says, "We would like to agree  with the report of the




United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in




regard to recommendations that secondary treatment plants be so




designed and operated as to minimize the removal of soluble




phosphateso"  I think in our report we  wanted to maximize the




removal of soluble phosphate„




          DR. MOSHER:  Yes, I will correct that.




          MR. POSTON:  I noted down in  your next paragraph you




felt that this was not necessary in the case of Buffalo, because




their effluent goes to the Niagara River,  which did not have a




dissolved oxygen problem.   But I wondered  if we couldn't expect a

-------
                                                               423
similar eutrophication problem over in Lake Ontario  if Buffalo




were permitted to carry on here with a high phosphate concentra-




tion.




          DR<, MOSHER:  May I call on Mr. Stankewich to answer




that question.  He's right here.  Is there any other question




you have for me?




          MR. POSTON:  I don't think so.




          MR. STANKEWICH:  On one of the pages in your report,




you quote 22 percent reduction of Buffalo sewage, and that per-




tains to BOD reduction rather than suspended solids or some of




the others.  The Buffalo plant discharges its effluent into the




Niagara River, and the Niagara River, of course, is a large




river and, of course, there is stratification.  But the total




flow of the river is about 200,000 cubic feet and the amount of




sewage that Buffalo discharges is only about 214.  So, not con-




sidering any stratification, the dilution factor is about one to




a thousand.




          When we talk about BOD, we talk about activated sludge




and secondary oxidation processes, but I don't think it's a




question of BOD, I think it's a question of reducing more sus-




pended solids, and we believe that suspended solids can be re-




duced more by chemical precipitation.  There were some studies




made by Syracuse University about the three best methods




sponsored by New York State for removal....




          MR. POSTON:  You've answered my question I think.  We

-------
                                                               424







feel, though,  that the removal  of  phosphates  is  a very important




part of waste  treatment in the  Great  Lakes  to prevent  this  aging




process, and that any discharge of phosphates adds  to  the total




problem even though the body of water is  large.




          MR.  STANKEWICH:   In other words,  you have to change  the




type of secondary treatment, and secondary  treatment could  con-




sist of chemical coagulation.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:   Now  that we have this audience here,




Dr. Mosher, there is one point  I would like to make.   You did




touch upon a point of this assignment of  qualified  people,  from




the State to the County.




          When you talk about building up local  units  of  govern-




ment, I don't  really know if that's New York  State's policy.




But we in the  Federal Government have these requests coming in




constantly from the States asking  us  to assign people.




          I don't think this view  that I  am expressing in just




mine, sir.  From ny personal knowledge, it's  one that  has been




held by the past three Surgeon  Generals.  They don't look with




favor on the Federal Government acting as a recruiting agency




for the State.  It may solve a  temporary  problem.   But if we're




thinking in terms of a partnership, building  up  State  agencies




and local agencies, you ought to provide  a  permanent structure




for yourself.   Get the salaries and the jobs  and to the recruiting

-------
                                                               425







I know It's hard because we have that, too.  But I think with




that problem being considered by a lot of hands, the determination




has been made that we really don't solve anything by these




temporary assignments.




          DR. MOSHER:  I only ask for it for a temporary period




of time.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  I don't want to prolong this.  I think




we have this rather well documented.  We have found that whenever




we acceded to this and made these temporary assignments, it took




the pressure off, but you didn't get your salaries up and you




didn't get your vacancies filled.  The way to accomplish that is




to press for each organization to build up a maximum staff.  This




is one of those internal, inter-governmental problems which we




may have.  I suggest you talk that over with your State.  I am




almost certain we don't have a difference with this State on




that philosophy.




          MR. HENNIGAN:  The next speaker will be a representative




from the League of Women Voters, Mrs. North or Mrs. Higgins.




          MRS. NORTH:  Mr. Stein and members of the panel.  I am




Mrs. Robert North, Jr., Vice-President of the League of Women




Voters of New York State.  I live in Buffalo.




          I welcome this opportunity to express the concern of




the 88 Leagues throughout the State for New York's critical water




problems.  Mrs. S. D. Higgins will conclude our presentation with

-------
                                                               426







the specific local conditions  in Lake Erie which  have  been




studied by members of the League's Erie  County Council.   These




women are part of the Inter-League Lake  Erie Basin Committee.




          Their investigation  of local pollution  has been re-




peated by many Leagues in many sections  of the States,  in their




Basins.  So alarming were the  conditions they  found that  the




State League fully concurs with the  urgent need for a  program to




clean up New York's waters.  We applaud  Governor  Rockefeller and




a unanimous Legislature for the State's  Pure Water program.  In




the present period of drought, and with  ever increasing domestic,




industrial and recreational demands  for  water,  New York,  we be-




lieve, can no longer tolerate  the pollution of its precious




lakes, streams and rivers.




          From now until the election, the League and  many other




citizen groups will vigorously work  for  the proposition for a $1




billion bond issue to provide  funds  to help municipalities con-




struct the sewage treatment plants so desperately needed.  We




hope for an overwhelmingly favorable vote by the  electorate.  We




recognize, however, the objections which may be raised to New




York State's assuming so high  a percentage of  the cost with no




guarantee that the federal government will make available its




30% share,,  We would wish the  bond issue were  not subject to this




uncertainty, but to postpone the program would be uneconomical  and,




in the present emergency, unthinkable.




          One thing the League of Women  Voters learned early in

-------
                                                               427







its nationwide study of water resources:  water has no regard for




municipal and state boundaries.  The attack on pollution and the




planning for optimum use and development of water resources must




encompass an entire river, or lake basin.  Little is accomplished




if one community installs adequate treatment facilities but its




neighbors continue to pour untreated sewage into the water.




          The Pure Waters program also calls for vigorous enforce-




ment.  We believe that valuable financial assistance to communi-




ties and the tax relief offered to industry must go hand in glove




with an unrelenting enforcement program in fact as well as law.




They cannot be separated if we are to have permanent improvement




in our water quality.




          The November 2nd vote, we hope, will demonstrate the




concern of citizens for the quantity and quality of New York's




waters.  Whatever that vote, communities under the pressure of




federal and state enforcement policies must get about the urgent




business of eliminating the pollution of waters essential to the




very life of this State.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Thank you very much, Mrs. North.  Are




there any comments or questions?  I hope you will bear with me on




this, I would like to make one comment on your statement.




          You have a phrase here which I have heard used over and




over again, and perhaps from your perspective in New York, you




may think this is so, but I ask you to look at it and look at




the facts, where you say "with no guarantee that the federal

-------
                                                               428







Government will make available its  30  percent  share."   I  don't




think anyone, except the proponents of the bond issue  believes




that the Federal Government or the  Congressmen from other States




think that the Federal Government has  a 30 percent  share, at  least




at the present time, in the amounts you're talking  about.




          This may be a hope and this  might be something  that you




might want the Congress to make available, but I don'.t think, and




I know the League always likes to deal in facts, I  think  if we're




talking in terms of a fact, this 30 percent is a pious and what




very well may be a worthwhile hope, but it is  not here yet.




          As far as I can see, the  best you can get in financial




assistance at the present is coming out of this legislation.   The




bill is in conference and the only  thing that  can come out is the




highest amount.  That will provide  a 30 percent grant, up to




$1,200,000 for a project with limited  allocations,  perhaps at the




most $150 million allocated through the country.




          This will not mean this share.  So I think,  at  least in




the terms of the thinking here--and we all should think about




this--while you may think from a moral point of view or an ethi-




cal point of view or from a resource point of view, that  the




Federal Government should contribute a 30 percent share to match




the New York State financing plan,  I don't think there is a




general consensus throughout the country that this  really is  the




Federal Government's share.




          There are a lot of other  plans for financing.  Some




people talk in terms of 50 percent.  As a matter of fact, the

-------
                                                               429







Mayor In Cleveland talked In terms of a highway grant fund of




90 percent Federal money, 5 percent State and 5 percent local,




so I do not think that the whole country is made in the image of




New York State although your governor's plan may be the one that




will prevail.




          But I think we have to look at this very cooly so that




we know precisely what the situation is.  Thank you.




          MRS. NORTH:  Can Mrs. Higgins speak now?




          CHAIRMAN STEIM:  Yes,




          MRS. HIGGIHS:  Gentlemen, as a representative of the




League of Women Voters , I am speaking today for seventy Leagues




here in the five States in the Lake Erie Basin.




          For the past two years, these Leagues, including six




here in Erie County, New York, have been engaged in a study of




the entire Basin's water resources as part of our national water




program which dates back to 1956.  Our statement today will touch




briefly on conditions in the New York State area.




          The preliminary report of our Lake Erie Basin Committee,




issued in the fall of 1964, gives many alarming facts concerning




the deterioration of this region's waters, largely due to pollu-




tion by inadequately treated municipal and industrial wastes.




          Niagara County must cross over into the west channel  of




the Niagara River for its water supply intake, due to polluted




conditions in the east channel.




          In the Buffalo River and the Buffalo Harbor, channels

-------
                                                               430







are clogged with silt and waste solids.   This necessitates costly




dredging and the disposal of dredged materials further contami-




nates the Lake's waters.




          The decline in  commercial lake fishing is at least




partly due to pollution.   Desirable fish for table use have al-




most completely disappeared and present  catches are less valuable.




          Family enterprises which formerly earned a comfortable




living for several members and their dependents are reported now




to bring in less than $2,000 per year.   Water-based recreational




activities are curtailed  along much of Lake Erie's shoreline.




Tourist-serving communities report economic losses through




lessened business and declining property values.




          Formerly desirable vacation cottages stand vacant at




the height of the season  because of polluted waters.   At a time




when other property values in the county are rising,  some




Chautauqua County realtors estimate a 30 percent-50 percent de-




cline in shore properties used for recreational purposes.




          In 1964, county health departments in western New York




closed bathing beaches because of high coliform counts.  So far




in 1965, only the Hamburg Town Beach has been closed for brief




periods.  This was due to algal slime, which is not considered




a health hazard, merely rendering water  recreation an unpleasant




experience.  All area beaches are presently rated safe for




swimming and it is to be  hoped that this rating accurately re-




flects an actual improvement in water quality.

-------
                                                               431






          Public awareness of the pollution problem is growing.




Pollution efforts are increasing.  Here in Erie County, many




previously unserviced communities now have disposal treatment.




However, several inadvisable practices which compound enforcement




problems continue.  Some of these practices are the result of a




compromise with financial realities; some are due to public pres-




sure or indifference.




          Evans Township has incorporated existing storm sewers




into the new $4.15 million system.  This permits raw sewage to




flow into Lake Erie via Big Sister Creek in times of heavy run-




off.  Officials defend this unsatisfactory arrangement as the




only kind hard-pressed taxpayers could afford.




          In North Boston and several other communities, the pub-




lic clamor for water has resulted in the extension of water lines




to areas serviced only by septic tanks, some already malfunc-




tioning.  Lots are often too small in size to assure a safe,




adequate water supply from wells and to accommodate a disposal




system suitable for long-term use.  Where building is concen-




trated, an abundance of water will interfere with proper opera-




tion of these septic tank systems, aggravate existing problems,




and create new ones for everyone downhill and downstream.




