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
------- |