VOLUME 2
                        Buffalo—August 10-11, 1965
In the matter of Pollution of
Lake Erie and its Tributaries

          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  May we reconvene.  Last evening when

we recessed, the Federal Government had completed its main


          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.

          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-


          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

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


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,

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-


          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.


          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

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

 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.


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?

          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


          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


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.


          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,


          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


          Now, we certainly acknowledge that we have some local

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


          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

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


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-


          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

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


          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?


          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


          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

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

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

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


          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-


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

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


          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



          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


originating and the percentage of primary treatment being pro-


          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


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?


          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


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


          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

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.

          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.

          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


          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.

          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.

          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

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


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


          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.

          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.

          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

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-


          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


          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


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


          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


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

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-


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


          MR. OEMING:  And what is there peculiar about the

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


          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

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


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

 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.

          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,

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

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

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


          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,

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-


          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


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

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)


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

we will take a ten minute recess.  Thank you.


          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


 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.


          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,

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


          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


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.


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

Office for Local Government study in 1962, and resulting program


          (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


          (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


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

session providing for massive construction grants, operation and


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


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


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.


          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


          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.


          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


 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.


          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.


          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.

          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

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


          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

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


          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


          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

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

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

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


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

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

State Commissioner of Health actually must approve each applica-


          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-


          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

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

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

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


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


          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


          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.

          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


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


          MR.  HENNIGAN:   That's right, and then the Michigan


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


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


          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


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

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


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


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.


          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

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

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

foyer by the color code.

          CHAIRMAN STEIN:   But you didn't put that in your re-


          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-


          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


          MR. OEMING:  I would like to ask Mr. Hennigan, did I

understand that your classification of Lake Erie would apply to

any tributary?


          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


are Included in a regional planning operation.   We are all for


          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



          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

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


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


has been a thorough and fair approach and has resulted in a

strong foundation upon which we can build any enforcement action


          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

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.

          "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

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

$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


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


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

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


          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


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


          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.


          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.


          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.

          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


          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

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


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


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.


          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


          This doesn't sound too big perhaps, but I point out

to you that if we could have continued at the same rate,  this


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


          This is not the total cost  of the project.  This is


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.

          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,


          The greatest problem that we have to lick in this


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-


          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.


          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

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


          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.

          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.

          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


          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.


          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


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


          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

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


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


          In closing, may I respectfully suggest that a com-

mittee be promptly organized to delve into these important


          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

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


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


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


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


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


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.


          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

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


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


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


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



          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.


          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.


          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.

I would like to know what he used as  a yardstick--60  percent  of


          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


          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


          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

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


          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


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


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


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


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."


          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

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


          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


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


          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


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


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


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


          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.


          CHAIRMAN STEIN: May we reconvene.


          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


          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


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.

          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


of existing facilities to more adequately handle the increased


          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-


          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


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

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


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


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


          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


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


          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-



          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,


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


hope by itself to undertake effective enforcement programs with-

out the active participation and cooperation of the other


          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


          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

similar eutrophication problem over in Lake Ontario  if Buffalo

were permitted to carry on here with a high phosphate concentra-


          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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


          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.


          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


          It should be pointed out that  certain  industries,

some of them cited  as polluters,  have made efforts to improve


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


          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


          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,

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.


          CHAIRMAN STEIN:   Thank you very much for an excellent,

specific and detailed statement.  Are there any questions?   Mr.


          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


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


          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


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


          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,


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


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.


          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


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.


          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


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


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-


          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


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


          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


          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


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.


          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-


          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


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


          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.


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


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.


          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


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


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.


          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 ,


          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.

          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.


          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.



          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


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

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.


          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


          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

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.


          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


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


          "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.


          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-


          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

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)





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


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.


          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.


          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



          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,,


          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


          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


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.


          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


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



          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



          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


          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.


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


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.


          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


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


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


          Money Problems:  Because of the many problems of our


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


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


          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.


          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


          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


          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


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


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.


          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


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.



          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


          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.



          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


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,


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


          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


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


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


          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


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


          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


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.



          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 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.


          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