          There are some older sub-divisions in the area which




refuse to connect with municipal disposal facilities, even




though the discharge of offensive effluent from their septic




tanks creates nuisance conditions in nearby ditches and creeks.

-------
                                                               432







          We must have better public  understanding of the limita-




tions of all methods of disposal  treatment.   Primary treatment,




such as we have here in Buffalo,  is better than  nothing,  but




secondary treatment is far more efficient  and can be adapted to




remove an appreciable percentage  of the  phosphates which  stimu-




late algal growth.




          Secondary treatment should  be  the  minimum standard for




any area.  Where waterways are sluggish  and  slow-moving,  or  where




population and industry are concentrated,  the efficiency  of




treatment is particularly important.




          While civic officials have  very  properly directed  pub-




lic attention to industrial pollution, similar emphasis has  not




been placed upon the inadequacies of  municipal disposal systems.




The public remains  complacently unaware  of its own contribution




to the problem..




          In any study of the pollution  of Lake  Erie and  indus-




try's role therein, we should acknowledge  three  facts.  First,




industrial vitality is essential  to the  economic well-being  of




this entire area.  Second, industrial pollution  is recognized as




a major cause of the deterioration of our  waterways.   Third, in-




dustrial waste problems frequently change  with product and




process changes, and often cannot be  solved  without extensive




research.




          It should be pointed out that  certain  industries,




some of them cited  as polluters,  have made efforts to improve

-------
                                                               433






conditions, expending considerable sums for waste treatment  mea-




sures.  This is a beginning—but only a beginning.   Additional  ef-




forts on a far greater scale must be made if conditions  are  to  be




improved.




          Where compliance with the pollution control  law is




lacking, where clean-up orders are disregarded,  where  there  is




stalling or foot-dragging by any polluter, whether  industrial,




municipal, or individual, strict enforcement measures  must be




taken.




          Preferably this should be done by local or State of-




ficials.  When action is not taken at either of  these  levels,




the Federal Government must exert its authority.  The  Federal




Government should not be regarded as the enemy of the  States.




We are convinced that if the localities, States, and interstate




agencies get on with the job of cleaning up the  waters,  they




need not worry about Federal interference.




          Municipal and industrial pollution of  Lake Erie and  its




tributaries is an undeniable fact.  Present conditions would not




exist if pollution control laws were enforced.  An unbiased  ap-




praisal of all the reasons for lack of enforcement is  needed.




          Before any enforcement program by any level of govern-




ment can be successful, there must be public realization of  the




urgent necessity for strict enforcement, for no laws are en-




forceable without widespread public acceptance.   Such a climate




is only now being created by citizens  groups, the news media,

-------
                                                               434
and by public conferences  such as  this.




          We know what the problem is.   We know the sources of




pollution.  We already know how to correct much of what is  wrong.




We have the intellectual and technical  capability to solve  the




problems that are blocking progress.  What we do need is a  grim




determination to tackle the job and see it through.  It is  time




for co-operative, co-ordinated, intensified action by all levels




of government, by industry, and by the  citizens themselves.




(APPLAUSE)




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:   Thank you very much for an excellent,




specific and detailed statement.  Are there any questions?   Mr.




Morr?




          MR. MORRi  Mrs.  Higgins  or Mrs. North, individually or




you might in representing the League of Women Voters, do you feel




then as was read in both your presentations , that there is  a need




for cooperation and unity in financing  as well as research?




          We all feel we know the  problem is upon us.  Do I de-




tect, though, that you both feel either individually or repre-




senting the League of Women Voters, that massive infusions  of




dollars are needed and that it would be your recommendation that




the conferees consider these infusions  to come in large part from




the Federal agency that might best be involved?




          MRS. NORTH:  The National League testified of its con-




cern for urban areas and the costs that were upon them, but we




have not studied and we don't have a position on the raising of

-------
                                                               435






this 30 percent ceiling.  There hasn't been any study or any




position taken on that nationally.  It's a nation-wide problem,




of course,




          MR, MORR:   Do you note a need for Federal participa-




tion financially to a larger degree or much larger than we find




today?




          MRS. NORTH:  Yes,, we think so.




          MR0 MORR:   Thank you very much.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  If there are no further comments or




questions, Mr. Hennigan.




          MR. HENNIGAN:  The next speaker  will be Mr.  John




Pillion, former Congressman in this area.




          MR. PILLION:  Mr. Chairman and other distinguished mem-




bers of this conference panel, my name is  John Pillion, resident




of Hamburg, New York, and I appear today as a citizen  and inter-




ested taxpayer of the State of New York,




          I must confess that I have a personal interest in the




waters of Lake Erie.  I was born on the shores of Lake Erie in




Ohio too many years  ago.  I live on the shores of Lake Erie.  I




spent a great deal of my childhood swimming in the waters of




Lake Erie and I have fond recollections of those days, so I am




keenly interested in and have an unusual affection for Lake Erie.




          Congressman John Dingell of Michigan made the fol-




lowing statement during the debate on the  Water Pollution Con-




trol bill in the House of Representatives  on April 22nd of this

-------
                                                               436







year and I quote from page 8398 of the Congressional Record:




          "I do, however, pay richly deserved tribute to some of




the highly capable people in the Public Health Service—like Mr.




Murray Stein—who certainly is deserving of enthusiastic acclaim




for his splendid work in this field."




          Mr. Chairman, I concur in this recognition of the dedi-




cated public service performed by all of those men who took part




in producing the excellent report before us, and I also recognize




the public service of the gentlemen who are now sitting on this




panel.




          This report on the extent of the pollution in Lake Erie




and the Niagara River is a comprehensive, scientific and technical




base for the actions needed to reverse the accelerating putrefeca-




tion of Lake Erie.




          An added merit of this report is that it is coupled




with this conference which marks the initiation of legal pro-




ceedings to require compliance with our anti-pollution laws in ac-




cordance with Section 466 of Title 33 of our U. S. Code.




          Lake Erie is in dire need of immediate relief from pol-




lution.  The longer we wait, the greater the economic damage be-




comes and the greater the cost of the restoration of high quality




water in Lake Erie becomes.




          Mr. Chairman, there appears to be some divergence of




opinion as to the rights and responsibilities that relate to the




problem of pollution control on Lake Erie and the Niagara River,

-------
                                                               437







It might clarify the issues to summarize and delineate these




rights and responsibilities.




          Legal title and ownership of the underwater lands, the




fish life in Lake Erie, and the waters of Lake Erie and the




Niagara River, adjacent to the New York State land boundary are




vested in the people of the State of New York.




          The United States Congress has repeatedly affirmed its




policy of recognizing the primary rights and responsibilities of




the States over its adjacent waters including that of Lake Erie




and the Niagara River.




          However, the State of New York does not possess exclu-




sive jurisdiction over the waters of Lake Erie and the Niagara




River.  These waters are both interstate waters and international




boundary waters.  Under the treaty of 1909, entered into by the




United States and Great Britain, it was stipulated that neither




the United States nor Canada shall pollute these waters to the




damage of the other nation.




          The exercise of a dual pollution regulation by the




Federal Government does not displace, but supplements New York




State's primary power and responsibility in this field, and this




conference is a proper and legitimate exercise of Federal power




and responsibility.




          The current report of the Public Health Service indi-




cates that more than 75 percent of the pollutants in Lake Erie




come from sewage discharges.  The report also indicates that the

-------
                                                               438







States of Michigan and Ohio  are the  major  contributors  to  the ex-




cessive pollution of  Lake Erie.




          The following figures indicate the  ratio  of pollution




contributions of Michigan, Ohio and  New York  to Lake Erie,  not




Niagara River:   Michigan, for example,  puts in  solids of




9,658,000 pounds, Ohio 2,952,000,  New York only 100,000; in the




case of phosphates, the inputs are Michigan 94,000  pounds,  Ohio




64,000 pounds,  New York 4800 pounds.




          New York State thus contributes  less  than one percent




of the suspended solids pollutants and  less than  three  percent




of the phosphate pollutants  to Lake  Erie.  This record  refutes




the charges that New  York State has  been grossly  lax in the con-




trol of pollution. However, New York State should, and I  am sure




it will, fully cooperate toward a  comprehensive program to attain




a high quality water  content for Lake Erie.




          This report gives  the following  reduction of  Bio-chemi




cal Oxygen Demand (BOD) pollutants in the  Erie-Niagara  Basin,




which is what we are  concerned with  primarily here  today.




          Attica reduces BOD of its  sewage by 90  percent,  Arcade




by 90 percent, Orchard Park  by 87  percent, Tonawanda by 12 per-




cent and Buffalo, according  to this  report, by  22 percent.




          The report  appears to be in error concerning  the ef-




fectiveness of operation of  the Buffalo Sewer Authorities  Plant.




Its 1963-1964 report  indicates a 32  percent removal of  BOD pol




luting solids instead of the reported 22 percent.

-------
                                                               439







          The Chairman, Honorable Anthony J. Naples and the Sewer




Authority members have expressed their intent to re-survey their




operations to determine the fiscal feasibility of a secondary




treatment plant to increase the effectiveness of its operations.




          Niagara Falls has an effective rate of less than 10




percent removal of BOD, for it is plagued by a very complex prob-




lem of excessive chemical loads, and Niagara Falls is in the




process of completing plans for a new treatment plant and is




awaiting moneys from either the State or Federal Government.




          The City of tackawanna is removing approximately 60




percent of its BOD with a primary treatment plant.  Mayor Orzech




and the Common Council are making a preliminary survey to upgrade




this plant to a removal capacity of about 90 percent of BOD at a




cost of approximately $900,000.




          It is manifestly just and proper that all communities




be required to make an equal contribution in the removal of




sewage pollutants as expressed by BOD solids removals.




          The Public Health Service has correctly analyzed the




most effective, economic and immediate relief from excessive




pollution in its first all-important recommendation--that all




communities be required to upgrade sewage treatment from primary




to a secondary biological treatment, just as the distinguished




ladies here, representing the League of Women Voters, advocate.




          Primary treatment gives an average BOD removal of




about 33 percent.  A good secondary treatment plant will remove

-------
                                                               440







about 90 percent of BOD pollutants.   In fact, tt is an economic




waste not to upgrade sewer systems from primary treatment with a




pollutant removal of 32 percent to a secondary treatment with a




pollutant removal of 90 percent.




          Just let me give you an example.   The replacement cost




of the sewage disposal plant and the interceptor sewers and




pumping stations of the City of Buffalo is  about $35,000,000.




The replacement cost of the collection sewer lines is about




$75,000,000 in Buffalo.  This total  investment of $110,000,000




produces a BOD pollutant removal of  only 32 percent.   A secondary




treatment plant for Buffalo would cost a maximum of $20,000,000,




probably in the neighborhood of $15,000,000, and produce a 90




percent BOD removal or an additional 58 percent removal over the




32 percent and in addition to the 32 percent now being removed




in the primary treatment.




          The pollutant removal of a secondary treatment plant at




Buffalo would, thus, be ten times as productive per dollar in-




vestment as the present primary sewage treatment plant, otherwise




you would be getting a benefit cost  ratio of more than ten to one




over the present investment in your  primary sewage plant.




          Now, Mr. Chairman, no amount of research, recommenda-




tion, conferences, engineering plans or designs will construct




the needed pollution control and remedial structures.  Only




money, raised by taxes, will build the necessary sewers and




treatment plants.

-------
                                                               441







          Under present law, New York State contributes nothing




to sewage construction.  The Federal Government's contribution




is so small that it amounts to next to nothing.   As a conse-




quence, the overburdened and overtaxed homeowner is required  to




carry the full burden of sewage construction costs.




          Recognizing the inability of the taxpayer to assume the




additional burden of these costs and the injustice of this  local




and excessive burden upon the homeowner, Governor Rockefeller




prepared and initiated a most farsighted, constructive and  prac-




tical program to solve the critical problem of sewage and pollu-




tion treatment.




          Under the plan, New York State would bond itself  to the




extent of $1 billion to finance a 30 percent outright contribu-




tion of $500,000,000 by New York State to the local governments




and another $500,000,000 contribution to pre-finance anticipated




Federal contributions over the next five years.




          The balance of $700,000,000 or 40 percent of the  total




cost of $1.7 billion for sewage construction up to the year 1970




would be met by the local governmental units, but this only ap-




plies to sewage plants, outflow sewage and intercepting sewers.




We must remember the local homeowner still must pay for the




plumbing and the lines to the street and the other connecting




sewers, so the homeowner is still paying a large, large share of




any needed sewage and pollution control measures.




          Now, the Governor's plan was approved and enacted by

-------
                                                               442







the Democratic controlled legislature, and I trust that it will




be approved by the electors of this State in this fall's election.




          Mayor Locher of Cleveland, in the hearings held in Ohio,




recently approved Governor Rockefeller's program and recommended




that the State of Ohio enact the same type of legislation.




          Recently there have been certain public officials who




have deliberately fostered the false public impression that the




Federal Government has enacted legislation committing the Federal




Government to a program of substantial Federal aid to the New




York State citizens for sewage treatment and pollution prevention.




Nothing could be farther from the truth.




          Existing Federal law enacted in 1961 authorizes Federal




aid of $100,000,000 for the present fiscal year 1966 and the same




amount for the next fiscal year of 1967-  That is the law.  Under




this law. New York's share is 5.4 percent or $5,400,000 per year,




and New York pays 13.9 percent of all Federal taxes.




          New York has 10 percent of the Nation's population.  It




receives back under this program and most Federal programs, in




fact, on the average,  it receives back under Federal aid programs




$1 for every $2,50 it  pays into the Federal Treasury.




          I voted against this bill in 1961 because it is funda-




mentally unjust and it constitutes a political raid on the New




York State taxpayers,  produced by the power politics of our




United States Congress.




          Federal aid  at 30 percent of the cost to meet New

-------
                                                               443






York's pollution abatement needs amounts to $500,000,000 over the




next five years.  At the present rate of $5,400,000 of Federal




aid per year, it would be about 100 years before the Federal




Government would contribute its share of funds needed by New




York communities on the basis of 30 percent that it would need




between now and the year of 1970, five years from now.




          This year, the House and Senate passed different ver-




sions of a bill to amend the Federal pollution aid program for




fiscal years 1966 and 1967.  Under the House bill, another




$50,000,000 was authorized for 1966 and 1967 to be distributed




on a population basis,,  But this additional authorization has




been stuck in the conference between the House and the Senate,




they being unable to agree upon this.  And even if it were passed,




it is too late for an appropriation to be placed in the 1966




budget, so that the probability is that there will be no money




even if the bill is passed for 1966.  And since it only applied




for one more year, 1967, the additional $50 million will only




cover 1967.  It's only a one- year commitment for one year au-




thorization.




          In fact, the basic $100,000,000 per year anti-pollu-




tion authorization has been reduced to $91,000,000 by the Senate




and that is stuck also in conference between the House and  the




Senate Appropriation Committees.




          The best New York can hope for, if all the  factors




that are helpful would come through, the best that New York State

-------
                                                               444







can hope for is $10,000,000 of Federal  aid in the one year of




1967 under present legislation.  Even with this increase,  it




would take 50 years to meet the 30 percent Federal share of New




York State's fiscal pollution prevention requirements„




          There is a joker in the present law limiting  Federal




aid to $600,000 for a single project.  The pending bill, if it




passes, would increase that limitation  to $1,200,000 for a single




project,,




          Thus, if Buffalo were to decide to build a secondary




sewage plant to cost $20,000,000 or Niagara Falls decided  to




build a combined primary and secondary  plant to cost $20,000,000,




each of these cities would be limited to a mere $600,000 under




Federal law and only $1,200,000 if the  pending bill is  passed.




          This Federal policy discriminates cruelly against




larger cities where the pollution is most prevalent and most




critical„




          The United States Public Health Service research has




proven that pollution prevention can be controlled in large cities




at a cost of one-half or one-third or one-fourth of that in




smaller cities.  The bottleneck in pollution control lies  in the




vacillations and power-politics that exists in the United States




Congress,   It has failed to realistically face up to and solve




the financial and health problems inherent in pollution control.




          Now, it takes anywhere from four to seven years to




make economic feasibility studies, preliminary plans, surveys and

-------
                                                               445







final construction plans for sewage projects.   Local communities




and the local office holders need long term definite financial




aid commitments before they can commit the taxpayers of their




towns, their villages to substantial preliminary expenses  at-




tendant in going into a large sewage treatment project and the




United States Congress has failed to give these necessary  long-




term fiscal assurances and fiscal commitments.




          The policies of Congress have been a deterrent to pol-




lution abatement instead of a help.




          Now, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this




conference board, I would like to submit for the consideration




of this conference the following facts, opinions, conclusions and




recommendations t




          1.  That New York State fully cooperate with the U.S,,




Public Health Service and all other interested States in the




abatement of pollution in Lake Erie, the Niagara River and all  of




the Great Lakes.




          2.  That the U.S. Public Health Service give effective




assurances to New York and all other interested States that it




will monitor and equally apply and equally enforce Federal laws




applicable to pollution abatement.




          3.  That the U.So Public Health Service give assurances




of an equality of law enforcement against industrial waste pollu-




tion  so that industry will not be tempted to move its operations




from  one State to another on that basis.

-------
                                                               446







          4.   That New York State  and  the Federal Government  give




consideration to establishing  priorities for  requiring  the con-




struction of  treatment plants  to large cities and to  those com-




munities that build secondary  treatment plants.  This policy  will




give maximum  pollution abatement with  minimum costs to  the tax-




payers,




          5.   That the rights  and  the  welfare of over 100,000




fishermen and conservationists in  Erie County be taken  into full




account and all of New York waters be  substantially upgraded  so




that fish life be restored in  all  possible waters,




          6.,   That New York's  pollution abatement program  is




based not upon a Congressional commitment, but merely upon an as-




sumption that the Federal Government will contribute  30 percent




of this State's sewage treatment costs. That New York  State  ob-




tain long-range Federal commitments before it fully commits it-




self to the $1.7 billion anti-pollution program, and  I  think  the




Chairman here, Mr. Murray Stein, has in a timely and  proper way




brought to the attention of this group that there is  no 30 per-




cent commitment by the Federal Government for sewage  treatment.




          I think it's very important  that we realize that, that




it is only a  pious hope, as he put it, and I  agree with him.   I




don't think that there is a chance in  hell that we will get that,




as I know Congress and as I know its operations down  there, and




I don't want  to have repeated  the  situation that we have in the




interstate highway system where the people of the State of New

-------
                                                               447







York were flim-flammed out of about $500,000,000 on the interstate




highway program under assurances similar to the ones that are




being given today about what Congress will do in giving financial




aid in the large sewage treatment program that the Governor has




proposed.




          If we go into this, let's go into it with the full




realization that the State of New York will probably pay the full




60 percent of this $1.7 billion, but that's all right, because it




takes the burden off the homeowner who can't do it, and we don't




want the type of Federal aid in which we pay $2050 and receive




back $1 and which, in effect, subsidizes the payment of treatment




plants all over the country outside of the State of New York.




          7.  The next recommendation is that an authorizing bill




passed by Congress is not a promise to the public but is only a




limitation upon appropriations by Congress itself.




          8.  That New York State place more reliance and em-




phasis on the control and limitation of discharges from indus-




trial plants and sewage plants rather than relying upon the




classification of waters.




          9.  That the classification of waters permitting




varying degrees of pollution gives a vested interest to pollu-




ters and makes it more difficult to equally enforce our laws




against pollution.




          10.  That the management of most industrial plants




recognize their social and public obligations in  this field.

-------
                                                               448







That treatment of many industrial  wastes  are extremely compli-




cated and that the Federal,  State  and local governments give




every possible cooperation to industries  in developing and con-




structing waste processes.




          I might give you an example of  how complicated this




situation is.  The Bethlehem Steel Company in its  plant in




Indiana is separating its  wastes,  liquids, into four different




treatment plants, sanitation, cooling systems,  cyanides and




phenols into another system,  oils and pickling materials used in




another system.  It's a highly complicated matter  and can't be




done over night, and they  require  some help, they  require some




push also and I am glad to see and know that this  group here




will give them a little push as well  as a little help and a




little encouragement,




          11.  I also recommend that  the  construction of indus-




trial waste treatment plants approved by  the appropriate Federal,




local and State health agencies be permitted to charge off their




waste treatment costs as an operating expense instead of a de-




preciation as a capital investment, charged off whenever they




billed it and thus relieve themselves totally from State and




Federal taxes, allowing full deduction for them.




          12.  That the U, S, Engineers be required to discontinue




its dumping the sludge, slime and  sediment from the Buffalo River




into Lake Erie.,




          13.  That the U.S. Engineers expedite their report of

-------
                                                               449






flood control of the Buffalo River, Cazenovta Creek and Cayuga




Creek with emphasis on the construction of a multipurpose dam




for the purpose of minimizing and catching the flow of silt  that




is coming into the Buffalo River and Lake Erie,,




          14.  I recommend the United States Engineers initiate




studies to determine the feasibility of the construction of  dams




on all the tributaries of Lake Erie to prevent the flow of sewage




and silt and other discharges from uplands into Lake Erie.




          That concludes my statement, Mr0 Chairman, and I thank




you for the opportunity to be here.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN!  Thank you, Congressman.  Are there any




comments or questions?




          When Congressman Pillion was in Washington, as you




probably can judge, he was really looking after your projects up




here and you can see the detail with which he prepares his case




and material that when a bureaucrat like myself is summoned up




before him, I have to be pretty sure of my facts, too.




          He was one of those who has kept us on the line and I




can assure you he just didn't stop with the bureaucrats„  He used




to be after the Chairman of the Committee, too, because I have




often had a call from Congressman Blatnik, who indicated to me  if




you're interested in a project and suggested that I get up and  do




something in a big hurry.




          I see you're still maintaining your interest, Congress-




man, and I guess this is what keeps us honest.

-------
                                                               450







          MR.  PILLION:  We  are  all most  grateful  for  everything




you gentlemen are doing.  Thank you.   (APPLAUSE)




          MR,  HENNIGAN:   The  next  speaker  is Mr.  Lee  Adams„




          MR,  ADAMS:  My  name is Lee Adams and  I  represent a




group of citizens who are trying to abate  pollution existing  in




Silver and Walnut Creeks  and  in Lake Erie  at the  mouth  of Silver




and Walnut Creeks„




          The pollution at  Silver Creek, in the Silver  Creek  area




is a microcosm of the whole of  Lake Erie and if it were possible




to use such a word to describe  a nadir,  you would describe the




village of Silver Creek as  the  epitome of  pollution.




          It's a village  of about  3300 people on  Lake Erie about




three miles west of Cattaraugus Creek, which I  see by the map




here has been upgraded  into a river.   Two  small creeks, Silver




and Walnut Creeks, flow through the village into  Lake Erie,,




          For over 55 years,  the village has collected  in  its




sewers, the raw, untreated  sewage  from houses,  businesses,




schools, industries, garages  and barns and has  dumped this




sewage through multiple outlets into  the creeks which flow




through the village into  the  Lake,  or  directly  into the Lake,




          In 1908, the  State  of New York granted  permission  to




the village to discharge  its  sewage into these  creeks,  but it re-




quired that first of all  the  village  screen the sewage.




          That 1908 permission  to  dump screened sewage  was granted




but the village has never yet built a  screening plant,  and even

-------
                                                               451







though a little bit of time has gone by, never has the village




been punished by the State for violating its permit„




          In 1953, the waters of Silver Creek and Walnut Creek




in the Village of Silver Creek were classified by the State Water




Resources Commission as Class C , in accordance with the classifi-




cation procedure heretofore described by Mr, Hennigan.  In the 12




years that followed, the village continued and still  continues to




dump raw, untreated sewage, filth and solids that are floatable,




toilet paper that's visible, you can see it floating  down the




creeks, you can see it on the Lake, you can see it along the wa-




terfront.  If you stick your feet into it, your feet  come out




black.  Now that's the part of your feet that is not  covered




with toilet paper.




          This Citizen's Committee which I represent  was formed




in 1962.  The members, all private citizens, desired  to help the




local officials abate the pollution by mobilizing public opinion




for pollution control.  The proferred assistance was  spurned by




the village.  The Citizen's Committee, however, has continued and




still does continue to campaign for a sewage treatment plant.




          In January of 1963, the State of New York,  through its




Public Health Department, caused a hearing to be held on the




Silver Creek situation.  In the hearing, many things  were deter-




mined and found, for instance, I have here the hearing examiner's




report, "Discharges of sanitary sewage aforesaid deposited in




floating sludge and noticeable amounts of suspended solids in

-------
                                                               452







Silver Greek and a similar condition to a slightly less degree




in Walnut Creek„"




          Four months after these findings,  the Commissioner of




Health issued an order directing the Village of Silver Creek




within thirty days to retain an engineering  firm.   Within six




months of the date of this order to the New  York State Department




of Health, the final plans for interceptor sewers  will cause con-




struction of such interceptor sewers and sewage treatment works




to be commenced not later than one year after approval by the New




York State Department of Public Health of the final plans.




          The Village of Silver Creek has not met  one single




deadline set forth in this order nor has the Village of Silver




Creek evidenced any desire to meet the deadline and that's the




way the case sits now.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN;  Thank you, Mr0 Adams.   Are there any




questions or comments?  Do I understand you  to say that many of




the flush toilets in Silver Creek, and I assume they are flush




toilets, when you flush the toilets, the waste goes right into




the Creek through a pipe without any screening device, any septic




tank, any treatment whatsoever?




          MR. ADAMS:  That is correct.  Less than  10 percent of




the houses in the Village of Silver Creek have septic tanks.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  How about new houses?




          MR, ADAMS:  Most of the new houses, I believe, have




septic tanks but not all.

-------
                                                               453






          CHAIEMAN STEIN:  You mean new houses are built this  way?




          MR. ADAMS:  Well sir, I'm afraid that in some respects,




it might be considered somewhat backward as a community.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  I thought we had some severe problems




in Alaska, where these fellows were way out in the bush,  Mr»




Poole has been there with me, with their clogged septic tanks,




but even there they don't let it go in raw, I don't think,




          MR. ADAMS:  You ought to go down sometime when the




winds are blowing right and take a look at the Creek, especially




in the summer months during drought when the majority of the wa-




ter flowing down the creek beds is the sewage from these toilets ,




etc.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Well, you know, there might be an ex-




planation for it and possibly there is.  If this were private




law, they probably would have the prescription by now, since they




were doing it uninterrupted since at least 1908, but this doesn't




apply in public law, so I guess you can't do it.




          MR. ADAMS:  You should never require prescription to do




something illegal, sir, and I'm positive that Mr. Hennigan's de-




partment immediately will be doing something about this, or at




least I hope so.  Thank you.  (APPLAUSE)




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Thank you.




          MR, HENNIGAN:  Mr. Chairman, I have a  statement here




from the Buffalo area Chamber of Commerce which  I would like  to




be put into  the record.

-------
                                                                    454
          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Without  objection,  this will be  done.




          MR.  HENNIGAN:  And  a  statement  from  Mr. William K.




Sanford, representing the  Association  of  Towns.  I would like  to




have that put  into the record,




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  This will be done without  objection.




          MR.  HENNIGAN:  The  following people  were originally




scheduled to appear.   They have since  left  and I just want  to




make sure we don't overlook anybody:   Mr<> Sanford, as I have




mentioned, the Mayor  of Silver  Creek,  James J0 De John, County




Officers Association, Niagara Frontier Port Authority, Supervisor




of the Town of Hamburg and the  Councilman from the City of




Buffalo.  Mr.  Chairman, that  completes the  New York presentation.




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Thank you.  I  think at this point,




while we have  a few minutes,  I  will entertain  comments and  sug-




gestions > but  I think it is the general consensus of  the con-




ferees that the conferees  will  meet in executive session.




          This session will take place tomorrow morning and just




so you know where we  are and  not in any beer garden somewhere, we




probably will  be upstairs  in  Room 1160, 1159 or 1160.




          We will hope to  have  an announcement about  12 or  1




o'clock in this room.  At  least 12  o'clock. If we're not ready,




we will send down word when we  will have  the announcement,  but I




suspect it will be somewhere  around 12 or 1 o'clock when the con-




ferees will come out  and we will see what announcement we will be




able to make.

-------
                                                               455







          A VOICE:   Not before 12?




          CHAIRMAN STEIN:   No, not before 12s00,  We will not




come down before 12:00,,  We have had a considerable amount of ex-




perience with this.  The worst thing we can do on something like




this is rush, and we would rather be a few minutes longer,,  If we




are going to have an announcement, we also try to have it typed




and duplicated so we can distribute it at least to the key people




who have stayed with us all the way through.




          As you know, we have to use these fine, new duplicating




devices.  We couldn't do without them,,  But if you use one of




those, you reproduce one page at a time and for a rush job it's




relatively primitive.




          But we do need the time and I think in the long run,




this makes for a more expeditious and a more rapid determination




of the problem, giving this enough time,,




          The Executive Committee will probably convene about




9:00 o'clock and between 9:00 and 12:00 may be a little short,,




I expect, though, that at the conclusion of this meeting, the




conferees will begin having informal discussions through the




evening and night, so that by the time we are ready to convene at




the formal executive session tomorrow morning, we will hopefully




be ready to go.




          Are there any other comments?  If not, we will stand




recessed until about 12:00 o'clock or thereabouts tomorrow.




(WHEREUPON THE SESSION WAS ADJOURNED)

-------
                                                               456







          CHAIRMAN STEIN:   Again,  I am most happy to report that




the conferees representing Michigan,  Indiana,  Ohio,  New York and




Pennsylvania have arrived  at unanimous conclusions„   These are




the recommendations and conclusions of the conferees:




          1.  The waters of Lake Erie within the United States




are interstate waters within the meaning of section  8  of the




Federal Water Pollution Control Act»   The waters of  Lake Erie




within the United States and its tributaries covered by sessions




of this conference are navigable waters within the meaning of




section 8 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.




          2.  Lake Erie and many of its tributaries  are polluted.




The main body of the Lake  has deteriorated in  quality at a rate




many times greater than its normal aging processes,  due to inputs




of wastes resulting from the activities of man0




          3»  Identified pollutants contributing to  damages to




water uses in Lake Erie are sewage and industrial wastes, oils,




silts, sediments floating  solids and  nutrients (phosphates and




nitrates).  Enrichment of  Lake Erie,  caused by man-made contribu-




tions of nutrient materials, is proceeding at  an alarming rate.




Pollution in Lake Erie and many of its tributaries causes signifi-




cant damage to recreation, commercial fishing, sport fishing,




navigation, water supply,  and esthetic values„




          4.  Eutrophication or over-fertilization of Lake Erie




is of major concern,,  Problems are occurring along the Lake




shoreline at some water intakes and throughout the Lake from

-------
                                                               457







algal growths stimulated by nutrients.  Reduction of one or more




of such nutrients will be beneficial in controlling algal growths




and eutrophication0




          5o  Many sources of waste discharge reaching Lake Erie




have inadequate waste treatment facilities.  The delays in con-




trolling this pollution are caused by the lack of such adequate




facilities and the complex municipal, industrial, financial and




biological nature of the problem.




          6.  Interstate pollution of Lake Erie exists.  Dis-




charges into Lake Erie and its tributaries from various sources




are endangering the health or welfare of persons in States other




than those in which such discharges originate; in large measure




this pollution is caused by nutrients which over-fertilize the




Lake.  This pollution is subject to abatement under the Federal




Water Pollution Control Act.




          7<>  Municipal wastes be given secondary treatment or




treatment of such nature as to effectuate the maximum reduction




of BOD, which is Biochemical Oxygen Demand, and phosphates as




well as other deleterious substances.,




          8.  Secondary treatment plants be so designed and




operated as to maximize the removal of phosphates.




          9»  Disinfection of municipal waste effluents be prac-




ticed in a manner that will maintain coliform concentrations not




to exceed 5,000 organisms per 100 ml at public water supply in-




takes, and not to exceed 1,000 organisms per 100 ml where and

-------
                                                               458
when the receiving waters in proximity to the discharge point are




used for recreational purposes involving bodily contact.  It is




recognized that bathing water quality standards are established




by statute in New York State*




          10.  All new sewerage facilities be designed to prevent




the necessity of bypassing untreated waters„




          11,  Combined storm and sanitary sewers be prohibited




in all newly-developed urban areas,  and eliminated in existing




areas wherever feasible.  Existing combined sewer systems be




patrolled and flow-regulating structures adjusted to convey the




maximum practicable amount of combined flows  to and through




sewage treatment plants„




          12.,  Program be developed to prevent accidental spills




of waste materials to Lake Erie and its tributaries.  In-plant




surveys with the purpose of preventing accidents are recommended.




          13.  Unusual increases in waste output and accidental




spills be reported immediately to the appropriate State agency,




          14.  Disposal of garbage, trash, and other deleterious




refuse in Lake Erie or its tributaries be prohibited and existing




dumps along river banks and shores of the Lake be removed.




          15.  The conferees meet with representatives of Federal,




State and local officials responsible for agricultural, highway




and community development programs for the purpose of supporting




satisfactory programs for the control of runoff which delete-




riously affects water quality in Lake Erie.

-------
                                                               459







          16.  Industrial plants improve practices for the segre-




gation and treatment of waste tc effect the maximum reductions of




the following:




          a.  Acids and alkalies




          b.  Oil and tarry substances




          c.  Phenolic compounds and organic chemicals that con-




          tribute to taste and odor problems




          d.  Ammonia and other nitrogenous compounds




          e«  Phosphorus compounds




          f.  Suspended material




          g0  Toxic and highly-colored wastes




          h.  Oxygen-demanding substances




          i.  Excessive heat




          j.  Foam-producing discharges




          k.  Other wastes which detract from recreational uses,




          esthetic enjoyment, or other beneficial uses of the




          waters.




          17=  The Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New




York water pollution control agencies undertake action to insure




that industrial plants discharging wastes into waters of Lake




Erie and its tributaries within their respective jurisdictions




institute programs of sampling their effluents to provide neces-




sary information nbout waste outputs.,




          Such sampling shall be conducted at such locations and




with such frequency as to yield statistically reliable values of

-------
                                                               460
all waste outputs and to show their variations„




          Analyses to be so reported are  to include  where  appli-




cable:  pH, oil, tarry residues,  phenolics, ammonia, total nitro-




gen, cyanide, toxic materials,  total biochemical  oxygen demand,




and all other substances listed in the preceding  paragraph.




          18„  Waste results be reported  in terms of both  con-




centrations and load rates.  Such information will be maintained




in open files by the State agencies for all those having a legiti-




mate interest in the information.




          19.  The Department of  Health,  Education,  and Welfare




establish water pollution control surveillance  stations at ap-




propriate locations on Lake Erie.  Surveillance of the tribu-




taries will be the primary responsibility of the  States,  The




Department of Health, Education,  and Welfare will assist the




States at such times as requested.




          20„  The Department of  Health,  Education,  and Welfare




will be responsible for developing up-to-date  information  and ex-




perience concerning effective phosphate removal and  control of




combined sewer systems„  This information will  be reported to the




conferees regularly.




          21 „  Regional planning  is often the  most logical and




economical approach toward meeting pollution problems.  The water




pollution control agencies of Indiana, Michigan,  Pennsylvania,




New York and Ohio and the Department of Health, Education, and




Welfare will encourage such regional planning  activities.

-------
                                                               461






          22.  Within six months after the issuance of this sum-




mary, the State water pollution control agencies concerned will




present a schedule of remedial action to the conferees for their




consideration and evaluation.




          23o  The Federal conferee recommends the following for




the consideration of the State agenciesj




          a0  Recommended municipal treatment - completion of




          plans and specifications August 1966, completion of




          financing February 1967, construction started August




          1967, construction completed January 1, 1969, chlorina-




          tion of effluents May 15, 1966, provision of stand-by




          and emergency equipment to prevent interruptions in




          operation of municipal treatment plants August 1966,




          patrolling of combined sewer systems immediately.




          b0  Discontinuance of garbage and trash dumping into




          waters immediately.,




          Co  Industrial waste treatment facilities to be com-




          pleted and in operation by January 1, 1969.




          24c  Federal installations waste treatment facilities




to be completed and in operation by August of 1966.




          25„  Representatives of the United States Corps of




Engineers meet with the conferees, develop and put into action




a satisfactory program for disposal of dredged material in Lake




Erie and its tributaries which will satisfactorily protect water




quality0  Such a program is to be developed within six months

-------
                                                               462







after the issuance of this summary and effectuated as soon as




possible thereafter.




          26,,  The conferees will establish a technical committee




as soon as possible which will evaluate water quality problems in




lake Erie relating to nutrients and make recommendations to the




conferees within six months after the issuance of the summary of




the conference„




          27„  The Conference may be reconvened on the call of




the Chairman.




          At the conclusion of the Cleveland session of the con-




ference, the following was included among the conclusions and




recommendations of the conference:




          "Pollution of navigable waters subject to abatement un-




der the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is occurring in the




Ohio waters of Lake Erie and its tributaries.  The discharges




causing and contributing to the pollution come from various mu-




nicipal and industrial sources, from garbage, debris, and land




runoff„




          "Pollution of the Ohio waters of Lake Erie and its




tributaries within the State of Ohio endangers health and welfare."




          A question has been raised concerning the jurisdiction




of this conference over intrastate Ohio waters.,  The conferees




agreed to present this question to the Secretary of Health,




Education, and Welfare and the Governor of Ohio for clarification




and resolution.

-------
                                                               463







          That concludes the formal statement.  Are there any




comments or statements from the conferees?   If not, I do think




that this conference is indeed a milestone in developing a re-




medial program for the protection of the waters of Lake Erie,,




          I would like to thank all of the conferees at the




table, Mr. Hennigan from New York, Mr, Oeming from Michigan, Mr.




Poston for the Federal Government, Mr. Poole for the State of




Indiana and Mr, Morr and Mr. Eagle for Ohio for bearing with  a




very, very delicate program of Federal, State and local relation-




ships.




          I believe without the cooperation of the State agencies,




we would not have been able to achieve this result.




          I also would like to thank those members of the audi-




ence who were here at the beginning and particularly those of  you




who stayed with us to the bitter end, because I do think in pol-




lution control we have to stay to the bitter end.  I do think  we




have a program here which will go a long way toward meeting the




problem of pollution control in Lake Erie and alleviating adverse




conditions and protecting our water quality.




          I ask those in the audience as well as the State people




and the Federal people to reckon well what we have said and out-




lined here today, and I hope you will hold us to the commitments




we have made.




          I want to thank you all for coming, and I believe if




this program is put into effect, we can at last see a ray of  hope

-------
                                                               464
for the protection of Lake Erie and the preservation of this




vital water resource as a fresh water resource for the entire




country and the hemisphere.




          Thank you very much for coming and if there is nothing




more, we stand adjourned,,  (APPLAUSE)




(WHEREUPON THE CONFERENCE WAS ADJOURNED)

-------
                                                               465







THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS ARE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD:







STATEMENT OF COLONEL R. WILSON NEFF, DISTRICT ENGINEER, U, S0




ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, BUFFALO (Portion which was not read at




the conference)




          Mr0 Chairman and members of the conference, I welcome




the opportunity to outline for you the responsibilities of  the




Corps of Engineers and the interest of the U.S. Army Engineer




District, Buffalo, New York, in the very challenging problem  of




preventing pollution of Lake Erie and its tributaries.




          The Great Lakes drainage basin is under the jurisdic-




tion of the U0S. Army Engineer Division, North Central, with




headquarters in Chicago.  Within this area, the Buffalo District




is responsible for the construction, maintenance, and operation




of improvements authorized by Congress for navigation and flood




control for the watershed area from Sandusky Harbor, Ohio,  to




the east.




          The U.S., Army Engineer District, Detroit, is responsible




for the area north and west of the Port Clinton-Marblehead




Peninsula.  It is important to note that the Corps of Engineers




is involved in both regulatory and operational activities„




          The laws administered by the Corps of Engineers provide




for the protection of the navigable capacity of the waters  of the




United States and the prevention of pollution of such waters  as




may be necessary to protect the public rights of navigation.




          The principal laws having a relationship to water

-------
                                                               466







pollution are the River and Harbor Act of 3 March 1899 and to a




lesser extent, the River and Harbor Act approved 3 March 1905,




Section 10 of the 1899 Act provides for the regulation of con-




struction, excavation and filling in navigable waters.  Section




13 of this Act makes it unlawful to deposit "refuse matter of any




kind or description.„„" into any navigable water.   Section 4 of




the 1905 Act authorizes and empowers the Secretary of  the Army to




prescribe regulations to govern the transportation and dumping




into any navigable water, or waters adjacent thereto,  of dredging,




earth, garbage, and other refuse materials  of every kind or de-




scription, whenever in his judgment such regulations ar£ required




in the interests of navigation.




          Though the Oil Pollution Act of 1924 is  not  applicable




to the waters of the Great Lakes, it has been held that oil dis-




charged into navigable waters per se is a violation of Section 13




of the Act of 1899.  (LaMerced, Circuit Court of Appeals,




Washington, 84 Fed0 2nd 444)„  Specifically exempted from regula-




tion under Section 13 of the 1899 Act are liquid wastes, other




than oil as held above, passing into navigable waters  from




streets and sewers.




          Liquid industrial wastes, although they may  be pollu-




tants, are not violations of the River and Harbor Act  of 1899 if




they reach the water through sewers.  In addition, the complexity




of many sewer systems renders the securing of necessary evidence




to enforce existing regulations a most difficult task.

-------
                                                               467






          The Corps of Engineers, in the administration of the




laws, attempts first of all to eliminate illegal deposits by en-




couraging industries to improve their treatment of wastes or use




confined shore disposal„  If this is unsuccessful or technologi-




cally infeasible, the industry is requested to remove, or pay for




removal of its illegal deposit.




          In the event of refusal to remove the deposits, prosecu-




tion is recommended when supporting evidence is obtainable.   Since




the primary purpose of these statutes is to protect navigation




from obstruction and injury, enforcement has been concentrated on




the prevention of illegal deposits, including oil, that will im-




pede or injure navigation.




          Legal recognition of the responsibility of industry




with regard to the deposition of industrial solids by steel




companies has been reviewed in other conferences on this subject.




          In brief, this involved the successful enforcement of




the Act of 1899 regarding the deposition of flue dust in the




Calumet River, Illinois, by three major steel companies.  Fol-




lowing appellate court decisions granting a new trial in favor




of the Government, and after some nine years of litigation,  the




case was dismissed pursuant to a stipulation with the Government,




wherein the steel companies agreed to pay annually for the re-




moval of flue dust deposited in the Calumet River as a result of




their operations.  Additional investigations are not being under-




taken in view of this precedent.

-------
                                                               468







          Other efforts toward pollution abatement by the Corps




of Engineers are the periodic issuance of the regulations per-




taining to pollution in the form of a public notice which also




contains a reference to the applicable statutes  and an invitation




to the public to report all violations and a follow-up on all




complaints,,






STATEMENT OF GENE 0. HEUSER, 6659 E0  LAKE ROAD,  ERIE, PA.:




          Members of the board, since this is an interstate




meeting, I feel that it is very urgent that I make this proposal




for your recommendations.




          For the record, I am a professional diver.   I have been




interested in the degrading of Lake Erie for fifteen years, at




which time I started to notice the rapid changes in the Lake.  I




have studied the land runoff, the causes of runoff, the effect it




was having in the Lake0  I have studied the behavior of fish in




bad water, I have watched them die in several massive fish kills




in recent years.  I've studied the pollution problem at every




angle, so that I feel I have a complete understanding of this




serious problem.  Through these studies, I have  developed a plan




for the permanent future of Lake Erie and its water basin.




          I feel that if we would have put this  plan into effect




ten years ago, we would by this time have started to slow down




the aging of the Lake,  This plan could be put to use in all of




our major water basins, such as the Ohio River Valley or the




Delaware River Basin,,

-------
                                                               469







          Gentlemen, since all water does not stay within the




boundaries of the individual States, I feel that it is no longer




feasible for a State to try to solve its own problems  alone.  For




everything that we do in one State affects in one way  or another




its adjoining States in the confines of that said water basin.




          Because of our geographic location, Pennsylvania is in-




volved in several water basins.  In the interest of the U.S.  Public




Health surveys, I believe it is not necessary to give  any facts




or figures at this time.  They are available in the reports given.




My main interest at this time is to show the reasons why my pro-




posals have such needed answers.




          I believe that in the light of the facts, we, as indi-




vidual States, can no longer live as neighbors but must work  to-




gether as partners.  There are several reasons for this:




          10  By working together, we can solve the problems  at




hand sooner.




          2,  We can economically do it better.




          3.  We can stop the overlapping of the technical prob-




lems that we are not doing.




          4«  We can keep our surveillance on problem  areas




better,




          5,  We can eliminate the various State laws  which I be-




lieve work hardships on communities and people of the  area.   As




an example, each State has a set limit or size of fish that can




be caught.  Yet they all fish in the same body of water,  I might

-------
                                                               470







add that the fish do not know where the State lines are in the




Lake,  Because we are concerned with Lake Erie at this time,  my




remarks will be directed at this body of water,   I believe my




plan will be a useful one, which can be used in other water




basins of the United States,,




          Financially, no State will be able to come up with  the




large sums of money that are  needed in a crash program of our mag-




nitude.  It will not take just a few million dollars to solve our




problem.  It will take time and a continuous outlay of human  ef-




fort and money to lick this problem.  Also,  our problem will  con-




tinue to escalate every year  as industry and population continue




to grow.




          I believe that the  outlook at the  turn of the century




is that from Buffalo, New York to Chicago, Illinois, there will be




a solid industrial belt.  The tremendous amount of water required




for this area will be so vast that Lake Erie could virtually  be




pumped dry or made so unusable that it would be completely use-




less for shipping or fresh water needs.  In  light of these future




prospects, we must immediately begin to build up new water reser-




voirs in anticipation of future needs.




          We need only to look as far as New York City and its




water problems to see the dangerous effects  of lack of proper




planning for our future needs.  With New York City, it is possible




to solve its future needs from the ocean.  But what of us in  the




inland?  Where there is a limit to how much  water we can have.

-------
                                                               471







          It is true that water is never used up.  But it is also




true that we cannot use water if it is not where we need it at




the time it is needed.  It is also true that if water is not kept




in good condition, we can have all we need and not be able to use




it, so this is where I feel that our problem can only be solved




by the proposal that I have before you today,




          I realize the States do not want the Federal Government




to take control of our problems, but unless we can work out a




practical and workable system of cooperation and useful planning




immediately, there will be no other choice but to have the Federal




Government run the fresh water system.




          We cannot undertake this massive job without some fi-




nancial help from ths Federal Government.   It will also take




large financial outlays from the States involved and the indus-




tries and local communities.




          We could have and should have had a program in effect




twenty years ago, but through lack of experience in future prob-




lems and I believe the unwillingness of all concerned to see




ahead, we have virtually backed ourselves  up against a wall.




          We cannot look back, but must start where we are now,




to plan our way out of this very serious problem.,  It is with




these known facts that I present at this time my plan for the




future of Lake Erie and the Lake Erie Water Basin,




          This is a report which will cover the causes and the




solutions of our water pollution problems.  It is a report of an

-------
                                                               472







unending study of the Lake and its  creeks  and rivers over the




last fifteen years.   It is a report of facts  and knowledge which




were seen and reported as I, Gene A0  Heuser,  saw the facts as




they are:




          Pollution  is an accumulative thing,,  It does  not start




in a day or a year-   Our pollution  in Lake Erie started when the




first white man came into the area  and took over the area around




the Lake.  The first pollution we know of  was caused by erosion




and in fact, is our  biggest problem today.




          When we cut down trees» plow up  soil, start construc-




tion or open up land to the elements  for any  reason, we have




erosion.  This erosion is caused  by wind,  rain, or anything




which would have a tendency to loosen soil and let it be moved.




This movement of soil always tends  to move toward a lower point




and water„  Once it  gets into the streams, and rivers,  it is car-




ried very fast until it hits a large  body  of  water.




          In our case, Lake Erie  is the large body of water.




Once this movement of soil is slowed  down  in  our Lake,  it moves




by wav3 action along the shores until the  wave action slows down.




It then settles to the bottom of  the  Lake. We have sediment on




the bottom of our Lake from a thin  film in some areas to many




feet in other areas.




          What effect does this sediment have on the Lake?  First,




it has the effect of lowering the water level and filling in the




channels„

-------
                                                               473







          Second, this sediment has already covered just about




all the feeding areas in the Lake,,  This will have the effect of




completely destroying all the known species of fish left in the




Lake,  In ten years time, I have seen schools of fish dwindle to




the point where I would see fewer than four or five fish in a




two-hour dive in a known feeding area.




          This sediment has already completed its damage, and any-




thing man can do in the future,. cannot remove this sediment from




the bottom of the Lake,




          What then can we do?  We must stop more sediment from




entering the Lake.  There are people who say we cannot stop this




soil movement.  The only reason we cannot stop it is that these




ignorant individuals do not want to stop it.  With the knowledge




that we have today on soil conservation, there is no excuse for




any more contamination of valuable soil from our land going into




the Lake as silt0  To stop this, we must have a group with power




to stand up and put a stop to this waste.




          The way to stop this erosion is to:




          1.  Seed our open land with grass and trees to hold




back a sudden rainfall.




          2.  Require all construction to seed their exposed




evacuations.  Contractors tend to go away from exposed land and




leave it to the elements,




          3o  City and county governments must modernize their




drainage systems so that they can grass all of their ditches and




waterways.

-------
                                                               474







          40  To cover all other ways and means of runoff, we




must, in short, slow down and, in some instances,  stop sudden and




damaging heavy rains from running directly into the Lake.




          This program, in turn, will produce an abundance of




fresh water for human and industrial use, which can be used and




recleaned and then emptied into the Lake frea of debris of any




kind.




          Now what effect will this have on the future of  our




economy and welfare of the lake?  First, it will supply us with




an unending supply of fresh water for our future need.  Second,




it will dump clean water into our lake basin which, in turn, will




help eliminate the terrible damage already done to the Lake by




dumping dirt and silt filled water as has been done in the past.




          Beaches:  We can eliminate the spending  of millions of




dollars on beach erosion by working with the elements instead of




against them.




          Lake Erie runs in a direction of southwest to northeast.




We have a predominant west wind which means that most of our




storms and winds blow against the south side of the Lake,  pushing




always toward Buffalo, New York.  This, in effect, pushes  our




beaches and pollution down the Lake,,  This also causes the




greatest concentration of pollution close to the shore and runs




along our beaches all the way to the lower reaches of the  Lake.




          Using Lake Erie Peninsula as an example, we continu-




ously spend millions of dollars to keep the beaches from eroding.

-------
                                                               475







Yet, if we would use our knowledge that we already have, we could




put a permanent system out in the Lake that would change the cur-




rent.  And, in doing so, we would have the tendency to build up




sand on the beaches rather than erode them.  This can and must be




done soon so that we can save the beaches and money required to




continuously repair these beaches.




          Dredging:  Over the last few years, we have been




dredging our harbors and channels in the Erie Harbor area as have




our other cities on the Lake Erie Basin,,




          What effect has this dredging had on the polluting of




the Lake?  The first effect is that this type of dredging that has




been done in the past has helped to escalate the pollution problem




tremendously.  How?  By dredging and stirring up the sediment on




the bottom of bays and channels.




          After a dredge has picked up a load of sediment, it car-




ries the sludge and debris out into the lake in deep water and




dumps it.  So what we are doing, in effect, is taking a concen-




trated area of pollution and spreading it all over the Lake.




          As an example, during the spring of 1964, the Army




Engineers dredged the channel to twenty-nine feet into the Erie




Harbor.  I had been diving in the area for about two weeks before




the Engineers started dredging.  I had spot checked the bottom of




the Lake from Shorewood to Erie, out to about three miles from




shore which is sixty feet deep that far out,,  The bottom was




quite bare of sediment where I checked.  After the Army cleaned

-------
                                                               476







the channel and had dumped the silt out in the grounds,  I checked




the bottom again and found the debris from the dumping had spread




in a ten mile square area.  Where there had been no debris at all




before, was now covered with a film, of about a two inch layer




all over a ten mile area.   This was nothing but sludge from years




of accumulation in and around the Erie Harbor„  It was black in




color and had the odor of  untreated sewage.




          We should never  have allowed this debris to be dumped




into the Lake.  It should  have been dumped as a land fill.




Another thing this distribution of sewage has done is completely




cover up all of the available feeding areas left from previous




dredgings.  We will see this year and in the next two or three




years will just about eliminate all fish in the area that usually




feed in these grounds.




          Algae:  In past  years, we have been faced with an algae




problem.  It grew so fast  that it was building up along the




shores„  With the hot sun  and the air hitting it, it began to




decay and cause a stink all along the Lake front.  It also was a




health problem.




          I now believe that because the pollution is getting so




bad, that it has a tendency to kill off the algae.  Last summer I




found that the algae was turning black and that several different




kinds of fungus have started to grow in and around the algae beds ,




and in fact, it is growing all over the Lake,  This only proves




that the fish population is suffering more from contaminated water




every year.

-------
                                                               477







          Bottom Movement;  Lake Erie, unlike the oceans and




other bodies of water, does not have a strong current, so that




when sediment and debris or whatever there is settles on the bot-




tom, it does not tend to be moved from place to place.  The only




change that occurs is a sudden change of weather whereby minute




organisms or particles, such as we would know it on land, would




be termed dust.  This dust tends to raise up on a weather change.




It completely eliminates visibility.




          Out of a clear and calm sunny day, it is possible to




tell that a storm or weather change is approaching because of




this.  These particles go straight up to the surface.  This hap-




pens at any depth of the Lake.




          This fact brings us to the conclusion that the Lake,




being dirty, could be termed temporary, should we stop all further




contamination and pollution from entering the Lake.




          Another form of movement on the bottom of  the Lake is




the earth itself moving.  Over a three year period,  I have ob-




served a large rock formation, pushed up out of the  earth.  The




layers of sandstone and shale broke loose from a horizontal posi-




tion and was forced into an upright or vertical position.




          It took two years for this effect to complete.  On the




third year, the weight of the rock sticking up and the tempera-




ture change in the water, with further movement of the earth,




broke up this mass of rock into a pile of rubble.  I believe in




two or three years time this rock will be further pulverized into

-------
                                                               478







sand as we know it on our beaches.




          In conclusion to bottom movement, I believe that in wa-




ter over twenty-five feet deep,  we  will have very little movement




from present sources already in  the Lake-   We must prevent any




further contamination because this  contamination, as it builds up,




will destroy completely all forms of life  as we know it today in




the Lake,




          Local government:  I do not believe that local govern-




ments, if given the power to make up their own laws and regula-




tions concerning pollution will  work,,




          I do believe that it is up to the local governments to




carry out and administer rulings handed down by a higher source.




Providing we have the right type of systematized plan which would




cover present and future needs.




          I will explain my logic for this,,  If a local govern-




ment was able to pass a law whereby they could tell an individual




or concern to stop polluting, this  in itself would not end a prob-




lem.  If an individual was told  to  stop his drainage from going




downhill and into a stream, he would in fact have to quit living.




          In all probability, the soil is  so saturated with.




sewage or other impurities that  it  is coming out of the ground„




Nature would tend to wash it away.




          Now^ what would be the answer to this problem?  First,




on investigation of facts, we would find that to stop this whole-




sale pollution,, we must construct a sewage plant to take care of

-------
                                                               479







all community waste products„




          Since a small community couldn't possibly construct




such an expensive project, a water commission could then say we




will build the required construction on a long-term loan.  We




will build it big enough for your needs for the next twenty




years.  This will then enable you to eliminate all pollution




without excuses in this area»




          After this project is accomplished, it is then up to




the local government to take over and see to it that all pollu-




tion is eliminated and also to see that one occurs in the future,




          A community might require a dam to be built for water




conservation or flood control.  The same principle could be ap-




plied to this problem also, so, I feel that local government on




these problems should only carry out the well constructed plans




of a much bigger and broader organization.




          This organization which I call a water commission should




cover a whole water basin in which all the runoff of the locality




drains into this area.  This area could cover several States,




such as the Lake Erie drainage basin.  I also do not believe that




a water commission should cover more than one drainage area, be-




cause of the fact that as you expand to other area§, you run into




different problems such as administration, time element to get




things done and other problems not related to the use of the




commission.




          Money Problems:  Because of the many problems of our

-------
                                                               480







waters, we have in the past doled out money to individual in-




terests to make studies of their own particular problem.




          I believe, through this system, we have wasted count-




less dollars for the simple reason that these separate interests




used the money only to help themselves.  A lot of knowledge was




by-passed or thrown away because it was not in the interest of




the one using the information.




          Another point is that one interest cannot under any




condition solve their individual problems without the rest of the




interests solving their problems.




          An example is the commercial fishermen were granted




$50,000 for a study to find out why the fish were disappearing




and that their catches were down to almost nothing.




          Now through knowledge already known, we found that pol-




lution was causing the young fry not to develop, that disease




was killing millions of fish and the fact that unethical fishing




practices over the years was slowly at first and then suddenly




depleting all commercial fishing in the lakes.




          Now, why was there $50,000 granted for a study on this




problem when the cause was known?  This money could have been




used to help eliminate the problem.




          Now under a water commission, this money and all other




appropriations would have gone into a general fund of the water




commission, which, in turn, would have taken the problem into




consideration with the intent to eliminate the cause of the

-------
                                                               481







problem, which in this case would require the elimination of pol-




lution by:




          1.  Requiring cities to improve their sewage systems




and lending them money when necessary to see that they get the




job done immediately, and also, to see that the job is supervised




right.




          2.  As the water condition improves, we would then be-




gin to activate our fish hatcheries, to replenish the Lake of




our many species of game fish,




          3.  Our next step would be to change the fishing laws




and make new laws so that the conditions as to size and catch




would be universal over the whole basin area.  This would elimi-




nate discrepancies between the States and provinces as to how big




the catch can be, the size of nets to be used, etc.




          This is a typical example of the way the commission




would handle the various problems facing the water basin, and I




believe the only way that this great problem could be handled.




          As stated before, all problems are integrated and can-




not be handled as one problem but as a continuing work in phases




to one great problem.




          I refer to this commission as the Lake Erie Water Com-




mission, but I believe and would like to see these commissions




started on the rest of the Great Lakes and in fact, in the general




water basins all over the United States such as the Delaware River




basin or the Ohio River Valley.

-------
                                                               482







          This is the only answer to the complex water and pollu-




tion problems all over our great country,,   With our increasing




pollution and water needs as they occur, we must start immediately




to develop these commissions.




          Shipping:  With the advent of the St. Lawrence Seaway on




the Great Lakes, we are running into problems  of an increasing di-




mension as we have more ships coming into the  Great Lakes every




year,,




          Now, as in the ocean, a ship is  allowed to dump waste




and etc. overboard when the ship is  so far out from shore.  In




the Great Lakes area and other inland waters there are dumping




areas allowed.




          To begin with, there should not  be or should never have




been dumping grounds set up.  This does very great damage to




keeping our fresh water areas pure.   This  practice must be




stopped.




          Now, to just pass a law to stop  dumping in our inland




waterways will not solve the problem.  We  must develop dumping




stations at all inland ports,  possibly connecting to city sewage




lines or similar by-products facilities.  This problem will in-




crease as trade increases in our inland ports.  I don't believe




this problem is too hard to solve, but we  must solve it soon.




          One example of these so-called dumping grounds was in




an area where there was known feeding grounds  for one of our




finest species of fish.  This feeding area was completely covered

-------
                                                               483







several years ago, and this once very abundant fish has com-




pletely disappeared from the Lake,




          This could be used as an example of the fish commission




not knowing what the Army Engineers were doing or two different




organizations not working together to prevent such a catastrophe.




          If all these different departments would have been under




one roof, a compatible problem could have been solved by the




ruling of what is right, not by who has the most power.




          Beaches:  Beaches on the south side of Lake Erie have




tended to disappear over the years.  There are several reasons




for this:




          1.  The Lake bottom near shore is shale and shallow.




Over a period of time, the wind and waves working against the




shore tended to move what sand there was down the shore line and




away from the beaches , the reason being that there was nothing to




hold it to the shore.




          Through several years of experimenting and observing




man made obstacles to this beach erosion, it has been proven that




we can hold and improve the beaches we have and in fact, create




new ones where there isn't a sign of a beach now.  This can and




should be done because of the vast recreation facilities needed




now and in the future.




          2.  Dredgers in the past have sucked millions of tons




of sand from the beaches for commercial use.  We can see the re-




sults over the years of this from one end of the Lake to the

-------
                                                               484







other.   We can only go from here  and  have  better  control  over  our




sand resources.




          Safety on the water:  Today we have  the biggest in-




crease in boating interest ever known in history.  This  in it-




self is creating many safety problems.




          There are too many people who buy a  boat and go out  in-




to the Lake with no knowledge whatsoever as to operating  a boat,




lack of judgment as to safety equipment, gas enough for  the




cruising they are going to do,




          Other things novices have little knowledge of  are:




weather conditions (being able to forsee a storm  approaching),




rules of the road, being able to  distinguish others in distress




and an unwillingness to help people in need.  These problems  are




serious and are increasing as boating enthusiasts increase.




          Other problems involved in  boating include lack of




enough boating facilities for the influx of boaters.




          We need to develop a new series  of man-made inlets




along the Lake so that boaters caught out  in a sudden storm,  or




any other reason, can duck in behind  these walls  to protect them




from the possible dangers that exist  where there  is no protection.




This will save many lives in the  future that will be lost if




something of this sort is not done in the  future.




          In the summer of 1964,  I helped  about fifteen different




boats who were in trouble.  These people would have been in real




danger if there would have been no one around.

-------
                                                               485







          This leads me to believe that we need more safety pa-




trol people to help out the undermanned Coast Guard Stations on




the inland waters.  As our population increases, safety will in-




crease our concern for the problem.




          Relation of Water and Sewage to a Community:   Every com-




munity in the United States is having trouble from expanding use




of water and sewage facilities.




          As communities and cities grow, industry expands and




many other water users demand more and more water.   Our fresh wa-




ter sheds are taxed to the fullest extent.  Our fresh water needs




will continue to expand for many years to come.




          These same water users who are in need of these ex-




panding facilities in the past have not been able to see far




enough in the future for their future needs.  Consequently, they




did not plan for this great coming need.   Land that could have




been used for these new water sheds have been built up  as resi-




dential areas, etc.




          These people have failed to realize that  we do not have




an endless supply of water.  Some do not realize it yet.  Many




are unwilling to face the facts that are in front of them.  Any




way we look at it, we have failed to look after the future genera-




tions.  The time is late now but not hopeless.




          We must start now to conserve water, learn how to reuse




water and how to protect our water basins from being further




damaged by man's wasteful use of his greatest asset. We have the

-------
                                                               486







knowledge and the resources to do this.   We need only the right




organization to carry this great needed  program out.




          We must build larger and better watersheds  and with




what we already have, we can and must have the greatest fresh




water supply ever known to man.




          With this great increase in water need, we  have failed




completely to keep up with our great expanding sewage needs.   This




has hampered our pollution control problem.  Our cities and towns




have tended to forget sewage problems, when in reality, I believe




sewage should have been first on the line.




          We now have fallen so far behind our needs  and with the




increase in more sewage facilities needed for our expanding




economy, it is going to take many years  to catch up to our normal




needs.  Even if we get a crash program started immediately, this




is what we must do if we are going to make any attempt to elimi-




nate this great need for our society.




          In summary, these are only a few of the many problems




and examples of the needed cures that we must face up to.  We can-




not keep talking about the problem and letting it go  on any




longer.  The time has come for a well co-ordinated plan of action




to eliminate the wasteful use of our water, to clean  up our pol-




lution and improve our massive sewage problem.




          This is a tremendously big job, but we can  and must do




it now.  We have wasted many millions of dollars on our wars and




other expenses.  Now, we must invest in  the future of our country




and fellowmen.

-------
                                                               487







STATEMENT OF THE BUFFALO AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE:




          We recognize that a water pollution problem exists in




the Great Lakes basin.  We wish to point out for the record, how-




ever, that Buffalo area industry has complied with the existing




laws of the State of New York under the "best-use"  concept.




          Users of such waters have been directed by properly




constituted State authorities as to the steps to be taken to ac-




complish and maintain the assigned classification.   Business and




industrial members of the community have complied with the man-




dates of the authorities at considerable expenditure of time, ef-




fort and capital.  The operating costs of abatement facilities




are substantial and continuing.




          A survey of companies located in the harbor-lake area




on the Buffalo River and the Niagara River shows that a minimum




of $10 million in capital expenditures have been made by these in-




dustries on such installations as settling basins,  thickeners,




intercepting sumps, skimmers and dephenolizing units.




          In addition, incincerators, filter beds,  neutralizers,




scrubber-extractors and sludge control devices have been main-




tained as a part of the effort to keep area waters  up to the




"best-use" classification.




          Most of the companies in these three areas maintain




effluent control departments which cooperate with local, State




and Federal agencies operating in health and pollution control




fields.

-------
          Also, the $10 million capital expenditure mentioned




above, does not include the Buffalo River Pollution Abatement-




Cooling Water Project which is under construction.  Further,  it




does not include the major annual expenditures of payroll and




operating expenses.




          The cooperation of business and industry of this com-




munity is an established fact, clearly indicating acceptance  of




pollution abatement responsibility.  We assure your committee




that such cooperation will continue.




          However, because the pollution of Great Lakes waters




is not the concern of one State alone but of all States adjacent




and of our Canadian neighbors, we recommend that the Federal




Government act under the authority of the Federal Water Pollution




Control Act to provide necessary in-State, out-of-State and out-




of-country water pollution controls.







STATEMENT OF WILLIAM K. SANFORD, REPRESENTING THE ASSOCIATION OF




TOWNS:




          The task of cleaning up our lakes and waterways is  one




which must be attacked on a broad front.  It must be a total  pro-




gram.  It must include each source of pollution in every community




To do it on a piecemeal, hit and miss basis will do no good0   No




municipality or polluter should be exempt or immune from com-




pliance with the general mandate.




          Some municipalities are today making a good, honest

-------
                                                               489







effort.  Others do nothing, the result being that when their




neighbor upstream installs treatment facilities they will take




action.  Therefore, nothing is done because the neighbor can't




afford even to build the collecting lines and trunk mains, let




alone contract a plant and operate it.




          Much of what is being done by some municipalities is




being wasted.




          Large sums are spent annually to treat sewage, only to




dump the effluent into waterways which in themselves are nothing




but open sewers, so great is their pollution caused by upstream




municipalities which are doing nothing.  My own town, with seven




plants, is spending a quarter of a million dollars a year to




treat sewage which is fed into the Mohawk and Hudson Rivers.




          This must be the same discouraging situation that other




fast-growing municipalities face.  These are the ones who must




provide sewage treatment in order to secure approval of new de-




velopment.  Without such approval development would not be al-




lowed.  But develop we must if we are to keep pace with our ex-




panding economy.




          Sewer facilities in town districts depend for their




basic financing on the ability of the properties within the area




of the district to pay bond financing and operating and mainte-




nance costs.




          If you don't have assessed value and prosperous, bene-




fited properties in an area to support a sewer system and plant,

-------
                                                               490







you cannot establish the district and construct these facilities.




So, in the past, provision of sewer facilities has lagged until




an area developed sufficiently to be able to afford them.




          Even then, the need for other municipal services —




schools, police, water, storm drainage—crowd sewage off the




planning board.  Years go by and sewer system costs soar to a




point almost beyond the realm of feasibility.




          I have in mind a relatively small residential develop-




ment of some 70 homes which was approved for septic tanks and




built some ten years ago.  The septic tanks became less functional




year by year.  The point came when the residents demanded sewers




"at any cost."




          The costs developed to be so high that the engineers




sharpened their pencils too sharply and thus their estimated maxi-




mum cost proved, after the opening of bids, to be too low.




          In the meantime, the assessment roll developed a tax




bill of almost $100 per house, per year.  Proceedings are under




way now to increase the maximum authorized cost.  New bids




will be sought.  But can these people who must have sewers afford




them?




          The cost of this system is high because the receiving




stream is so classified as to require a very high degree of treat-




ment,,  This stream is a tributary of the Mohawk River.  Therefore,




this little development becomes part of the State Pure Waters




Program and should be entitled to aid thereunder, as well as to

-------
                                                               491






normal Federal sewer plant aid.




          If we are to solve these problems and at the same time




solve the lakes and waterways pollution problem, as we must, sub-




stantial aid absolutely must be supplied by the State and Federal




Governments.  The local governments can't do the whole job alone




and it is wise that they are not being asked to do so.




          Many areas would not have sewer plants today were it




not for their construction during the depression of the early




thirties with WPA funds.  Others, too, would be without their




facilities were it not for Federal sewer aids received and grants




paid under the Federal Accelerated Public Works Program.




          I am persuaded that even lacking the "Pure Waters" pro-




gram presently sought by the State, it would be necessary to ex-




pand Federal sewer aid and put some real teeth into a State sewer




aid program.  This would be necessary merely to provide our people




the sewer facilities they need just to live decently and  safely.




I stress this because it must not be assumed that the "Pure




Waters" bond issue will be the answer to and provide the  solution




for all our sewer difficulties.




          In connection with the cost of construction of  sewer




facilities, I am sure nothing is to be gained by postponing con-




struction.  Labor and material costs increase from year to year




along with your grocery bill.




          I have compared bid sheets on two sewer jobs, both




opened by a town in the Albany area, one in October 1961,  and the

-------
                                                               492







other in April 1965.   The low bid for 8-inch sewer pipe furnished




and installed at 6-foot to 8-foot cuts in 1961  was $4.00 per foot.




The 1965 low bid for  the same item was $5.00--a 20 percent  increase.




          Towns in New York State today are in  better shape to




plan for and construct and finance sewers than  they were a  decade




ago.




          For instance, a town sewer district up to 1959 could




only be established by a clumsy,  cumbersome method which required




the circulation of a  petition in  the area of the proposed dis-




trict.  It had to be  executed in  the manner of  a deed of real




property to be recorded.  The execution of these petitions  takes




a very long time.  Often by the time they are executed, construc-




tion costs have gone  up to a point where the project cannot be




built for the amount  of money set forth in the  petition, resulting




in the long, painful  recirculation of a revised, up-dated petition.




          However, since 1959, a  town board may establish a dis-




trict on its own motion, without  a petition, by a resolution




which is subject to a permissive  referendum.




          This is a speedier and  more convenient procedure, es-




pecially in large proposed districts.  Without  this change  of




procedure, I do not know how an area could be forced to comply




with a pollution abatement State  mandate.  One  certainly could




not mandate property  owners to sign a petition.




          Even now, compliance with such a mandate could be dif-




ficult if a referendum is petitioned for on the question of the

-------
                                                               493






town board's resolution to establish a sewer district and the pro-




posal is voted down by the people.  Fortunately, the situation is




so bad that our people, as I have said before, generally want




sewers at any price.




          In 1962, an amendment to the Town Law authorized a town




board to purchase lands for a future sewer district plant site by




the use of general town funds.  Such action, again, is subject to




a permissive referendum.  This amendment would permit a town to




set aside a logical site for a sewer plant before it got built




upon privately.




          Only this year, the law was further amended to authorize




the use of general town funds to pay for the construction of




larger treatment facilities than a new district or extension




presently needs.  Such excess facilities would be held and con-




veyed subsequently for the use of a future district or extension.




          Also, the Constitution of the State was amended, effec-




tive January 1, 1956, to provide broad latitude to towns, along




with other units of government, to provide for the construction




of common sewer facilities and to contract joint indebtedness




therefore.




          This amendment also provided that indebtedness incurred




for certain revenue-producing improvements could be excluded from




the municipality's debt limitation.




          Effective in 1964, the Constitution was further amended




to provide that indebtedness contracted between January 1, 1962

-------
                                                               494







and January 1, 1973 for sewer facilities  could be excluded from




the debt limitation of counties,  cities,  towns and villages by




legislative action.  This  the legislature has  implemented.




          I have every reason to  believe  that  the several  town




boards of the State will be found responsive to programs  to elimi-




nate pollution so long as  financial  aid is made available.




          Towns have good, legal tools  to  put these programs into




action.  But the full burden should  not fall on the real  property




taxpayer.  He alone will not enjoy the benefit.  The benefit will




be shared by all the residents of the  State in the many obvious




ways you all here know about so well.




          Our lakes and waterways can  become not only fine recrea-




tion facilities, but what  is even more important, sources  of mu-




nicipal water supply.




          I have heard municipal  officials say that if the Pure




Waters Bond Issue is defeated, they  would by-pass their sewer




plants and stop treating sewage and  stop  spending the high sums




they are spending today for sewer treatment until another solu-




tion is found.  As I said  before, it is patently unfair to re-




quire costly treated sewage effluent to be dumped into rivers




which are themselves nothing but  open  sewers„




          But I am confident that this will not happen,,  These




plants will continue to function. New ones will be built.  All




the municipalities of our  great State  will comply with mandated




standards.  The people will support  the "Pure  Waters" bond issue




in November.

-------
                                                               495






STATEMENT OF MAYOR DE JOHN, MAYOR OF SILVER CREEK, NEW YORK:




          Mr. Chairman, conferees and participating citizens to




this parley, as a past President and representative of the New




York State Conference of Mayors and member of the National League




of Cities Water Resources Committee, I thank you for the invita-




tion and opportunity to be here today to join with forces aimed




toward substantial inroads in solving this lake pollution problem.




          And, as Mayor of a small municipality, upon which in




1963 an administrative order was served by the State Health De-




partment to immediately cease discharging wastes into Lake Erie,




and which village is financially unable to build and maintain a




proper sewer system, I assure you I am very close to this prob-




lem. . . „ in fact....you could say I'm in the very middle of it.




Silver Creek is only one of many communities and even large




cities in this State who are faced with similar waste problems.




Our property owners, who, as we all know, form the basis  of our




tax structure, cannot be burdened further to assume the additional




financial responsibility of sewer costs.




          You and I and every other wide-awake, alert citizen are




aware of the need of protection to health and property from the




evils of pollution.  Now we must work collectively for ways and




means to a solution.  The ways, I believe, have already been es-




tablished through the united efforts of the Public Health Service




and in cooperation with representatives of government, industry,




scientists and many public-minded citizens like yourselves.

-------
                                                               496







          By "means" of course, I refer to our favorite subject




"money."  To obtain "means" for the installation and maintenance




of waste, treatment facilities engineered to eliminate water pol-




lution is another problem bigger than you and I, but which we




will solve.




          Governor Rockefeller's "Pure Water Program" is an im-




portant inroad to the solution.  When his $1.7 billion anti-pol-




lution bond issue comes before the New York State voters in




November, I strongly urge and ask that you vote favorably for




this allocation.  It is a firm beginning.




          Now, friends, we know that New York State is not the




only guilty party to this nuisance of inter-state effect in Lake




Erie.  So it becomes also a Federal, and in fact, an international




problem.  The Federal Government recognizes this - and through the




tireless efforts of you conferees and similar groups, this major




cleanup project must be continually pushed before the Department




of Health, Education, and Welfare and given top priority.  We




must not for a moment (now that the ball is rolling) cease our




efforts till a combined local-State-Federal program is worked out




to end this international problem which commands Federal assistance.




I shall continue to push the issue at every opportunity, and feel




sure each and every one of you will, too.




          Thank you again for the opportunity of taking part in




this-;conference,.., .-and ,_full speed ahead until all systems are "go,,"







                                   A U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1966 O - 216-715

-------